Ford c3 Grant Pioneer Material Renewal Project

THANKYOUThe Pioneer Material Renewal Team
was awarded $25,000 to contribute
toward the proposal promoting
sustainable communities through the:
2014 Ford College Community
Challenge: Building Sustainable
Communities.

Meaghan
Markiewicz
Charles
Harris
Mike
Paciero
ralph
nelson
andrew
bradford
Brandon
Olsen
PIONEER
material
renewal
team
Principal Investigator
Associate Professor
Faculty Advisor
Lawrence Technological University
Project Lead
Masters of Architectural
Engineering Student
Masters of Architecture Student
The University of Michigan
Masters of Fine Arts in
Graphic Design Student
Rhode Island School of Design

BUILDING SUSTAINABLE COMMUNITIES
addressing an unmet need
STUDENT LEADERSHIP
multi-disciplinary approachPioneer Material Renewal is a project to deconstruct
an old building in Detroit and design a new building
comprised of the material harvested from
deconstruction. Recognizing Detroit’s abundant
stock of abandoned and dilapidated buildings as a
great natural resource, the project seeks to define a
process of material acquisition with viable
construction potential. Waste material from
building demolition and construction comprises one
third of all solid waste in the U.S. and this project
strives to minimize landfill and redefine natural
resources through a process of renewal.
Building on the spirit and principles of early
pioneers who settled Detroit and the current urban
pioneers rebuilding the city, the project will work
with a minimum of resources to a maximum effect
and engage community members, students and
faculty from Lawrence Technological University, and
partners from Architectural Salvage Warehouse
Detroit and Recovery Park.
The project consists of four phases. Phase one
involves selecting a Detroit home to deconstruct
and then documenting the history and current state
of the property and neighborhood. Phase Two
includes deconstruction of the carefully selected
Detroit home and a comprehensive inventory of
harvested material. Phase Three will define
construction testing for structural performance and
aesthetic viability. Phase Four will engage the design
of a new building that will utilize the exact amount
of material reclaimed through deconstruction.
Reducing urban blight and removing dilapidated
buildings is an urgent and unmet need in several
neighborhoods of Detroit. To conduct these
activities with community partners in a transparently
innovative, ecologically sensitive, and practical
manner meets a need with a tangible process.
Providing structural and aesthetic guidelines and
standards for new construction built with reclaimed
material addresses unmet and urgent needs
for individuals and neighborhoods to take local
action in the renovation or new construction of
local buildings within an affordable, educational
and palpable process. Developing guidelines and
standards also provide new business opportunities
urgently needed for Detroit residents.
Collaboration between Colleges is a vital
component of this multi-disciplinary project.
As evidenced by numerous joint programs,
competitions, and research projects, LTU’s
Colleges of Architecture and Design, Engineering,
Management, and Art and Science work together
to enhance student learning and foster intellectual
growth through theory and practice. Architecture,
Engineering, and Management students
dedicated to challenging and redefining building
methodologies will collaborate throughout the
process, with each individual working in their area
of expertise and in concert with each other. and
the guidance of LTU faculty, particularly Ralph
Nelson, the faculty lead, professor in the College of
Architecture, and licensed architect.
The root definition of innovation is “to renew” and
building sustainable communities is based on cycles
of continual renewal. This project proposes three
forms of innovative renewal. First, to renew an age-
old principle that there is no such thing as waste,
only resources awaiting useful transformation.
Second, to renew salvaged building material by
assessing and documenting structural and aesthetic
viability for new building construction. Third, to
renew community interest and action in remediating
blight through hands-on activities. Neighborhood
organizations, residents, and students will engage
a process with direct participation while witnessing
a framework for action that may be applied in
repeatable fashion.
Students, under the guidance of Principle
Investigators, will take leadership roles in
defining the scope of work, labor management,
communication, budget, and schedule for the
project. Students will take the lead in organizing the
material harvested from deconstruction, including
conducting inventory, classifying and measuring,
and selecting material for constructability testing.
With professional guidance, students will provide
leadership in developing both structural and
aesthetic testing criteria for the harvested material,
will conduct the tests, and document all test results.
Utilizing the data gathered, students will take the
lead in the design documentation of a new building
conceived with the harvested materials employed.
introduction: executive summary
004

Detroit, notorious for its plethora of blighted
buildings has the greatest opportunity of perhaps
any city to set an example for how a city’s future
can be built from the remains of its past. With over
40,000 structures recommended for demolition,
and another 38,000 parcels awaiting further
analysis, Pioneer Material Renewal is poised to
provide an example of a unique process that can be
repeated thousands of times. As Detroit
rebuilds, it already has much of the material it needs
in its existing structures. This project will show that
these nearly 80,000 structures do not all need to
be demolished and packed in a landfill per the
current plan. These structures are assets waiting to
be transformed into new projects, structures, and
homes across the city.
Deconstruction is the careful disassembly of the
components of an existing building, removal of any
hazardous material while retaining viable
material, and then classifying the viable material.
This material has many reuse applications, and is
found most commonly in furniture making, and
interior furnishings for homes or businesses such as
wall coverings, bar/counter tops, or flooring. This
reuse is only possible through deconstruction as
opposed to its alternative of demolition.
Deconstruction, unlike demolition, saves usable
material from landfills, provides opportunity to
reuse quality and historic material in construction
and woodworking, provides training and skilled
labor jobs to those seeking employment, and is a
profitable ‘green’ industry.
The Motor City has become the testing ground for an
updated American dream: privateers finding the raw
material for new enterprise in the wreckage of the
Rust Belt."
after looking into it more and more, i realized
deconstruction is not just waste diversion, it’s job
creation, it’s an economic multiplier.”
Unless we want to have landfills on every corner,
we can't just keep throwing away perfectly good
material. Over 100 million tons a year from taking
down buildings is going into landfills right now."
"
"
"
"Despite years of service, reclaimed wood does offer some
performance advantages. Many of today's buildings use
virgin lumber cut from second and third growth forests,
resulting in lumber with a looser grain and more knots
than wood cut from old growth forests."
-chris rutherford, architectural salvage warehouse of detroit
-the new york times
-dan pratt, architectural salvage warehouse of detroit
-james brandon, “suitability of salvaged timber structural design”
detroit: why deconstruction?
006

94- FORD FREEWAY
75-CHRYSLERFREEWAY
E. CANFIELD ST.
GRATIOTAVE.
E. CANFIELD ST.
WILLIS RD.
WOODWARDAVE.
94- F
9
FORD FREE
FF
D FRFRREE
944-- FFOORD
WWWWAAAAAYYYYYYYYYYYYYAAAAAAAA
75-CHRYSLERFREEREFR
RFR
ER
75-CHRYSLERFRE
RY
5
REEEEEEREFREFRF
SLER
RYSL
RY
CHRY
-CH
5757
REEEEEEEEEEEEWWWWAAAAYYYYAAAA
E. CANFIELD S
LD SD S
EL
. C
TT.TT
GGRRAAAAATIOT
TTTIAAA
AAVE.VVEEEE
E. CANFIELD S
CCCCEEE
ELELELEL
TTTT...TT
WILLIS RD.DD
LLI
WOOD
OO
WOOO
WOWOWOWOWOWOWO
WWWWWARDRDRDD
ARAAR
AAAAAAVE.VVVVVEV
offices+greenhouse
RECOVERYPARK
PROPOSEDAREAFOR
center for design
andtechnology
lawrence tech
recovery park
warehouse
aswd
4820 DUBOIS
ASWD
RECOVERY PARK
LAWRENCE TECH
LTU Students, under the guidance of Principle
Investigators, will take leadership roles in defining
the scope of work, labor management and
communication, budget, and schedule for the
project. Students will also take the lead in organizing
the material harvested from deconstruction,
including conducting inventory, classifying and
measuring, and selecting material for constructibility
testing. With professional guidance, students will
lead developing structural and aesthetic testing
criteria, will conduct tests, and will document all test
results. Utilizing the data gathered and conclusions
gleaned, students will take roles in the design
documentation of a new building conceived with
the harvested materials employed.
LTU has formed a strategic alliance with
RecoveryPark, a Detroit-based non-profit working
in collaboration with the City of Detroit to reclaim,
and develop a 350 acre housing, agricultural, and
employment development within the city’s Great
Lakes Restoration Initiative boundaries near Eastern
Market in Detroit. RecoveryPark is providing
the property that the LTU team will deconstruct.
RecoveryPark will also serve as the client for
the design of a new structure from the house’s
reclaimed material.
ASWD – Architectural Salvage Warehouse of
Detroit is a non-profit organization founded to
keep building materials out of landfills through
architectural salvage. Their mission is to promote
environmental sustainability, job creation and
training, and preservation and conservation.
ASWD is providing deconstruction consulting,
planning, and structure assessment services to
the LTU team. They will also assist in developing
a training program for volunteers who wish to
become certified in deconstruction.
Deconstruction Expertise
Architectural Salvage
Sustainability and Preservation
Job Creation and Training
Create Local Employment
Small Scale Sustainable Agrarian Culture
Self-Sustaining Lasting Community Impact
Capture Local Business Opportunities
Create Local Employment
Small Scale Sustainable Agrarian Culture
Self-Sustaining Lasting Community Impact
Capture Local Business Opportunities
community partners
architectural salvage warehouse of
detroit
recovery park lawrence technological university
008

AUGUST 2014
SEPTEMBER 2014
OCTOBER 2014
NOVEMBER 2014
DECEMBER 2014
JANUARY 2015
FEBRUARY 2015
MARCH 2015
APRIL 2015
MAY 2015
dated: may 2014 dated: january 2015
AUGUST 2014
SEPTEMBER 2014
OCTOBER 2014
NOVEMBER 2014
DECEMBER 2014
JANUARY 2015
FEBRUARY 2015
MARCH 2015
APRIL 2015
MAY 2015
DOCUMENTATIONDOCUMENTATION
material assessment
material assessment design
design deconstruction
deconstruction
After beginning the project, it became
appropriate to change “Inception Phase” to
“Documentation Phase”. The documentation
phase endured much longer than originally
expected. Rather than concluding at the end of
August, it lasted until end of October. This was
mostly caused by the complications that came
along with obtaining rights to the property (see
deconstruction update).
Phase One involves the strategic selection of a
dilapidated Detroit home to be deconstructed.
Upon selection, the home’s history, size, current
state, and estimation of material yield will be
documented through site visits, research, and
drawings. The immediate neighborhood will be
subjected to a similar process to ultimately tell an
evocative story of a piece of Detroit history.
This phase shifted from phase three to phase
two since deconstruction could not be
completed as originally planned. However, it
will still occur during the original time
frame of November through January. In context
of the other phases, material assessment will now
be happening in conjunction with design and
before deconstruction.
Phase Three will define construction testing for
structural performance and aesthetic viability
to test how reclaimed material measures up to
today’s material. Building components intended
for re-use as structure will be assessed based on
building code standards, and building materials
employed for enclosure and aesthetic purposes
will be assembled as mock-ups at full-scale.
There are now two phases of design; an initial
phase before deconstruction that coincides
with testing, based on an estimated amount of
material reclaimed, and a refinement phase after
deconstruction once exact material numbers
have been determined. We are continually
working with Recovery Park and the immediate
community to finalize a client and design
program in the next several weeks.
Phase Four will engage the design of a new
building for Detroit that will utilize the exact
amount of material reclaimed from the home.
The intent of this phase is to show that a building
can be built from a building. This new building
will be designed for public use and designed so
that it may be built with unskilled labor while
still meeting standard codes and standards of
integrity.
The original intent was to deconstruct the house
during early Fall. However, complications arose
with obtaining the rights to work on the property
prior to the beginning of winter. This resulted in
a complete rescheduling of the project and the
team’s new goal is to deconstruct in the spring
during mid-March while completing the majority
of work in other phases over winter.
Phase Two includes deconstruction of the
selected Detroit home and a comprehensive
inventory of harvested material. Students,
community members, and professionals will
work together to reclaim the structure. The
intent of this process is to guide a neighborhood
in eliminating blight through hands-on
activities. and provide a repeatable model for
neighborhoods across the rest of the city.
report 1 report 1
report 2 report 2
report 3 report 3
final report final report
process: revised scheduleprocess: original schedule
010

