4 ms·

Really? It seems like a lot of words to say "unfamiliar material bad." Surely the people advocating CLT have thought of some of these obvious downsides, and hav

by notJim 7y ago

Really? It seems like a lot of words to say "unfamiliar material bad." Surely the people advocating CLT have thought of some of these obvious downsides, and have ideas for how they're addressing them. If those are inadequate, then talk about that. Instead we get "In my professional judgment it is driven by a certain "gee whiz, isn't this cool" environmental state of mind." Excuse me if I want facts and not someone's un-sourced, un-backed-up "professional judgment".

hermitdev 7y ago
> "unfamiliar material bad." I think its more "unfamiliar material" has different properties than we're used to, and there will need to be some adjustment.
rumanator 7y ago
> Really? It seems like a lot of words to say "unfamiliar material bad." Your reading comprehension skills are a bit lacking. If anything, they're a lot of words to say "unfamiliar material behaves in an unfamiliar way" which, as you might agree, is in itself a huge problem if you are tasked with designing a structure intended to be perfectly safe by design for well over 50 years. And then there's the fact that some of those words are there to point out the fact that the material in question, and the technology that's used to put it to use, suffer from shortcomings that jeopardize the safety and longevity of a structure.
rkachowski 7y ago
The comment repeatedly states that CLT is neither new nor unfamiliar, one main issue is that CLT requires many joints with individual properties (many points of failure with manufacturing errors specific to the people that worked there) whilst concrete behaves / accepts load as a singular structure. Admittedly, this isn't an argument against CLT but instead against anything that doesn't behave as a single structure under load - but it does point out that CLT isn't a suitable replacement for all building materials everywhere. High rise buildings need the safety of reenforced concrete, with it's load handling and simplified calculations (due to lack of joints), and until something can perform in a similar manner it's not likely to be replaced.

by notJim 7y ago

hermitdev 7y ago

> "unfamiliar material bad." I think its more "unfamiliar material" has different properties than we're used to, and there will need to be some adjustment.

rumanator 7y ago

> Really? It seems like a lot of words to say "unfamiliar material bad." Your reading comprehension skills are a bit lacking. If anything, they're a lot of words to say "unfamiliar material behaves in an unfamiliar way" which, as you might agree, is in itself a huge problem if you are tasked with designing a structure intended to be perfectly safe by design for well over 50 years. And then there's the fact that some of those words are there to point out the fact that the material in question, and the technology that's used to put it to use, suffer from shortcomings that jeopardize the safety and longevity of a structure.

rkachowski 7y ago

The comment repeatedly states that CLT is neither new nor unfamiliar, one main issue is that CLT requires many joints with individual properties (many points of failure with manufacturing errors specific to the people that worked there) whilst concrete behaves / accepts load as a singular structure. Admittedly, this isn't an argument against CLT but instead against anything that doesn't behave as a single structure under load - but it does point out that CLT isn't a suitable replacement for all building materials everywhere. High rise buildings need the safety of reenforced concrete, with it's load handling and simplified calculations (due to lack of joints), and until something can perform in a similar manner it's not likely to be replaced.