Comment on England’s concrete crisis could extend to hospitals and courts, experts say

collegefurtrader@discuss.tchncs.de ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

• tal@kbin.social ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

  advertised as with a 30 year life span,

  It's not clear to me from the article whether it was expected to only last 30 years at the time, or whether it was subsequently revised down in some way.

  I mean, my guess is that many building materials may only guarantee some number of years, but it may be the norm for them to last longer. I assume that businesses selling stone do not rate, say, masonry for hundreds of years, though it clearly can last rust long.

  The article has:

  Raac, a lightweight building material, was commonly used in panel-form in public building construction from the 1950s to mid-1990s. It is estimated to have a lifespan of 30 years, and many structures have now passed that age.

  source

  • thehatfox@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    Some of the buildings constructed using RAAC were only intended to be temporary structures, regardless of the knowledge of the material’s true lifespan.

    The Queen Elizabeth Hospital in Kings Lynn for example, was opened in 1980 and was intended to last only 25 years. But it is still being used today, 43 years later. It is finally being replaced, but only after it’s RAAC roof started to fail and had to be held up by hundreds of temporary supports.

    Buildings like this would have been replaced long ago if consecutive governments had not failed to properly invest in our public infrastructure.

    source
  • GreatAlbatross@feddit.uk ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    And timber framed houses are only rated for 30 years. The Americans have been using them for decades, while in the uk we’ve only started to accept them recently.

    source

    • AnUnusualRelic@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

      My parisian building is timber framed (as many are in the city) and was built around 1860. We replaced the damaged wood this year, and it should be good for another 150 or 200 years.

      It all depends how you build.

      source

      • ToucheGoodSir@lemy.lol ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

        Damn socialist Frenchies with their… checks notebook timber framed buildings

        source
    • Madison420@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

      You’re aware Europe has the oldest timber framed buildings and the us took their building lead from old Europe.

      You act like Europe decided stone was the better solution when that’s just not true, Europe by in large deforested itself into leaving stone as the only affordable solution left and only then switched off timber framed homes.

      source

      • tal@kbin.social ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

        Europe by in large deforested itself into leaving stone as the only affordable solution left and only then switched off timber framed homes.

        The UK does import, though I imagine that greater distance adds cost.

        https://www.eastcoastfencing.com/news/where-does-most-timber-in-the-uk-come-from

        source

        • -> View More Comments
    • roboticide@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

      Source for 30 year rating? I’m not aware of such in either Europe or North America. I found a few sites reporting that number but couldn’t find an actual authority giving that rating.

      Also, there’s a difference between a wood (or stick) frame and a timber frame, at least if you’re including North America in context. In our terminology, a timber frame has large timber beams and columns supporting the load, and dividing walls are put in between. A stick frame house uses smaller lumber studs, and most of the internal and external walls are supporting the floors or roof above.

      American houses are stick frame, and with proper maintenance a stick frame house can last easily over 100 years. Wood doesn’t rot if treated and maintained properly. Settling of the foundation is a bigger problem, and simply subject to ground conditions which would impact even a steel frame house.

      Timber frame is becoming more popular again for large buildings though, since ~12"/30cm timber columns have pretty good fire ratings, can support 3-4 stories, and are good carbon sinks for more environmentally friendly construction versus concrete or steel. My city is putting up some 3 story timber apartment buildings that look pretty awesome.

      Long story short, wood is a great, renewable construction material if you’re smart about how you build with it and how you treat it.

      source

      • GreatAlbatross@feddit.uk ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

        30-45 years is what the frame manufacturers would give in guarantees, or expected life. Which is possibly why some mortgage providers class timber frame as non-standard construction.

        In terms of actual age, the numbers I found suggest that properly maintained softwood frames can last in excess of 80 years.

        source
  • collegefurtrader@discuss.tchncs.de ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    Oh, bummer.

    source

    • tal@kbin.social ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

      I do kind of wonder whether it would have been cheaper to, back then, go through and seal all of this stuff against moisture, if that is possible.

      If they're already starting to collapse and inspections are finding a lot of instances of degraded concrete, though, I assume that it's too late for that.

      source
• lemonflavoured@kbin.social ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

  More like getting on for 60 years in some cases.

  source