In the Documentation Phase, the team identiﬁed
4820 Dubois St. in the Middle East Central
Neighborhood of Detroit as the prime candidate for
deconstruction. This selection resulted from working
with RecoveryPark within their 20+ acre proposed
footprint for an urban agriculture development.
While still in the process of acquiring the land,
RecoveryPark’s leadership has become intimate with
the layout of the neighborhood and guided the
team toward the properties that were available for
deconstruction. This was accomplished through a
driving tour of the neighborhood at the beginning
of the project. The team then returned to the
neighborhood with leadership from Architectural
Salvage Warehouse of Detroit (ASWD) to survey
several candidate houses. Evaluation criteria with
ASWD included; integrity of structure, avoidance of
toxic materials such as asbestos, and deconstruction
diﬃculty, since the work will be performed by
mostly unskilled labor. Through this process, the
team selected 4820 Dubois Street. This house is
located in the future footprint of RecoveryPark’s
urban agriculture initiative, and is one of three
structures on the block of Dubois between Hancock
and Warren. There are also two burnt structures
on the block, one of which is next door to the
selected site. The following pages are a result of the
urban analysis component of documentation. To
accomplish this, the team studied the area’s past and
present states which included web research, visits to
the Burton Collection at the Detroit Public Library,
site visits, and extensive diagramming and mapping
of the area.
• Identify property to deconstruct
• Understand neighborhood history
• Document neighborhood present state
documentation: urban ANALYSIS
014

3,961
today in 1930
45.6 % 89.0 %
136 42
11,375unimproved
u n e m p l o y e d e m p l o y e d
vacant, open,
& dangerous
housesin2010
occupiedhouses
per detroit
block in 1930
population per
i n t e r p o l at e d
density:
unemployment: employment:
structures: structures:
of density:
lack of
high rate of high rate of
b l i g h t e d o c c u p i e d
abundance
lots in 2009
civilians in 2010 civilians in 1930
sq. mile 1930
018
MIDDLE EAST CENTRAL
NEIGHBORHOOD
MIDDLE EAST CENTRAL
NEIGHBORHOOD
4820 DUBOIS
chene ferry market | 2014
chene ferry market | past
neighborhood condition | 2014
dequindre street | 1935

1
1
2
2
4820 DUBOIS
SANBORN MAP -1897
BASEBALL GAME - 1888
turnbull & chene streetcar - 1888
PHOTOS FROM THE WAYNE STATE WALTER P. REUTHER DIGITAL LIBRARY
MIDDLE EAST CENTRAL: late 1800's
020

DU BOIS STreet - 1901
427 hancock avenue - 1901
new orleans & superior - 1902
west side of chene - 1902
PHOTOS FROM THE DETROIT HISTORIC SOCIETY
MIDDLE EAST CENTRAL: 1900's
1
1
2
2 3
4
3
4
4820 DUBOIS
022
SANBORN MAP -1921

PHOTOS FROM THE DETROIT PUBLIC LIBRARY
DIGITAL COLLECTION
4820 DUBOIS
MIDDLE EAST CENTRAL: 1950's
024
SANBORN MAP -1951
1035 DUBOIS STreet - 1950
1014 dubois street - 1951
dubois & monroe - 1950
8035 st. aubin street - 1950
1
1
2
2 3
4
3
4

1897
1981 1997 2014
1921 1951
1997
1981
1951
1921
1897
2014MAPPING: DENSITYMAPPING: PERSISTENCE
By documenting which structures have survived
the period of rapid decline in the city, the team is
further able to examine the natural dynamic of the
neighborhood that perhaps can help explain why
certain houses or buildings remain, while others
have succumbed to the vacancy of Detroit. This also
gives a keen look into just how far back the history
of these distraught homes goes.
A look at the genealogy of the neighborhood based
on layers of development and dilapidation shows
that even within the context of only a few blocks,
there is a clear pattern of exponential vacancy since
the neighborhood’s most dense era in the 1950’s.
Typical for many neighborhoods in Detroit, this is
a shining example of one of Detroit’s vast natural
resources in the form of open space and usable
land.
026

Upon site selection, 4820 Dubois was documented
through photographs, field measurements,
architectural drawings, and historical research from
the Burton Collection at the Detroit Public Library.
The team made a separate site visit to the home
with ASWD to sketch floor plans, take room-by-
room measurements, photograph, and assess
quality, age, and types of reclaim-able materials
inside. This information allowed the team to develop
a three dimensional model of the house complete
with floor plans and elevations.
The house’s first floor measures approximately 1,450
square feet of living space with another 1,450 square
feet of attic space and partial living space above.
It also has a small, underground cellar beneath
the kitchen. The first floor is divided by 10 different
rooms. The layout of these rooms suggest that the
house at one time served as a duplex.
The house is traditional wood stick frame
construction and has a gable rafter roof. The front
two rooms appear to be an addition which can be
confirmed from the house’s size on early Sanborn
Maps. The foundation consists of timber beams
which sit on concrete block piers, and the only
excavated portion is the small cellar space below
the kitchen. This is a key feature in terms of ease
of deconstruction. Since less below grade work is
required, it’s less costly and can more easily be done
by unskilled labor. Additionally, the timber beams
are a very valuable reclaimed resource for use in the
design of a new structure.
• Obtain rights to deconstruct property
• Research house history
documentation: structure ANALYSIS
028

According to the Burton Historical Collection, 4820
Dubois was constructed in 1888 and its ﬁrst owner
was named Frank Funk. Its original address was 960
Dubois, but became 4820 Dubois in 1920 when the
entire city’s addresses were changed to account
for the growing population. This house has lasted
through 126 years of Detroit history, a changing
neighborhood, and various owners. In many years,
there were two owners listed for the property.
This provides further evidence that suggests
the property served as a duplex for many years
(although not supported by the Sanborn Maps). The
property is currently publicly owned by the Detroit
Land Bank Authority (DLBA).
The project’s original intent was to deconstruct
the property with RecoveryPark as the landowner.
However, RecoveryPark had not ﬁnalized the
land acquisition process by the beginning of Fall.
Through motorcitymapping.com, the team was able
to determine that the owner of the property was
the DLBA. Since it is a publicly owned property, it
was a faily straighforward process to contact the
DLBA and request the rights to deconstruct. The
DLBA obliged to the team’s request and drafted
a memorandum of understanding between it and
LTU. The MOU will give the team permission to
deconstruct without owning the land. However, this
process forced the entire project schedule to be
rearranged as previously stated and the house will
now be deconstructed in Spring 2015.
HOUSE HISTORY HOUSE ACQUISITION PROCESS
The house: 4820 dubois street
030
Second Floor Bedroom
Attic
First Floor Walls
Back Porch
1
2
3
4
1
2 3
4

1888 Funk, frank
1889 Funk, frank + schednkowski, wm. 1890 Funk,
frank + ramiowsky, joseph 1892 Funk, frank +
goralski,joseph1895coop,frank1900kuptz,frank
1902 kuptz, frank+ romanowski, wladislav 1911
bercholc, michael + kurzewski, joseph + Lasinski,
anthony1912bercholc,michael+Lasinski,anthony
1922 berckulz, michl + rearwietek, stanley 1941
berchule,michl + sheski,henry 1957 berchulc,john
1963noreturn1974myles,effie,mrs.1997nolisting
residents of 4820 dubois street

KITCHEN
KITCHENFAMILY
ENTRY
LIVING
LIVING DINING
DINING
ATTIC / STORAGE
BATH
BATH
BED
2’-0”
4’-0”
8’-0”
MASONRY CHIMNEY MASONRY CHIMNEY
MASONRY CHIMNEY
VINYL ON WOOD SIDING
WOOD SKIRT
MASONRY CHIMNEY
ASPHALT SHINGLES
WOOD SKIRT
ASPHALT SHINGLES
3’-0”
3’-0”
14’-0”
14’-0”
26’-6”
26’-6”
2’-0”
4’-0”
8’-0”2’-0”
4’-0”
8’-0”
034
Documentation: house plans + elevations
plan: second floor elevation: south
elevation: northplan: first floor
BATH
2’-0”
4’-0”
8’-0”

MASONRY PIER
MASONRY CHIMNEY
WOOD SHAKE SIDING
WOOD SKIRT
WOOD JOIST
ASPHALT SHINGLES
MASONRY CHIMNEY
2’-0”
4’-0”
8’-0”
2’-0”
4’-0”
8’-0”
BED
BATH
DINING
LIVINGLIVING
CELLAR
KITCHEN KITCHEN
LIVING
ATTIC / STORAGE
ATTIC / STORAGE
MASONRY
WALLS
STRUCTURAL
TIMBERS
3’-0” 3’-0”
3’-0”3’-0” 3’-0”
14’-0” 14’-0”
14’-0”14’-0” 14’-0”
26’-6” 26’-6”
26’-6”26’-6” 26’-6”
2’-0”
4’-0”
8’-0”
036
Documentation: house plans + elevations
BEDATTIC / STORAGE
BATH
2’-0”
4’-0”
8’-0”
section: north - south sections: east - west
plan: basement elevations: east - west

