SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the people-in-wood-skyscrapers-shouldn't-throw-woodpeckers dept.
Arthur T Knackerbracket has processed the following story:
A report by Knowable Magazine provides a rather insightful glimpse into the rise of mass timber and its benefits. The technique basically uses massive engineered wood elements instead of concrete and steel to build higher than ever before. As of 2024, mass timber buildings have climbed to almost unbelievable heights, with the 25-story Ascent tower in Milwaukee leading the pack.
The building is far from the only one in the category. The report states that there were 84 completed or under-construction mass timber buildings of eight stories or higher worldwide by 2022, with another 55 proposed. Europe dominates with 70% of these, but North America is catching up with around 20%.
As for what's driving this wooden renaissance, there are multiple reasons. For starters, mass timber could be an answer for reducing concrete and steel's massive carbon footprint, which alone makes up a whopping 15% of global emissions.
[...] But what about issues like raw strength and fire resistance, which have historically held wooden buildings back? Well, mass timber uses elements like cross-laminated timber (CLT) panels that can match steel's strength pound-for-pound, thanks to layering and high-pressure gluing techniques.
Modern mass timber also passes rigorous fire testing. In the event of a fire, a protective char layer forms on the wood's surface, insulating the interior from flames long enough for evacuation and firefighter response.
Likely taking these perks into account, a 2021 update to the International Building Code gave mass timber a huge vote of confidence, allowing such constructions up to 18 stories in many places.
Of course, moisture poses risks that need careful management to prevent fungus and pests. But proponents are confident mass timber can be a sustainable solution if done right.
(Score: 3, Informative) by VLM on Wednesday October 23, @04:40PM (2 children)
In defense of that opinion, back when they were about half that age the guys on "This Old House" in the 70s were already ripping on Victorians for absolutely nothing about them being square or level.
We have a lot of data from fiberglass boats which have been in commercial mass production since the 1950s in pretty brutal environments compared to inside a building. Supposedly based on accelerated aging testing, post-70s or post-80s epoxy resin fiberglass boats can exceed a hundred years of life out on the ocean. Pre-70s epoxy resin fiberglass may not survive a century in the ocean; maybe only decades. I would think something that survives a century in the ocean could survive a thousand years wrapped up inside a building. One expensive problem is if they screwed up the chemistry you might not find out for fifty years; then what?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_oldest_extant_buildings [wikipedia.org]
I will concede that the list above is almost entirely made of stone. There are wooden temples in Asia in continuous use for 1500+ years now and 1000+ years elsewhere. There's at least one wood cathedral in Puerto Rico that's been in continuous use for 500+ years. In the USA the wood beams in the Palace of the Governors in Santa Fe have been standing since 1610. I'm sure in Europe a 414 year old building is considered new construction but its the oldest in the USA. Of course 99.9999% of 1500 year old buildings having collapsed is an accurate but pessimistic way to look at it.
(Score: 3, Informative) by Unixnut on Wednesday October 23, @06:17PM
And in defence of the Victorian houses, they may well have been square and level when they were built. The reason for that is that while a house may well have originally been built square and level, the ground underneath them shifts causing the house to move out of square with time, and we are not even talking centuries for this to happen.
Case in point a family member recently bought a relatively new brick house (built 1997) and she was complaining to the builders doing the renovation about the walls and ceiling not being square, how things were bent here or there etc... They flat out told her that with time the foundations shift and even if the building was square when built, after a decade or two it won't be anymore. In fact this is such a known thing that designers actually take this into account (so you don't end up with massive cracks and shears through your walls) and materials are chosen that can flex somewhat for the same reason.
Even ignoring getting the chemistry right, that epoxy is used with fibreglass, not wood. Wood is a different material which is more likely to degrade with time compared to glass (which is inorganic and relatively stable over time). So I don't think we can say that because the epoxy bonded well with glass in harsh environments that the same would apply with wood.
As for getting the building/chemistry right, that is an issue even now. One of the reasons I would not want a new-build house is because a lot of them develop serious faults due to poor quality workmanship after 10 years and within 30 years of being built, while the guarantees only last a max 10 years (sometimes even less).
I guess another reason for preferring old Victorian buildings. If it has been standing solid for 120+ years, chances are it will continue to do so for the next 100 years, because had there been a fault in the workmanship it would have already become clear by now.
However have all those buildings still got the original wood structure? Or has the wood been replaced over time? If over the 1500+ years of existence all the constituent wooden parts of the temple have replaced then we can't say the building as a whole is the same one that was there 1500 years ago. Something we can say for most of the stone buildings on the link you gave.
(Score: 1) by One Time Use on Wednesday October 23, @11:50PM
I lived in a house that was built in the late 1700's. In the basement, you could see the wooden beams with pinned mortise and tenon joints. The cherry newel post for the main staircase was fastened to a under floor beam with wedged through tenons. It was all very solid, but not a square corner, level floor/ceiling, plumb wall, or flat surface anywhere. Many of the windows still had original glass panes with little bubbles and a slightly wavy surface.