8 ms·
I have a lot of skepticism about anything I read from constructionphysics.substack.com. I'm a mechanical engineer, not a civil engineer, so take my opinion with
by elil17 4y ago
I have a lot of skepticism about anything I read from constructionphysics.substack.com. I'm a mechanical engineer, not a civil engineer, so take my opinion with a grain of salt, but it reads like it's written by someone who does not have a solid understanding of engineering fundamentals. For example, they suggested in their "How to design a house to last for 1,000 years" series that you'd want to build such a house out of stainless steel because it "has extremely high corrosion resistance." Even my introductory courses in materials science it is very clear that stainless steel might last for 1,000 years, but it would depend entirely on the environmental conditions and the type of stainless used.
- sbierwagen 4y agoI mean, it would be exposed to the normal conditions any residential construction is exposed to. How often is your house dunked into seawater? 800 years from now something terrible could happen that turns all the rain into sulfuric acid but then all residential buildings everywhere are screwed.
- nickff 4y agoNot a civil engineer, but I think different areas have very different considerations, and I'm not sure there is a 'normal' residential construction. A beach-side house in Florida probably has very different issues from a house built somewhere like Las Vegas. Salt, humidity, wind, earthquakes, soil, and other considerations vary.
- MisterTea 4y ago> How often is your house dunked into seawater? For people hit by hurricane Sandy the answer is at least once.
- elil17 4y agoOver that long a time period it could be damaged just by rain - it's hard to say because corrosion tests aren't done with respect to a 1000 year operating life in mild conditions. I'm sure an expert could figure that out, but it would require looking at the corrosion rate of the specific steel, the exposure to any kind of forces that could damage the oxide layer (e.g. scratches), and the thickness of the member.
- yellowapple 4y ago> How often is your house dunked into seawater? Hopefully the house ain't in Florida. Or California's Central Valley.
- heavyset_go 4y agoLiving near the ocean means that salt air corrosion will become a problem eventually. It eats away car bodies over time, for example.
- nonethewiser 4y ago> because it "has extremely high corrosion resistance." Isn't this true though? Especially relative to other materials that can corrode? It seems like you're reacting as if he said it _cant_ corrode.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- elil17 4y agoIn general, it's true compared to other metals. Compared to other materials in general (e.g., glass) it's certainly not true. Over the scale of a thousand years, there could be a big difference between something that is corrosion resistant (stainless steel) and something that doesn't corrode at all.
- nonethewiser 4y agoBut are you suggesting a non corrosive material would outlast stainless steel? Otherwise I don’t see the point in your distinction. Obviously your example of glass wouldn’t. I guess I would have thought stone would last longer.
- wongarsu 4y agoWe have a lot of stone or concrete buildings from 2000 years ago still standing, and even more from 1000 years ago, so those would be safe bets. No surprises there. There's a glass window just shy of 1000 years old in a Cathedral in Germany, and other slightly younger ones scattered here and there, so glass definitely can make it. It just isn't very impact resistant, and it's also a fairly new material so there are fewer examples to draw from. Similarly, materials like Bronze would do just fine over 1000 years, and have done so in the past, but they tend to be appropriated for new building projects even if their original building is still standing.
- maxerickson 4y agoThe really impressive ones haven't even had any maintenance done. (Of course they have all had lots of maintenance done...)
- dieselgate 4y agoI trust any engineer who responds with an “it depends..” over someone who has an absolute answer. Stainless would probably do ok but I’d assume stone or fiberglass/FRP would be superior over time out in the elements. But not the best stuff to build a house with. Oh what about titanium? Edit: lol oh well even timber structures Can last a millenium if maintained
- avodonosov 4y agoWhy not simply use gold?
- WhatIsDukkha 4y agoGold attracts vermin.
- Nomentatus 4y agoHow poignant, that the obvious solution is the worst "solution" of all, due to human nature.
- gnfargbl 4y agoConcrete, bricks and granite can also work pretty well... as the Pantheon in Rome proves.
- Nomentatus 4y agoNot to mention the wooden beams, under the portico, which are also original. They of course, are out of the rain; so are a solution to a lesser problem, where aging is concerned.
- RhodesianHunter 4y agoWe don't make concrete like the Romans did though.
- 4y ago
- rurp 4y agoNot to mention, we know how to build structures that can last 1,000 years because it has already been done before! Using a dubious material in place of a known good one is not the best engineering approach.
- midoridensha 4y agoWho's "we"? The people who built structures 1000 years ago are all dead (I assume). Just because some humans somewhere figured out something in the past doesn't mean that humans somewhere else today know how to do it. Lots of knowledge has been lost to time.
- kadoban 4y agoWe know ways that worked a few times and failed many thousands of times more often. How many buildings of the same type didn't survive? If your goal is to use a method that has _any_ chance of success, however small, then the old ways are probably a good bet. If you want the highest chance of success you should probably at least evaluate new methods.
- JustLurking2022 4y agoYour best chance would probably be to go primitive - many different pyramids of various designs have stood for over a thousand years.
- kadoban 4y agoFor each one that is still standing, how many are dust?
- JustLurking2022 3y agoEvidence would seem to point toward not many. Even the Bent Pyramid, which may have come before Egyptians perfected the math behind building pyramids, still stands. Throw in the numerous ones found in various jungles by LIDAR and they seem to hold up quite well.
- tvb12 4y agoStraying off topic, are there any discussions going the opposite way? Is it possible to build a structure that lasts maybe 10 or 15 years, then either disassembles or decomposes without too much damage to the surrounding area? Something actually livable, and nicer than a tent.
- Arrath 4y agoMud bricks, wattle and daub, thatch, and the like? Then build out the interior with rough sawn planks. What's old is new again!
- hef19898 4y agoI reached a point where I treat anything from substack the same way I treat I links from medium; assume the content is crap and / or useless and move on. Which is a pity, I know, but I simply don't have time to find the rare gems in all the useless "content".
- webnrrd2k 4y agoI read it as meaning at least 1,000 years. Modern humans started living in caves in Europe about 100,000 years ago, and their cave-houses still exist. So, if your house is also a cave you should be able to get at least that. If they want the house to last for exactly 1,000 years then I'm not sure what to tell you. Maybe something based on the milleneum clock? Or explosives and a really long fuse, Wile E Coyote style?
- elil17 4y agoI read it the same way?
- Spooky23 4y agoIt’s funny because many buildings exist for 500-3000 years in various forms, and they are all some variant of brick, compressed earth or stone.
- kadoban 4y agoMany, many similar buildings did not last though. It's quite possible that if you want a newly built structure to last that long with the highest probability, you should pick new materials.
- ElevenLathe 4y agoOr, if you need 1 intact building in 1000 years, build many many of them now and hope you get lucky with at least one of them.