.
deconstruction:
The Deconstuction Phase is the core project phase.
Here the team executed the full deconstruction of
4820 Dubois. This phase commenced in March 2015
after a long process of deconstruction planning.
which is described in the following pages. This
phase’s outcome affects the entire project’s outcome
and planning. This was experienced by the team
through the rescheduling of deconstruction due
to the longer than expected process of obtaining
the proper permissions to deconstruct. This forced
the team to re-evaluate the original proposed
process, of document, deconstruct, test, and
design, as Michigan’s winter approached. Rather,
the the team documented, started testing and
design prior to deconstruction, and then finished
them after deconstruction. PMR still recommends
the original approach if this process were to be
repeated regularly. However, the revised schedule
did allow more time for community engagement,
deconstruction planning, and facilitated a material
assessment and design process based on material
estimation, which was then verified through actual
material yield post deconstruction. PMR believes
that this extra research time allowed for improved
development of the deconstruct to reconstruct
concept.
• Fully deconstruct house and clean up site
• Collect, categorize, and assess condition and
quantity of deconstructed material.
• Engage organizations, and community and student
volunteers in the deconstruction process. .
040

june 2014
july 2014
AUG2014
SEPT2014
OCT2014
NOV2014
DEC2014
JAN2015
FEB2015
MAR2015
APR2015
MAY2015
secure funding + Budget
select neighborhood + partner organization
select house & deconstruction professionals
•Awarded $25,000 grant from the Ford Foundation to execute project.
•Created a budget for what the money will be used for. (employees, equipment,
expertise)
•Partnered with RecoveryPark, a non profit looking to acquire land in the area
for urban agriculture development that has a need for blight removal after land
acquisition.
•Toured the neighborhood with RecoveryPark to identify deconstruction
candidates.
•Site visit to house candidates with Architectural Salvage Warehouse of Detroit to
obtain professional advice on the best deconstruction option.
•Selected 4820 Dubois
pre-deconstruction logistics
obtain rights to perform work on 4820 dubois
•Original deconstruction was set to begin and complete in October 2014, however
due to the land acquisition process it was rescheduled to March 2015 during LTU’s
Spring Break.
•PMR worked with ASWD throughout winter to plan deconstruction in the Spring
•After land was privately acquired, the house was tested for asbestos at the end
of February. Fortunately, the test was negative and no abatement was required,
saving time and money.
•The team requested that the city disconnect the water (electric and gas had
previously been disconnected) so that a demolition permit could be attained. This
request was later cancelled due to the team acquiring a building permit instead.
Explanation of this is on the following page.
•PMR recruited volunteers from school through the use of volunteerlocal.com, a
volunteer signup website that helps non profits and organizers collect and keep
track of volunteers.
•Extra tools were collected from both Lowes and Home Depot as part of a
donation request. Lowes donated hammers, safety goggles, and earplugs. Home
Depot donated an assortment of prybars and gloves. Other major tools and
equipment were supplied by ASWD.
•Lastly, the PMR team and a core group of volunteers received deconstruction and
safety training from ASWD at LTU’s campus prior to deconstruction.
•RecoveryPark could not acquire land until Summer 2015.
•PMR Team visited motorcitymapping.com and discovers the property is publically
owned.
•PMR contacted the Detroit Landbank Authority (DLBA) regarding acquiring the
rights to deconstruct 4820 Dubois
•In October, the DLBA drafted a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between
itself and LTU, giving LTU the rights to deconstruct the property without assuming
ownership.
•In the meantime, 4820 Dubois was marked for demolition by the city with a big
yellow sticker on the house. PMR inquired about this and was informed that there
was no threat to the house being demolished soon.
•The MOU went back and fourth between parties for a few months before
ultimately being signed. However, PMR assumed that since the DLBA was
maintaining ownership, they were going to expidite and perform steps required
for demolition permitting such as asbestos testing and utility disconnects. This
•PMR wanted to ensure that residents in the area were aware of project so when
deconstruction came there were no surprises, but also, the team wanted a
sense of what the neighborhood used to be like compared to now. To gain this
perspective, interviews with 6 area residents were organized through mutual
contacts of Recovery Park.
•Passed out fliers in the neighborhood advertising the project
•Continued to engage volunteers from the community and Lawrence Tech to
collect sign ups for deconstruction week.
community engagement
deconstruction
•Deconstruction commenced on Sunday, March 1st when the team cleaned out the
house of the contents.
•During that following week (March 2-6), ASWD cleared the house of all plaster.
•The PMR team picked deconstruction back up on March 7th at the beginning of
LTU’s spring break and took 12 days to take the house down to the first floor.
•The project was completed after the school semester ended in May when the team
returned to remove the first floor platform.
•This deconstruction process is fully documented in the following pages.
Pioneer Material Renewal’s goal is to provide a replicable deconstruction model that
can be replicated in other Detroit communities and city’s across the country. Ideally,
residents and organizations could use this model for their own neighborhoods. Part
of that replication is being able to acquire the properties that are in need of removal
by non profits or individuals. The process on the next page shows how Pioneer
Material Renewal identified, acquired rights, raised awareness, and planned the
deconstruction of 4820 Dubois. Every property and project will be different but this
specific process provides one example of execution.
was not directly written in the MOU, only verbally discussed. As a result, by
February 20th the MOU still was not finalized and deconstruction was to begin on
March 7.
•Fortunately, in the meantime, the land became privately owned and the land
owner granted permission to PMR to deconstruct.
coordination schedule: timeline + description
042

The City of Detroit does not legally recognize
deconstruction as a building removal method.
Therefore, deconstructing or demolishing, only
a demolition permit can be acquired when
proposing to remove a building. The demolition
permit requires four main disconnects/clearances;
gas, electric, water, and asbestos/hazardous
materials. Gas and electric disconnects must be
performed, and clearances obtained through
the utility company, usually DTE, and water
disconnects and clearances must be done
through the Detroit Water & Sewer Department.
Utility disconnects are essential because usually
by the end of the project there is a clear site
with no structure. Clearing the utilities ensures
that the site is completely clear of any previous
structure when redevelopment comes along and
keeps workers safe from electrocution or gas
leaks. Asbestos and hazardous materials testing
is usually performed by a third party company. If
asbestos is found, it must be abated which can
take a lot of time, and be expensive depending
on the amount. Once it is abated, or if none is
found, an asbestos clearance can be obtained.
After all four clearances are received, then begins
the process of obtaining a demolition permit.
Fortunately at 4820 Dubois, the gas and
electric connections had already been removed
previously by DTE, and the house was negative
for asbestos. This saved time and money.
However, what was not complete was the water
connection. Through previously working with
the DLBA as mentioned in the “Coordination
Schedule” section of the report, the PMR team
assumed that the Landbank was able to take care
of this requirement and expedite the demolition
permitting process. Deconstruction was planned
for March and as of February this still had not
been completed. It was at this point where the
land was privately acquired and the team began
to work with the landowner. The team visited the
Detroit Water and Sewer Department three weeks
prior to deconstruction and was informed that it
could take up to eight weeks for the department
to perform the work. The team went ahead
anyways and put in a work order request but later
canceled it due to new developments.
A permit is required to perform structural work on
a house. As deconstruction neared with no word
from the Water & Sewer Department the PMR
team got creative. Rather than applying for a
demolition permit, the team drafted construction
documents and applied for a building permit to
alter the structure rather than remove all of it.
The existing cellar was viewed as an asset and
the team proposed to keep the existing masonry
foundation and frame a new tool shed on top of
it that would be paired with an urban garden on
site. Since the team proposed to keep an integral
part of the structure an alteration building permit
permit: the process
with Permit Application
Enter
1
2
8
9
10
12
11
4
3
56
7 the Area of
Waiting
the Lair of
Cashiers
the Desk of
Notory
the Desk of
Signing In
the Office of
Licensing
the Department of
Permits
the Inspector of
Buildings
the Engineer of
Structure
the Office of
Dangerous
Buildings
Building and
the Department of
Safety
withPermit
Exit
was granted. Even this process though was a back
and forth process with the city as is described in
the graphic above. This eliminated the need to
disconnect the water altogether which worked
out better anyways since keeping the water
connection would allow for watering of plants.
Overall this approach made better use of the
money allocated to deconstruction. If the
structure were to be completely demolished, PMR
would have had to pay for an excavation crew
to remove the cellar basement, and then backfill
hole and the site. This can sometimes cost up to
$2,500 no matter the size of the basement. In
addition, ASWD (PMR’s deconstruction partner)
does not have a Detroit certified demolition
license. This is something that is difficult to obtain
for a small non-profit due to politics and financial
liability, especially because the city doesn’t
officially recognize deconstruction. If the team
proposed demolition, a demolition contractor
would have had to been hired who would have
then contracted the work out to ASWD. This
would have cost more because PMR would have
then had to pay two parties.
Also, by building a shed, it is making the site
more useful, and valuable to the property
owner, as well as adding another dimension to
the project. While this shed will actually be built
in the future, it is not to be confused with the
design proposal that PMR is also making as part
of this project. A full description, explanation,
and graphics of this building design can be
found in the design section of the report. The
following graphic explains the experience the
PMR team had at the Detroit Buildings and
Safety Department when attempting to get the
permit. There were many different desks to visit
and approvals needed as can be seen and PMR
believes it is important to describe this process
for anyone wanting do deconstruct with this
method in the future.
044

cleanout lath roof attic interior exterior material Platform
The house was removed down to the first
floor platform in twelve days with the help
of over 50 different volunteers throughout
that time period. The twelve days include
days over LTU’s spring break and the
following weekend. On average, there
were 10 crew members on site at any given
time, which, over 12 days totals to over
840 man hours. The first floor platform
then remained in place until the end of
the school semester when the team could
commit more time to removing the rest of
the structure.
The following pages outline each step of
the deconstruction process which include
house clean-out, lath and interior removal,
roof removal, attic floor removal, interior
wall removal, and exterior wall removal. A
summary of the current state of the project,
description of the material processing
procedure, interesting artifacts found and a
tribute to all of the volunteers is included.
deconstruction: physical process
046

crew
the
Meaghan Markiewicz, pmr team member
pierce Sadler, (left) volunteer site leader
james sharp, pmr team member
jamiil gaston, volunteer site leader
jose perez, volunteer site leader
mike paciero, (right) pmr team member
tony fakhouri, volunteer site leader
drew tucker, volunteer site leader
charlie harris, pmr team member detroit challenge fellows, volunteers
joe kuzdal, volunteer site leader
chris rutherford, aswd contractor
justin lee, volunteer site leader
brandon olsen, pmr team member
dan pratt, aswd contractor kienan kowalski, volunteer site leader
048

pre-deconstruction: the cleanout
CLEANING: trash, nick-nacks, artifacts
cleanout lath roof attic interior exterior material platform
Day One was content removal. Prior to the project,
every visit the team made to the site entailed
walking through massive amounts of clothes,
papers, and other debris that were scattered across
the house. This is the side of blight that is not always
seen from the outside. It was hard to imagine
just how the contents got strewn about as they
were. Clearing these out was the first step in the
deconstruction process. There was so many contents
that one entire dumpster was filled on the first day.
The team considered saving some of it, especially
the clothes, to donate but it would have added days
to the project that there was not time for. Many crew
members have commented, it was a mixed emotion
filled day because while it was fun, they found
many personal belongings and information about
the previous tenants who they didn’t even know. It
all seemed to be strangely forgotten about. Items
saved from the cleanout included furniture, nick-
nacks, and items that had historical significance.
050

“This day was probably the
most emotionally varied of
the project... Although we
had a great time as a group
cleaning out the house, There
was always that little voice
in my head reminding me
everything we found to be
worthless was once priceless
to someone.”
“There was a
crazy amount
of stuff!”
-Joe kuzdal, volunteer
-brandon olsen, team member
052

deconstruction: lath & interior
Lath: millions of tiny pieces
Day Two through Day Six was lath and interior
finish removal. The interior finish of the house was
plaster with some drywall. The contractors (ASWD)
removed the plaster with their crew so that PMR
wouldn’t have to submit participants to dust and
lead paint exposure. ASWD are professionals who
know how to work with hazardous materials. An
asbestos survey was also required. Thankfully the
test was negative for asbestos and work was able to
progress on time.
Located behind the plaster is a material called lath.
These are thin strips of wood that span between the
studs which the plaster adheres to. In a plastered
house there is a lot of lath. Over 3000 pieces were
removed and denailed. Denailing is a tedious, slow
task. As a result, finishing lath took a while. Many
of the crew have joked that they never want to see
another piece of lath again. However, removing it
was a crucial first step and served as a good warm
up for bigger, more labor intensive tasks.
054

“I will hate lath
for the rest of
my life!”
“One of the most awe striking
experiences of all, was when I was
tearing apart the ceiling and found
a handwritten note from 1927
completely intact that had been
hidden from the world for almost
an entire century! Finding the
note made me realize that this isn’t
just some house, this was once
someone’s home and has been a
home to many different people
over its lifetime.”
process
Step 1- Remove and cleanup plaster
Step 2- Remove lath and other interior
ﬁnishes with hammers/prybars
Step 3- Pile with similar sized pieces
Step 4- Denail
Step 5- Bundle lath into 50 piece per
bundle and bundle trim
materials harvested
Lath • Door Trim • Window Trim •
Base Trim • Interior Shealthing •
Wainscoting • Electrical Wiring •
Window Weights • Doors
-tony fakhouri, volunteer
056

deconstruction: ROOF
Day 7 through Day 9 was the roof was removed.
Once the lath and finishes were removed, the next
step was to start from the top and work down.
On Day 7, the roof was stripped of the shingles by
ASWD’s crew for safety reasons so the volunteer
crew could safely remove the rest of the roof from
the underside. The roofing finishes consisted of two
layers of shingles and one of cedar shake. Once the
shingles were gone, sun rays between the open slits
in the sheathing boards created beautiful lighting
effects that made for great photos. On Day 8 the
two brick chimneys came down and 1” thick roof
sheathing boards were removed from the rafters
which led to the 2x4 & 2x6 rafters being removed
on Day 9. Removing the roof was a dramatic
transformation to the structure. It was the first major
change to the exterior appearance of the house and
was a huge moral booster for the team.
Roof: Raise Drop the roof
058

“With my major being
Architectural Engineering
the project had a lot to
teach me. In classrooms
you learn mostly
theory and design, but
deconstructing you
learned how houses were
actually put together.”
-Pierce sadler, volunteer
“As the roof boards
came down, the
sun rays created an
amazing lighting effect
in the second story.”
-Meaghan Markiewicz, team member
process
Step 1- Strip roof ﬁnishes
Step 2-Dispose of roof ﬁnishes
Step 3-Remove chimneys
Step 4-Remove the underside roof sheating
Step 5-Remove interor attic walls
Step 6-Remove roof rafters
Step 7-Remove gable ends
Step 8-Remove front and back porch awning.
materials harvested
1” Thick Roof Sheating Boards • Brick •
2x4 Interior Studs • 2x4 Roof Rafters •
2x6 Roof Rafters • 2x4 Framing of Gable
Ends • Wood Siding & Sheathing from Gable
Ends • Cedar Shake Siding from Gable Ends
060

deconstruction: Attic floor
Attic: Nothing to stand on
Day 10 was removal of the attic floor. Only a
couple members of the crew were needed. Safety
harnesses were worn and everyone had to be
careful not to fall through what was now the open
ceiling. Even though the roof was off at this point,
having the attic floor still made the house feel as if
a roof was there. After this step though the house
became much more open, and exposed to the
elements. The astounding 24 foot long 2x6 joists
were now completely visible, and it became very
clear from viewing construction techniques and
wood type that the original house was sandwiched
between two additions on the front and back. Some
of the oldest floor boads weren’t even nailed down.
These boards were about 15 feet long, and poked
above the ceiling. The main floor of the house
quickly became cluttered and looked like a forest of
reclaimed wood.
062

“I began to see
much more
potential in all the
material!”
-Jeremy nafus, volunteer
“The project has helped me gain
inspiration for myself in Detroit.
We can play a role and impact the
future of this city and help make
it the place we want to live and
spend our life in. The amount of
opportunity I see in the city now
makes me want to stay here which
is something I would have never
thought of saying before.”
-kienan kowalski, volunteer
process
Step 1- Put on Safety Harness
Step 2- Determine where to start (from front of
house)
Step 3- Remove Floorboards with Prybar
Step 4- Drop Floorboards between Ceiling Joists for
Storing.
Step 5- Remove All Wood from Main Floor of
House.
materials harvested
1x12 floorboards (middle-original house) • 1x8
floorboards (back addition) • 1x6 floorboards (front
addition)
064

deconstruction: interior walls
Day 11 was removal of the interior walls and
the ceiling joists. This was one of the most
transformational days as the house became on large
open room by the end of the day. At the beginning
of the day it looked like it did after removal of the
attic ﬂoor with wood strewn everywhere. That wood
was carried out and piled it up. Then the team
proceeded to knock out all of the interior sheathing
and interior stud walls. One interesting construction
method was that the 1x sheathing (typically plywood
or osb today) was placed on the interior side of the
exterior studs and not the exterior side. These were
beautiful boards, some as large as 18” wide and 14’
long. They could only have come from very large,
old trees. It is assumed that these boards were the
original interior ﬁnish back in 1888. After sheathing
and interior studs were removed, the massive 24’
long 2x6 ceiling joists were removed one at a time.
Removing so much structure weakened the house
considerably and the entire house shook.
Interior WallS: They are on the inside
066

“It is not typical to
see such high quality
interior boards. They
must have been
original to the house ”
-Mike Paciero, team member
“This deconstruction
project was entirely
different. Not only did it
strengthen my pride for
Detroit, it energized my
friends, non-Detroiters,
to give back to the
city that helped build
America.”
-Jamiil gaston, volunteer
process
Step 1- remove remaining interior
sheathing boards
Step 2- remove interior walls
Step 3- remove remaining door frames
Step 4- remove stairs
Step 5- remove remaining windows
Step 6- remove ceiling joists
materials harvested
1x interior sheating boards • 2x4 studs
from walls • 2x4 top & bottom plates
door frames • window frames & glass
stair stringers, risers, & treads • 2x6
ceiling joists
068

deconstruction: exterior walls
Day 12, the final full day, was removal of the exterior
walls. This was a labor intensive process as it took
nearly the entire crew to lower the walls once they
were cut them into sections. It was certainly a
dynamic day as the entire project was now revealed
to the street. Once the walls were down, they were
disassembled them on the floor deck. This was the
safest way to complete this process. After the walls
were down and disassembled, there was much
cleanup around the site to do. The crew continued
to denail material, pick up scraps, as well as sort
wood into piles. At the end of the day it felt fulfilling
to have accomplished nearly full deconstruction. It
was strange to look at the site from the street now
as there was no more house at all, just a platform.
exterior WallS: They are on the outside
070

“It was extremely
satisfying to see the house
slowly become piles of
organized materials to be
re-purposed.”
process
Step 1- Sawzall walls in sections at
strategic points
Step 2- Lower wall to ground with
entire crew
Step 3- Disassemble wall on ground
Step 4- Organize components into
respective piles
materials harvested
2x4 exterior studs • 2x4 top and
bottom plates • wood siding • cedar
shake siding from front wall
front window & decorative trim •
exterior facia boards
072

deconstruction: material Processing
After the wood is removed from the house it must
be inventoried and processed. Processing means
that similar pieces are stacked together, denailed,
and then wrapped or loaded up on a trailer to be
stored oﬀ site. Denailing is the most time consuming
step in this process. There are sometimes dozens of
nails in a piece of wood. Due to the length of time
this process takes, denailing often occurs oﬀ site at
a secure location. In this project some of the wood
was denailed onsite throughout the deconstruction
and some was taken directly back to ASWD to be
stored and denailed later. Throughout the process
there was always a denailing team as well as a
deconstruction team. Crew members switched
between teams to get both experiences. PMR was
fortunate enough to have enough volunteers that
deconstruction and material processing could be
done simultaneously.
material Processing: denail + inventory
074

“The project has
opened my eyes to
the possibilities and
potential that the city
of Detroit possesses.”
-Justin lee, volunteer
“What made the work easiest
was the comradery between
the volunteers. We were all
excited to be there which
made even the worst jobs, like
removing lath or
de-nailing wood, incredibly
fun. Nothing makes the work
go by faster than when you’re
dancing, singing, and working
all at the same time”
076

deconstruction: first floor platform
On day 13 & 14, after the school semester was over,
the team returned to remove the first floor decking,
supporting 2x8 & 2x6 joists, structural beams, and
concrete piers. The majority of the structure was
removed with the exception of the floor covering
the cellar and a portion of the floor attached to
the cellar. This is the extent of structure that will be
removed until the tool shed is built on site over
the cellar. The site began to feel cleaner and it was
the first time the dirt underneath the house had
seen daylight since 1888. What is left to do is much
denailing, and material processing around the site.
Eventually, all the materials will be stored either in a
warehouse for future use or on site once the team
acquires a shipping container. The first floor removal
is the final structure removal step the PMR project.
first floor platform: down to the last boards
078

“It was amazing to see how
the foundation of the house
was constructed. For 127
years Hardly anything was
mechanically fastened, yet
most of the foundation was
solid as can be. The beams
sat unattached on the piers,
beams were notched together
where they connected, and
the joists were notched into
the beams.”
-mike paciero, team member
process
Step 1-Remove Tongue + Groove
subfloor decking
Step 2- Remove floor joists
Step 3- cut beams at intersection point
of where structure will be saved
Step 4-Rake and clean dirt and debris
under house
Step 4-Organize materials under
existing structure and tarp
materials harvested
4” Tongue + Groove Subfloor • 2x6 +
2x8 Floor Joists • 6x8, 8x8, 4x7 Structural
Beams • CMU Block from Structural
Piers • Misc. 2x4’s and Other Supporting
Members • Misc. Metal, Glass, + Plastic
080

Jeremy Nafus, LTU Student - ΣΦΕ Brother
Darin McClesky, Neighborhood Resident
Andrew Markle, LTU Student - ΣΦΕ Brother
Dylan Masko, LTU Student - ΣΦΕ Brother
Mario Gagnon, LTU Student - ΣΦΕ Brother
Mike Pruski, LTU Student - ΣΦΕ Brother
Rich Douglas, LTU Student - ΣΦΕ Brother
Aaron Barroclaugh, LTU Student - ΣΦΕ Brother
Travis McCaul, LTU Student - ΣΦΕ Brother
Cody Chumbler, LTU Student - ΣΦΕ Brother
Dan Gallagher, LTU Student
Hadiel Modhelidean, LTU Student
Sue Markiewicz, Friend of the Project
Schoren Family, Friend of the Project
Sarah Campbell, Friend of the Project
Ryan Diehl, LTU Student
Randy Tebbs, LTU Student
Kenny Delage, LTU Student
Aaron Barroclaugh, LTU Student - ΣΦΕ Brother
Steven Paciero, Friend of the Project
David Paciero, Friend of the Project
Leslie Paciero, Friend of the Project
Ed Orlowski, LTU Professor of Architecture
Drew Bradford, Project Member
Farah Harb, Ford C3 Coordinator
Matt Scarchilli, LTU Student - ΣΦΕ Brother
Steven Vondra, LTU Student - ΣΦΕ Brother
Kyle Schmidt, LTU Student - ΣΦΕ Brother
Evan Beaudrie, LTU Student - ΣΦΕ Brother
Ed Gorecki, Friend of the Project
Ayodh Kamath, LTU Professor of Architecture
Randy Harris, Friend of the Project
Steve Bengelsdorf, Friend of the Project
Ann Phillips, Challenge Detroit Fellow
Anna Schroen, Challenge Detroit Fellow
Elizabeth Grabowski, Challenge Detroit Fellow
Jessica Wang, Challenge Detroit Fellow
Kenneth Andejeski, Challenge Detroit Fellow
Martha Cavazos, Challenge Detroit Fellow
Sarah Robb, Challenge Detroit Fellow
Seth Haug, Challenge Detroit Fellow
Alison Figliomeni, Challenge Detroit Fellow
Rachel Rosenbaum, Challenge Detroit Fellow
thank you: all the volunteers
volunteers: the list
One of the most exciting parts of the project
was discovering souveniers with either historical
significance from the early 1900’s or belongings
of previous residents that were hidden behind
walls or under the floors. Each time something
new was discovered, the crew member who
made the discovery walked around the site and
showed the find to everyone. Pictured here are
a few of the items found. To name a few, there
were 1922 Silver Dollars, square hand cut nails,
old newspaper dated 1927, and what ended up
being deeped the project mascot “Mr. Hippo”,
and his friends.
FOUND
THINGS
WE
082

section four: material assessment

The Material Assessment phase makes Pioneer
Material Renewal unique in the deconstruction and
material reuse industry. Since the ultimate goal is
to design a new structure only from the amount of
material reclaimed, some of that material needs to
be designed as structural components. However, no
current standard is in place for certifying reclaimed
wood for structural use, none the less a construction
standard for designing and building a new structure
from completely reclaimed materials. This is what
Pioneer Material Renewal aims to accomplish
through its Material Assessment phase. There are
two main components to this phase; structural
testing, and material estimation/inventory. Since
structural testing occured before deconstruction in
the project schedule the team tested wood provided
by PMR’s deconstruction consultants, ASWD, that is
a similar age and type to the wood found in 4820
Dubois. This timeline also led the team to complete
an analysis to estimate the amount of material that
would be yielded from the home. This amount was
then compared and veriﬁed post deconstruction
upon the completion of material inventory.
Pioneer Material Renewal’s primary hypothesis
for this phase was that various reclaimed
structural members from a 100+ year old home
have maintained their structural properties and
integrity over time, meet the minimum structural
requirements per current code for wood stick frame
buildings, and equal or exceed the strength of
today’s standard wood structural members. The
main reasons behind this assumption were that 100+
year old wood was cut from higher quality, more
mature trees than today’s wood, and the wood’s
dimensions are a true nominal size, unlike modern
day wood. To assess this, the team designed
several possible tests that involved testing structural
and aesthetic properties of the reclaimed wood.
Utimately, four tests were prepared and executed
using LTU”s Structural Testing Center. The test
results, quantities harvested from the house, and
history regarding the material are all included in this
Material Assessment section.
• Deﬁne and execute structural and aesthetic tests
on the reclaimed wood
• Successfully quantify and document the material
harvested from 4820 Dubois.Extracted material from 12527 Klinger Street by Charlie O’Geen. Photo courtesy of PD Rearick.
Material assessment:
086

board feet
of lumber
board feet of lumberwas transported on the
Wood harvested
from Michigan
forests
WOOD traveling
down THE BLACK
RIVER
a sawmill in Detroit
Modern harvesting
equipment
4
4
3
3
2
2
1
25 billion 35-96 million
saginaw river michigan
is sold
annually in
THE state of
michigan lumber: history
1
White pine harvesting is a classic case of how the
timber industry shaped Michigan's forests and
young economy. In the 19th century, white pine
was a major component of Michigan's forests, but
as a result of major development in the Detroit
area and the rest of the midwest, white pine forests
were greatly reduced by the mid 20th century.
Today much less lumber is purchased in the state
compared to the late 1800s when 4820 Dubois was
built. Not to mention, the timber harvested now
is from far younger and smaller trees as can be
seen in image 4 on the left. This research highlights
the significance of the wood reclaimed from 4820
Dubois. It belongs to some of the first harvests of
Michigan lumber and is considered antique. This
quality increases the lumbers value, hence the
interest in re-harvesting it through deconstruction.
The best white pine was called “cork pine,” and
Michigan was loaded with it, especially in the
Saginaw Valley. Dorothy Langdam Yates writes in
her History of Midland County (1987) that in the last
big year of logging (1897) the Saginaw River floated
125 million pine logs, representing a staggering
25 billion board feet of lumber. These trees were
hundreds of years oldDetroit in the 1860s had five
lumber yards and nine sawmills that delivered 40.5
million board feet of lumber to the growing city and
on to the eastern states. Cut lumber came from St.
Clair, Lapeer, Sanilac and Saginaw, towed by tug
boat along the shore of Lake Huron, down the Black
River and across Lake St. Clair. Over time Detroit’s
role faded as more and more mills were built in the
Saginaw Valley.
Michigan Lumber:1897 Michigan Lumber: today
088

Cut lumber came from St.
Clair, Lapeer, Sanilac and
Saginaw, towed by tug boat
alongtheshoreofLakeHuron,
down the Black River and
across Lake St. Clair. Over
time Detroit's role faded as
more and more mills were
built in the Saginaw Valley.

[51] Roof Members 1'x6" @ 12' Lengths
material estimation:
individual building
components
The numbers below are calculated
assuming 100% of the material is
salvaged. During the deconstruction
process, it is assumed only 60% - 70%
will actually be reclaimed for re-use.
material yield:
[26]2’X6’ Roof Members @ 20' Lengths
[26] 2’X4’ Roof Members @ 20' Lengths
[2] 2’x2’ Brick Chimney @ 26' Height
[3,240] Lath Members @ 4’ Lengths
[1,366] Square Foot Wood Flooring
[1] Full Stair
[177] Exterior Studs @ 9’-12’ Lengths
[90] 2’x6’ Ceiling Joists @ 16” O.C.
[14] Windows
[1,366] Square Foot Wood Flooring
[7] Foundation Timbers
[26] Concrete Piers
[90] 2’x6’ Floor Joists @ 16” O.C.
[1/2] Wooden Stair
[180] Linear Feet of Brick Wall
[39] 1’x6” Roof Sheathing Boards @ 12'
[14] 2’X6’ Roof Members @ 17' Lengths
[54] 2’X4’ Roof Members @ 8’, 13’, & 17’
[2] 2’x2’ Brick Chimney @ 26' Height
[2,500] Lath Members @ 2’-4’ Lengths
[90] 1”x6”,8”, 12” Floorboards
[1] Full Stair
[104] Exterior Studs @ 8.5’ & 11.5’ Lengths
[54] 2’x6’ Ceiling Joists @ 10’, 20’ & 24’
[6] In tact Window Frames
[150] 1”x4.5” Floorboards @ 10’ Lengths
[15] Foundation Timbers
[30] Concrete Piers
[18] 2”x6” Floor Joists @ 10’ & 24’ Lengths
[180] Linear Feet of Brick Wall
[27] 2”x8” Floor Joists @ 19’ & 23’ Lengths
[188] Interior Studs @ 4’, 8’, & 15’ Lengths
092

Prior to deconstruction, PMR knew the amount of
material that would be yielded from the house, but
the team had no idea just how much that material
would end up being in person once the house
was removed. By the end of deconstruction, both
lots next to the house were covered with piles of
wood. Some of that wood was sent to ASWD’s
warehouse for storage and some if it stayed stored
on site underneath the first floor of the house or
under tarps to stay protected from the weather.
Over the course of the few months following
deconstruction the team made it back several
times to process, inventory, and properly store
this wood to ensure it wouldn’t be damaged. In
total, the team reclaimed nearly 7000 board feet of
lumber that otherwise would have been sent to a
landfill. This is approximately equivalent to 3, 10 yard
dumpsters. A board foot is a volume measurement
that refers to the volume of the board. 1 board
foot equals: 1”x12”x12”. So a 2x6 that is 10 feet long
is equal to: 2”x6”x120” = 10 board feet. PMR used
this calculation to estimate the amount of material.
There were 3 main categories of lumber; 2x’s which
include 2x4s, 2x6s, and 2x8’s, beams which include
all of the foundation beams under the house, and 1x
material which includes all flooring, sheathing, and
interior finishes throughout the hosue. The charts
that follow outline the amount of lumber reclaimed
for each category.
2x4s, 2x6,s and 2x8s were all found in the house.
The majority of the 2x4s came from the exterior
and interior walls. The 2x6s and 2x8s came from
the floor joists, celing joists, and roof rafters. The 2x
material was the easiset to reclaim and inventory.
Therefore, PMR has a very accurate count of these
members. It is estimated that 98% of the 2x material
available was reclaimed and not wasted. It was all
in very good shape and very little was rotted. The
2x material is the second most valuable material in
the housenext to the beams. At market value, the
antique (lumber before 1910) 2x4s can sell for $2
per linear foot. the 2x6’s and 2x8s go for even more.
Lumber totals
2x material
Beams
1x material
The foundation of the house consisted of timber
beams resting on concrete piers. Once the team
deconstructed down to the first floor it was easy to
identify and remove the beams. Therefore 99% of
this material was reclaimed. The only reason 100%
was not possible was because some of the beams
had to be cut due to their length and many were
notched to allow for other beams and joists to fit
together. The beams are the most valuable material
in the house. The remaining lumber in the house was what is
referred to as 1x material. This includes everything
from the wall and roof sheating, to the siding, and
the floors. This was the hardest material to reclaim
as it was the easiest to break when removing, and
also had the most rot since it is generally the first
material that gets exposed to water and other
elements. In total, it is estimated that 70% of this
material was reclaimed. The most valuable 1x
material was the interior sheating boards that was
the same antique texture and color of the 2x’s. This
material was suspected to be the original interior
finish of the house in 1888.
094

material testing: Overview
STRUCTURAL PROPERTIES
SPANS WITH SHORT MEMBERS
POST AND BEAM SPANS
ENCLOSURE
Often times during deconstruction, wood members
are cut or broken into shorter lengths during the
disassembly process. As a result, lengths of wood
are not consistent and often shorter than standard
lengths. This raises questions of how to structurally
use these shorter, inconsistent sized members when
designing a new building. PMR aimed to answer
these questions through testing a truss and a
lamella. A truss is an easily recognizable structural
element built usually from 2x4’s or 2x6’s. Likewise,
a lamella is also a spanning structural element built
using short lengths of 2x4 or 2x6 members. The
difference from a truss is that it forms a curved arch
rather than a straight, triangular grid. Testing these
would mean testing individual reclaimed members
assembled into a system.
Without enclosure, a building is only a skeleton.
Pioneer Material Renewal’s last potential test would
be to provide enclosure for a building. During
deconstruction, many materials are reclaimed that
can be used for exterior finishes including flooring,
plaster lathe, shiplap siding, and roof/wall sheathng.
Using reclaimed glass for windows is also an
important component to this test as daylight plays
an important role in the design of the building.
One test could be using reclaimed boards like
flooring, lathe, and shiplap for exterior cladding
This test will be fairly straightforward and similar
to conventional methods used today. Testing with
reclaimed glass will prove to be more challenging
though. This is PMR’s final option for reclaimed
material testing.
Currently, there is no standard for certifying
reclaimed lumber for structural use. It is generally
assumed that once a structural member is removed
from a building, its strength has deteriorated to
a point where it cannot be used structurally per
code. The team must provide proof reclaimed
wood can be used structurally in order to make
a design proposal for a new building that strictly
uses reclaimed material as the main structure. The
structural properties test would test old and new
2x4’s side by side. This would involve completing 3
separate tests; compression, bending and tension.
It is important to test all three properties. New 2x4s
will be tested along with old 2x4s, compared to
each other, and also to code.
Reclaimed timber beams are a valuable resource in
the deconstruction and reclaimed material industry.
They are also very aesthetically pleasing elements
when left exposed to the interior. Thus, the team
wished to investigate the reuse of 4820 Dubois’s
foundation beams in the design. As a result, one
structural method that PMR considered using in
the design was post and beam. It is a basic, proven
structural system that has been used for hundreds
of years. To test this system based on the material
available in 4820 Dubois, two tests would be
designed. Beams borrowed from ASWD that are
similar to the foundation beams would be examined
structurally. However, 4820 Dubois does not contain
true “posts” so instead the team would build and
test built up columns made from multiple 2x4’s.
PMR proposed to complete four material tests that
would assist in designing a structure from 4820
Dubois’s material. Whichever systems were tested,
would appear in the building’s design. Therefore,
material testing and design depended heavily on
each other. As a result, many iterations of tests were
conceived by the team. Each iteration involved a
different structural strategy that would shape the
design’s construction. These four main iterations
and the tests included in them are described on
the following page. They are Individual Properties,
Post and Beam, Spans with Short Members, and
Enclosure.
The first iteration is individual structural properties
of the 2x4s and 2x6s. The three tests included here
were 1) compressive, 2) tensile, and 3) bending
properties of individual members. Designing a
structure from this test resulted in a a typical stick
frame building. The second iteration is a Post and
Beam structural system. Two tests cam from this
iteration; 4) testing a timber beam, and 5) a built up
column from multiple 2x4s. Utilizing this test would
result in a heavy timber framed building. The third
iteration created a structural system from short
members. Two tests resulted from this iteration; 6)
constructing a truss and a 7) lamella. Two types of
buildings could be framed from these tests, a typical
triangular shaped frame, or a long tubular arch that
resembles the shape of a greenhouse. Lastly, the
fourth iteration was enclosure. While not explicitly
a structural system, every building described above
would need enclosure of some type. Also, enclosure
such as exterior sheathing is often structural in
nature. This would test multiple enclosures including
8) typical wood sheathing and 9) splicing together
old windows that would laterally brace the system.
While four of the nine brainstormed tests were
ultimately chosen, PMR believes it is important to
still describe each idea to provide information on the
replicability of this concept.
Ultimately the tests chosen were all three of the
individual properties tests and the truss test. The
team felt it was important to test all the basic
properties of the material and then assemble a
system (truss) using that material. This gave PMR
a well rounded result as to the strength of the old
material. Descriptions and results of the tests are on
the following pages.
096

material test one: compression
materials needed:
compression: Example Calculation:
testing Pictures:
process:
LTU’s Structural Testing Center contains a testing
machine that can compress or pull material using
different attachments. For this test the compressive
attachment was used. Each specimen was placed
in between the plates of the machine. It was critical
to ensure the specimen was centered between the
plates so that an even load could be applied. Once
centered, the machine applied a pressure at a rate
of .25 inches per minute. A close eye was kept on
the load amount. Each test took about 2 minutes.
Specimens were loaded until they sustained their
maximum load except for the one pictured on the
previous page which was completely crushed.
The materials used for the compression test
involved three reclaimed specimens and three new
lumber specimens. Each specimen was cut to be
six inches long. They are cut short at six inches
to prevent the specimen from buckling before
failing in true compression. Buckling is a sudden
sideways failure of a member due to excessive
compressive forces. A taller member will buckle
before failing in compression unless it is laterally
braced. To get the best results, shorter members
were used in the compression test. The new lumber
is structurally graded as No. 2 Spruce Pine Fir (SPF)
and is common lumber found at any local hardware
store. The reclaimed lumber species and grade
is unknown but is suspected to be pine based on
the team’s research. Each tested specimen was
cut from a separate, longer 2x4 to ensure diversity
within the specimens. One surprising quality of the
material is the freshness of the reclaimed wood
when cut. Unlike the outside of the wood, there is
little difference the end grain color between the new
wood and the old wood.
Testing compressive properties of new and
reclaimed 2x4s is Pioneer Material Renewals first
test. The team must verify that the reclaimed wood’s
compressive properties have not deteriorated
over time. Inherently, wood is strongest in
compression so it was hypothesized that the
highest load of all the tests would be experienced
here. The compressive property is important
because compression is a major force that 2x4s are
subjected to while in a load bearing stud wall.
Figure 1: Compression Test Specimens
Figure 2: Compression Test Setup
098

Results:
The results showed that the reclaimed lumber
was stronger in axial compression than the new
lumber. This conﬁrms PMRs original hypothesis.
The compression test was the most conclusive
of all the tests as the diﬀerence in strength was
highest. On average, the reclaimed lumber
held was 2,621 more psi than the new lumber.
However, it is not enough to just compare the
reclaimed values to the new values, it must also
be compared to code values since code governs
building construction requirements. Every species
of lumber has it’s own structural properties per type
of force. Allowable axial compression of Spruce
Pine Fir was researched and found to be 1400
psi for a select structural (SS) grade (highest). A
good rule of thumb for code values is that they
are reduced approximately 3x from actual values
for safety factors. Simple calculations show that in
compression both types of lumber exceed code
even without safety factors. The photos on the
previous page show the stress cracks created in the
lumber by the compressive force. While the cracks
are subtle, these members are completely failed.
The image on the top shows a member that was
completely crushed for demonstration reasons.
Specimen: one
New Lumber: 5238 psi New Lumber: 5486 psi New Lumber: 4895 psi
Reclaimed Lumber: 8133 psi Reclaimed Lumber: 7613 psi Reclaimed Lumber: 7733 psi
Specimen: two Specimen: three
Compression failure beyond max yield point
Compression failure in new lumber specimen
Compression failure in reclaimed lumber specimen
3
4
5
3
4 5
100

materials needed:
Tension: Example Calculation:
testing Pictures:
process:
LTU’s Structural Testing Center contains a testing
machine that can compress or pull material using
diﬀerent attachments. For this test the tension
attachment was used. Each specimen was placed in
the jaws of the machine. Once placed, the pressure
of the jaws had to be adjusted to ensure the
specimen wasn’t crushed prior to testing. A close
eye was kept on the load amount and each test
took about 2 minutes. Specimens were loaded until
they either failed in tension, or were split by the
pressure from the jaws.
The materials used for the tension test involved
three reclaimed specimens and three new lumber
specimens. Each specimen was cut to be twelve
inches long. This length allowed for the jaws of the
machine to grip the member on both sides. The
new lumber is structurally graded as No. 2 Spruce
Pine Fir (SPF) and is common lumber found at
any local hardware store. The reclaimed lumber
species and grade is unknown but is suspected
to be pine. Each tested specimen was cut from a
separate, longer 2x4 to ensure diversity within the
specimens. It is much harder to pull something
apart than to crush it so the original testing strategy
was to place bolts through the specimen and pull
on steel plates attached to the bolts. However, this
caused the bolts to tear out before tension failure.
To rectify this problem the team had to modify the
height and width of the specimens. First, the jaws
of the machine can only accept a piece that is 1.5
inches wide. Therefore, the reclaimed 2x4s had to
be planed down to that size. Then, there wasn’t
enough force in the machine to pull the full section
apart so the cross section size had to be reduced
by cutting incisions at the center point to induce
tension failure as can be seen in the photos.
Testing tensile properties of new and reclaimed
2x4s is Pioneer Material Renewals second test.
Like compression, the team must verify that
the reclaimed wood’s tensile properties have
not deteriorated over time. Inherently, wood is
weakest in tension so it was hypothesized that
this is the property that has degraded the most
over time and would be most comparable to new
wood.. The tensile property is important because,
like compression, is a major force that 2x4s are
subjected to while in a load bearing stud wall and in
truss assemblies.
Figure 1: Splitting of the reclaimed wood due to
jaw pressure
Figure 2: Tension Test Specimens
material test two: tension
102

Results:
The results showed that, on average, the reclaimed
lumber was slightly weaker in axial tension than the
new lumber. This does not conﬁrm PMRs original
hypothesis that the reclaimed lumber is stronger
than the new. However, a test error occured that
leads to believe the reclaimed lumber did not
reach its maximum tension strength. The new
lumber reached textbook tension failure as can
be seen on the top picture on the previous page.
Before the reclaimed lumber could reach this
point, the pressure from the jaws of the machine
split the specimen each time, halting the test and
anﬀecting the results. The split can be seen in the
picture on the previous page. It is theorized that
if the specimen did not split it would have met
or exceeded the new lumber tensile strength.
This also may indicate that due to the reclaimed
wood’s dryness from so many years, compresssion
perpendicular to the grain may be a controlling
structural factor rather than compression parallel
to grain, tension, or bending. Regardless though,
when compared to allowable code values for SPF,
both new and reclaimed lumber held to the code
allowable 700 psi tension strength for SPF. All
members also exceeded that value multiplied by 3
as is the rule of thumb safety factor for code.
Type Name Width (in) Height (in) Area (in^2)
Red. Area
(in^2)
Force (lbs)
Stress
(psi)
Avg Stress
(psi)
Specimen 1 1.5 3.5 5.25 1.125 6,000 5333
Specimen 2 1.5 3.5 5.25 1.125 3,500 3111
Specimen 3 1.5 3.5 5.25 1.125 5,500 4889
Specimen 1 2 3.75 7.50 1.125 4,400 3911
Specimen 2 1.9375 3.8125 7.39 1.125 5,400 4800
Specimen 3 1.9375 3.8125 7.39 1.125 5,100 4533
2x4 Tension Test Lumber Lumber vs. Old Growth Reclaimed Lumber
New
Lumber
4444
Reclaimed
Lumber
4415
Specimen: one
textbook tension failure in new lumber specimen
tension failure in new lumber specimen
tension failure in recliamed lumber specimen
3
4
5
3
4 5
104

material test three: bending
materials needed:
bending: Example Calculation:
process:
LTU’s Structural Testing Center contains several
actuators for testing beams, bridges and other
material. For this test the smallest actuator was
used. Each specimen was placed on steel supports
so that it spanned 5’-4”. In addition, the members
were laterally supported by steel and rested on
concrete cylinders as can be seen in the photgraphs
in this section. Once placed, the actuator put
pressure at the center of the span. Also hooked
to the 2x4 was a string pod with a distance
measurement attached to it. This pod measured
the amount of deflection in the 2x4 throughout the
test. Unlike compression and tension, The 2x4 was
loaded until it could not support any more load.
This allowed for very accurate data points to be
recorded as can be seen in the results section.
The materials used for the bending test involved
three reclaimed specimens and three new lumber
specimens. Each specimen was cut to be six feet
long. This length allowed for a reasonable span
to be tested. The actual span between supports
was 5’-4”. Normally 2x4s do not span horizontally
as how PMR tested them, but a normal horizontal
spanning member such as a 2x6 is expected to
behave in a similar manner while supporting more
weight. As in the previous tests, the new lumber is
structurally graded as No. 2 Spruce Pine Fir (SPF)
and is common lumber found at any local hardware
store. The reclaimed lumber species and grade is
unknown but is suspected to be pine.
Testing bending properties of new and reclaimed
2x4s was Pioneer Material Renewals third test. Like
compression and tension, the team must verify
that the reclaimed wood’s tensile properties have
not deteriorated over time. There were a couple
different elements to the bending test. First, overall
strength was tested as done before. Secondly,
deflection in the member was also tested and
measured. It was hypothesized that the reclaimed
lumber would again be stronger but that it would
deflect less than the new lumber because of it’s
dryness. Bending properties are important values
if using a conventional rafter framing system for a
roof, as well as truss assemblies.
106

0
2000
4000
6000
8000
10000
49.4
99.1
148.8
198.5
248.2
297.9
347.6
397.3
447
496.7
546.4
596.1
645.8
695.5
745.2
794.9
844.6
894.3
944
993.7
1043.4
1093.1
1142.8
1192.5
1242.2
1291.9
PSI
SECONDS
Reclaimed Lumber Stress (PSI) New Lumber Stress (PSI)
Results:
Reclaimed vs. new bending stress over time:
The results showed that, on average, the reclaimed
lumber was stronger in bending stress than the
new lumber. The team tested the new lumber ﬁrst
and knew that the reclaimed wood would need to
sustain a larger load to equal the stress sustained
by the new lumber because it naturally has a larger
cross section, therefore it should carry more weight.
However, PMR did not expect when the results
were calculated that on average the reclaimed
lumber would be over 1,400 psi stronger than the
new lumber. Bending stress calculations heavily
depend on the size of the member. The slightest
change in size can quickly impact the resulting
stress. This was evident through the reclaimed
lumber calculations. For example, if reclaimed
lumber specimen 2 was truly 2”x4”, only .125”
wider, and .25” taller, the bending stress would be
reduced to 8,778 psi rather than 10,653 psi. Since
the wood was hand cut so many years ago, very
few of the members are actually the same exact
size and only roughly 2”x4”. This unique material
quality is something to take into consideration
when designing with the material both aesthetically
and structurally. Regardless, all member exceeded
code values again as seen in the chart.
Type Name Width (in) Height (in) Area (in^2)
Section
Modulus
"Sx" (in^3)
Span (in)
Max
Force
(lbs)
Max
Moment
(lb in)
Stress
(psi)
Avg Stress
(psi)
Specimen 1 1.5 3.5 5.25 3.063 64 1,661 26,576 8678
Specimen 2 1.5 3.5 5.25 3.063 64 1,067 17,072 5575
Specimen 3 1.5 3.5 5.25 3.063 64 974 15,576 5086
Specimen 1 2.0625 3.875 7.99 5.162 64 1,254 20,064 3887
Specimen 2 1.875 3.75 7.03 4.395 64 2,926 46,816 10653
Specimen 3 1.75 3.625 6.34 3.833 64 2,178 34,848 9092
New
Lumber
6446
Reclaimed
Lumber
7878
2x4 Bending Test Reclaimed Lumber vs. Old Growth Reclaimed Lumber
Specimen: one
fully yielded reclaimed lumber specimen3
3
The graph above shows the stress curves of New
Lumber Specimen 1 and Reclaimed Material
Specimen 2. The graph shows the behavior of the
internal stresses over time. The reclaimed lumber
took much longer to fully yield than the new lumber
and it was more resilient as it reloaded several times
before fully failing.
108

Results:
Bending stress was not the only important value to
evaluate when completing this test. Since deflection
was also measured, it was possible to calculate
the elastic modulus (E) of the material. The elastic
modulus is the ratio of the stress to the strain of
the material. It is determined by assessing the
amount of deflection at maximum load, and the
moment of inertia of the section (which is again
determined by the cross sectional area of the
specimen). The elastic modulus determines how
much a material can elongate before it cannot go
back to its original shape and eventually yields. As
can be seen in the photos on the previous page,
the reclaimed lumber was surprisingly flexible. The
team anticipated minimal flexing due to its dryness.
This was not the case as it took longer to fully yield
the reclaimed lumber due to this flexing than it did
the new lumber (see following graphs). In fact, once
the new lumber yielded once it was completely
failed. On the other hand, the reclaimed lumber
reloaded many times before completely failing.
PMR concludes that this is a result of tighter and
more layers of grain in the old lumber, as well as its
open air, natural drying process rather than inside
a large oven (which can destroy natural glues) as
is done today. As a result the elastic modulus was
higher in the reclaimed lumber.
Type Name
Specimen 1
Specimen 2
Specimen 3
Specimen 1
Specimen 2
Specimen 3
New
Lumber
Reclaimed
Lumber
Deflectio
n " " (in)
Moment
of Inertia
"I" (in^4)
Elastic
Modulus
"E"
Average
Elastic
Modulus
"E"
1.365 5.359 1,240,454
0.940 5.359 1,156,824
1.015 5.359 977,360
0.522 10.001 1,312,694
1.256 8.240 1,543,560
0.987 6.947 1,734,863
1,124,879
1,530,372
Specimen: one
New Lumber: 1,240,454 psi New Lumber: 1,156,824 psi New Lumber: 977,360 psi
Reclaimed Lumber: 1,312,694psi Reclaimed Lumber: 1,543,560 psi Reclaimed Lumber: 1,734,863 psi
reclaimed lumber specimen mid test3
3
The graph above shows the elastic modulus curves
of New Lumber Specimen 1 and Reclaimed Material
Specimen 2. The graph shows the behavior of the
elastic modulus over time. The reclaimed lumber
was much more flexible than the new lumber and
therefore had a higher elastic modulus at max load.
PMR’s theory for this is because the old lumber
had many more, stronger layers of grain to break
through.
0
500000
1000000
1500000
2000000
2500000
33.9
68
102.1
136.2
170.3
204.4
238.5
272.6
306.7
340.8
374.9
409
443.1
477.2
511.3
545.4
579.5
613.6
647.7
681.8
715.9
750
784.1
818.2
852.3
886.4
920.5
954.6
988.7
1022.8
1056.9
1091
1125.1
1159.2
1193.3
1227.4
1261.5
ELASTICMODULUS
SECONDS
Reclaimed Lumber Elastic Modulus New Lumber Elastic Modulus
Reclaimed vs. new elastic modulus over time:
Reclaimed vs. new deflection + modulus of elasticity:
110

material test four: truss
materials needed:
Truss:
process:
PMR’s final test took information from the previous,
individually tested members and assembled them
into a system. A truss experiences compression,
tension, and some bending forces when under
load. It also is a common structural element used
in many buildings, and when left exposed in a
design it becomes an aesthetic element as well. This
made the truss an ideal final test for PMR. Ultimate
strength and deflection were the main qualities
tested for. An equivalent, new lumber truss was not
tested since data had already been collected on
the new lumber from the individual tests. The goal
for this test was not to compare new vs. old, but to
verify that the reclaimed wood truss could sustain a
normal, code specified, roof design load (psf) at a 2
ft o.c. spacing.
As experienced by the PMR team during
deconstruction, reclaimed wood varies in size
depending on what happens during the removal
process. The question arises then, what is the best
use for these inconsistent lengths of wood? The
nature of a truss’s construction is one solution to this
question. PMR also went extra lengths to minimize
waste when designing the truss as is the ultimate
goal of the project. The team took 12 randomly
selected reclaimed 2x4s and designed the truss with
their exact lengths. Some length was compromised
because 2 inches off of each end needed to be
removed due to nail damage. In the end, the design
was an asymmetrical truss that used 10 of the 12
2x4s. The design was determined based on a 16-
18 foot span and what configuration of this specific
group of 2x4’s would allow that span. This span
was chosen because it is a reasonable width for a
single span building. To hold the truss together, 3/4”
plywood gusset plates were used along with 10d
nail fasteners and construction adhesive.
Construction of the truss was done over two days
and the testing procedure was very similar to the
procedure used for the bending test. A single point
load at the peak was applied by an actuator and
a string pod was placed on the bottom cord to
measure deflection. A lateral bracing system also
had to be constructed to ensure the truss would
not shift sideways while under load. It was predicted
that the truss would sustain the required design
load and that failure was more likely to occur in the
gusset plate connections than the wood itself.
scale model of truss design using available lengths1
Trimming and cutting ends to the right angles for connection2
Mid-Construction of full scale truss3 112

( p )
7.430 s Jul 25 2013 MiTek Industries, Inc. Thu Apr 23 12:17:51 2015 Page 1Maverick Building Systems, Commerce, MI. 48390, KJB
ID:qhW3XScKz9RBSWw8SZKBs9zNs2c-WlVGKOQ_Xq9uoOa36SOvMgqRCIZzds?kmPEylezNrtE
Scale = 1:33.2
T1
T2
T3
B1
W1
W2 W3
W4
B21
2
3
4
5
6
7
10 9 8
11
12 13
4x6
4x6
3x6 3x43x4
1.5x4
3x4 3x6
7-1-10
7-1-10
10-1-4
2-11-10
17-2-8
7-1-4
17-6-0
0-3-8
-1-4-0
1-4-0
4-8-6
4-8-6
8-9-0
4-0-10
13-1-0
4-4-0
17-6-0
4-5-0
18-10-0
1-4-00-4-1
2-10-13
3-11-13
0-4-1
5.00 12
3.00 12
7.00 12
Plate Offsets (X,Y): [4:0-3-0,0-1-15]
LOADING (psf)
TCLL
(Ground Snow=30.0)
TCDL
BCLL
BCDL
18.9
10.0
0.0
10.0
SPACING
Plates Increase
Lumber Increase
Rep Stress Incr
Code
2-0-0
1.15
1.15
YES
IRC2009/TPI2007
CSI
TC
BC
WB
(Matrix)
0.14
0.26
0.04
DEFL
Vert(LL)
Vert(TL)
Horz(TL)
in
-0.06
-0.16
0.03
(loc)
6-8
6-8
6
l/defl
>999
>999
n/a
L/d
240
180
n/a
PLATES
MT20
Weight: 61 lb FT = 20%
GRIP
197/144
LUMBER
TOP CHORD 2x4 SPF 2100F 1.8E
BOT CHORD 2x4 SPF 2100F 1.8E
WEBS 2x4 SPF 2100F 1.8E
BRACING
TOP CHORD Structural wood sheathing directly applied or 6-0-0 oc purlins.
BOT CHORD Rigid ceiling directly applied or 10-0-0 oc bracing.
MiTek recommends that Stabilizers and required cross bracing
be installed during truss erection, in accordance with Stabilizer
Installation guide.
REACTIONS (lb/size) 2=754/0-3-8 (min. 0-1-8), 6=756/0-3-8 (min. 0-1-8)
Max Horz 2=-59(LC 9)
Max Uplift2=-119(LC 8), 6=-121(LC 9) ( p )
7.430 s Jul 25 2013 MiTek Industries, Inc. Thu Apr 23 12:17:51 2015 Page 1Maverick Building Systems, Commerce, MI. 48390, KJB
ID:qhW3XScKz9RBSWw8SZKBs9zNs2c-WlVGKOQ_Xq9uoOa36SOvMgqRCIZzds?kmPEylezNrtE
Scale = 1:33.2
T1
T2
T3
B1
W1
W2 W3
W4
B21
2
3
4
5
6
7
10 9 8
11
12 13
4x6
4x6
3x6 3x43x4
1.5x4
3x4 3x6
7-1-10
7-1-10
10-1-4
2-11-10
17-2-8
7-1-4
17-6-0
0-3-8
-1-4-0
1-4-0
4-8-6
4-8-6
8-9-0
4-0-10
13-1-0
4-4-0
17-6-0
4-5-0
18-10-0
1-4-0
0-4-1
2-10-13
3-11-13
0-4-1
5.00 12
3.00 12
7.00 12
Bottom chord splice
3
1'-0"
1'-6"
1'-6"
1'-0"
1'-6"2'-0"
1'-0"
1'-0"
12"x12" Gusset
12"x18" Gusset
12"x18" Gusset
18" Wide Gusset
18" Wide Gusset
12"x24" Gusset
12"x24" Gusset
This collection of images and diagrams display the
construction and setup of the truss test. To design
the truss connections, PMR enlisted the help of a
local truss manufacturer; Maverick Building Systems.
Since PMR lacked the machinery to mechanically
press typical metal gusset plate connections,
Maverick recommended plywood gusset plates be
used. These plywood plates are larger than metal
plates but are equivalent in strength. Maverick
provided a truss design analysis using both metal
plates and plywood plates. The cut sheets for these
trusses and load data can be seen on the previous
page. Diﬀerences in gusset plate sizes between
metal and plywood can be seen.
truss lab setup with lateral bracing.1
truss under load with final cross bracing setup2 gusset plate at peak of truss3
Gusset Plate at bottom of truss4
114

0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
0
500
1,000
1,500
2,000
2,500
3,000
3,500
4,000
4,500
5,000
5,500
0.0
0.4
0.8
1.2
1.7
2.1
2.5
2.9
3.3
3.7
4.1
4.5
5.0
5.4
5.8
6.2
6.6
7.0
7.4
7.9
8.3
8.7
9.1
9.5
9.9
10.3
10.7
11.2
11.6
12.0
12.4
12.8
13.2
13.6
14.1
14.5
14.9
15.3
15.7
16.1
16.5
16.9
17.4
Deflection(IN)
Load(LBS)
Time (Minutes)
Truss Load & Deflection vs. Time
The maximum load sustained by the truss was
5,100 pounds. At a span of 17 feet and 2’ o.c.
spacing, that is equivalent to 150 psf, much higher
than the design load of 38.9 psf (1,322 lb point
load) estimated by Maverick. This confirms that an
asymmetrical, reclaimed wood truss can and will
sustain code rated loading and safely support a
building. At maximum load, deflection of the truss
measured approximately 1.35 inches but at design
load (1,322 lbs) it had only deflected .25 inches. This
data can be seen in the chart and truss diagram on
the left.
The truss was actually tested to failure twice. This
is because failure did not occur in the wood, but
instead in a gusset plate connection as predicted.
This connection was the plate that spliced the
bottom cord together at mid span. In design, the
team knew this would be a critical point. After the
first test, that plate was removed and replaced
using a different nailing and connection strategy.
Metal bracing was even added. The theory was that
if different, larger nails were used, and they were
angled towards the splice as show, the connection
may have a better chance of sustaining more load.
Ultimately though it did not as the composite
strength in the nails could not sustain more than
5,100 lbs of load. Images of the first failure can be
seen above and the second failure is below.
failed bottom cord splice separation3 damage to wood from nail tearout4
nail tearout in bottom cord splice connection2nail deformity in first gusset plate after removal1
repaired bottom cord splice connection ready for second test3
116

design PROCESS
The Design Phase of this project represents the
project’s holistic approach to sustainable design
and construction. It was the driving force behind
the project’s proposal as the PMR team took aim
at approaching true net zero energy design. Net
zero energy does not only pertain to the amount
of energy the building uses, but also the amount of
embodied energy in its materials. In today’s mass
produced global market, Pioneer Material Renewal
wanted to show that at a small scale, buildings can
be built from local, recycled materials and be just as,
if not more, beautiful, cost effective, and efficient as
construction using new materials. Hundreds of years
ago this was a standard practice, but development
of manufacturing and automation over the last
century has resulted in less sustainable building
practices and exponentially increased amounts of
waste around the world.
Detroit is the perfect market for this model. While
“skimming” the house for flooring, cabinets, and
other non structural items prior to demolition has
become a common practice in Detroit due to the
cost of full deconstruction, the structural material
(if antique lumber) is just as, if not more valuable.
There are thousands of blighted structures built with
valuable, antique (prior to 1915) 2x4’s, 2x6’s, beams,
and other structural material being demolished and
sent to landfills. Pioneer Material Renewal aimed
to prove that not all these structures need to go to
the landfill by showing the value of these members.
They are assets that can be used to help rebuild the
city, provide jobs, and create a sustainable economy
in Detroit. While the original intent to represent this
model was to design a house, the team decided to
pursue a more basic approach for the first iteration
and focus on structure and enclosure only. The
following pages describe the concept, research, and
process behind this design.
Design Process
Step 1: Identifying and Selecting a Typology
Step 2: Schematic Design Process
Step 3: Design Documents
Section Goals
• Design a new structure from the amount of
material reclaimed from 4820 Dubois.
• Complete one comprehensive design, but also
present multiple design typologies based on
same amount of material. 120

dwell
A reclaimed dwelling can utilize several materials
in various ways. Dwelling is defined as a house,
apartment, or other place of residence. A dwelling
may require additional expenses such as windows,
insulation, waterproofing, plumbing, electrical and
mechanical systems. A dwelling may also be paired
with another system such as a trailer for versatility
and mobility. Dwellings may not only be in the form
of a house or an apartment, but non-conventional
methods of housing may be a result of reclaimed
materials.
shed
A shed is defined as a simple roofed structure,
typically made of wood or metal, used as a storage
space, a shelter for animals, or a workshop.
A reclaimed shed can offer a space that can
shelter or store something that does not require
waterproofing, electricity, or mechanical systems.
The idea of a shed could also host an array of
small spaces such as a studio space, workshop, or
portable storage.
farmsted
Farmstead is defined as a food harvesting landscape
and the buildings needed to support the agricultural
needed. This could include a greenhouse, a
hoophouse, a shed or a structure housing utilities
used for the farm. In addition, due to the location’s
climate, a structure to support growing in winter
months could be utilized.
furnish
A furnishing is defined as furniture, fittings, and
other decorative accessories, such as curtains and
carpets, for a house or room. Furnishings could vary
from furniture to wall coverings to small objects.
This may be a clever way to use smaller pieces or
reclaimed materials with low attainability. Using
reclaimed material for furniture may require more or
different preparation work for the desired finish.
shelter
Shelter is defined as a place giving temporary
protection focused on the public realm. A shelter
may be similar to a shed requiring less systems. A
shelter could provide protection for the public in the
form of a bus stop, a bike storage center, a pavilion,
or a band shell.
PossibleReclaimedMaterialDesignTypologies
122

Ford c3 Grant Pioneer Material Renewal Project

Ford c3 Grant Pioneer Material Renewal Project

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to Ford c3 Grant Pioneer Material Renewal Project

Similar to Ford c3 Grant Pioneer Material Renewal Project (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Ford c3 Grant Pioneer Material Renewal Project