Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

How to design a house to last 1000 years

constructionphysics.substack.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

251–260 of 402 posts

Re: How to design a house to last 1000 years

#251

Post by clairity »

rsync wrote: post #216
clairity wrote: post #190

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "Steel is springy. Tall steel-framed buildings and bridges routinely sway in wind, which is usually harmless to the structure but annoying to occupants." exactly, i recently mentioned my swaying-in-an-earthquake story[0], which was in a class A (steel+concrete) highrise office building. driving steel into the ground doesn't automatically mean it will rot and/or break in the first earthquake/windstorm that hits, eve…

You misunderstood my comment about steel in the ground ... I was trying to convince the OP that they don't need to worry about the corrosion since even in terrible circumstances the steel still lasts quite a while. With regard to your skyscraper experience: I'm not sure this is an apples-to-apples comparison. Skyscrapers are not made of skyscraper-height columns - they are a stack of elements that are connected every…

gotcha, my bad for misconstruing your point. joint strength relative to span strength is definitely a non-obvious issue to the average home owner-builder.

i also vastly prefer wood/mass timber for aesthetic reasons. mass timber has better burn characteristics than steel, and i'd recently read that builders are actually starting to surround steel columns with cross-laminated timber (rather than concrete) for that reason[0], while providing greater strength/flexibility and better aesthetics. that's probably what i'd want if money were no object.

[0]: mentioned in this article, but i'd read more about it elsewhere: https://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2020/1/15/2105805...

p.s. - i've also daydreamed about building warehouse style: a separate steel superstructure for the roof integrating solar panels and solar heating, with a simple stick-built house underneath.

Re: How to design a house to last 1000 years

#252

Post by rlaanemets »

rsync wrote: post #98

This is a very odd design document and it makes me think this author has thought a lot about materials and buildings but not actually built anything . The steel moment frame, to someone with shallow knowledge, sounds so strong and resilient . But in fact, a rigid steel structure is more vulnerable to seismic (and even wind) loads than wooden framing which can flex and move and dampen those loads naturally. The stainl…

I would like to know more reasoning behind choosing a frame without diagonals. I have had to repair many old garages and shacks which had wooden frame but lacked diagonals. Often we had to push them upright and brace the frame with diagonals to avoid problems in the future.

A cube-like building frame without diagonals or shear walls is unstable and does not sound so strong or resilient at all.

Re: How to design a house to last 1000 years

#254

Post by hyperbovine »

arethuza wrote: post #125
jacquesm wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, another way to spell Slate roof = work. The reason is simple: Slate, layers of fossilized leaves, has a rough surface and frost and the weather in general will work on it and split the layers apart, seeds will find enough purchase to germinate (the handy supply of water certainly helps) and lichen and moss just love to grow on slate. This whole article to me reads: "I'm planning on an overpriced construction for…

I don't think slate roofs are that bad - our house is an exceptionally exposed spot and has a slate roof and we lose maybe one or two slates a year to storms. Our wooden windows and doors are a far bigger maintenance headache than our roof.

When I got to the part about wood windows it dawned on me that the author is less clued in than he lets on. Wood windows are a maintenance nightmare. You can't open them half the year in a humid climate, or all of the year in an old house that has settled. No window is going to last 1000 years so might as well pick one that will make you hate your house less in the interim.

Re: How to design a house to last 1000 years

#255

Post by tiborsaas »

djrogers wrote: post #197
Fiahil wrote: post #128

I expected something much simpler : bricks, stones, and wood. It's not like we are running low on examples of 1000+ years buildings ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/11th_century_in_architecture ). These castles, cathedrals, farms, were built to last, so it's appropriate to use them as examples. We can, however, apply modern technics and materials when they make sense : insulation, windows, waterways... Prefer wood, wo…

> It's not like we are running low on examples of 1000+ years buildings ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/11th_century_in_architecture ). These castles, cathedrals, farms, were built to last, so it's appropriate to use them as examples. This is an easy place to run in to a survivorship bias problem - pick a random 1000 year old farmhouse. How many farmhouses built exactly the same way didn't last for various reasons? I…

If you look at that list, almost all of the surviving buildings are churches or religious places. If the goal is to build something that lasts 1000 years, then you need to factor in political and utility questions as well besides fixating on materials.

Your home can have perfect architecture, but if a rich person buys your land after you are gone and decides what you've had sucks, it will just get demolished and replaced with something more modern. That rarely happens with churches.

Re: How to design a house to last 1000 years

#256

Post by alex_sf »

nashashmi wrote: post #215
Animats wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"rigid steel structure" Steel is springy. Tall steel-framed buildings and bridges routinely sway in wind, which is usually harmless to the structure but annoying to occupants. Unless you get harmonic oscillation, where the energy stored in the motion builds up, which can be a problem and has destroyed bridges. Much of seismic design involves connections which raise the resonant frequency of the structure so it can't…

Rigidity is actually a variable. rigid in the simplest of definition does mean no springy action. Rigid through various fixed connectors implies some spring like behaviors. This is my favorite topic and I could go on and on about this. Point: it is a matter of precise definition. How rigid are we talking?

But everything is a spring.

Re: How to design a house to last 1000 years

#257

Post by rebuilder »

SkeuomorphicBee wrote: post #175
Fiahil wrote: post #128

I expected something much simpler : bricks, stones, and wood. It's not like we are running low on examples of 1000+ years buildings ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/11th_century_in_architecture ). These castles, cathedrals, farms, were built to last, so it's appropriate to use them as examples. We can, however, apply modern technics and materials when they make sense : insulation, windows, waterways... Prefer wood, wo…

> We can, however, apply modern technics and materials when they make sense : insulation, windows, waterways... The article raises an important point that could be a problem when trying to mix old and new build techniques. When talking about brick walls it says: > One tricky thing with this type of assembly is that while it has performed well historically, it doesn’t necessarily play nice with more modern, energy eff…

Well yes, but the example house doesn't seem to be all that optimized for energy efficiency. Look at the illustration showing a fireplace located at the end of the house. That's going to waste so much heat compared to a centrally located one. So I'm not sure how much attention was paid to energy efficiency here.

Re: How to design a house to last 1000 years

#258

Post by ramraj07 »

rootusrootus wrote: post #233
austinl wrote: post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's fascinating how culture has effects on architecture. So many older American homes have small kitchens that are separate from a formal dining room. Historically, a family member or cook would be making food separately, out of the way, and then it was presented in the dining room. Today, everyone wants a kitchen that's integrated with the dining area. Cooking has been culturally elevated – people don't feel like t…

What I see a lot of in my region (US PNW) is open kitchens integrating with informal dining areas (breakfast nook, or seating at a kitchen island) and living rooms. But most houses are still built with a separate dining room . Heck, my house was even built with a butler's pantry to connect them. That's pretty common.

You have a separate dining room if you’re building a 6 room or larger MANSION. Calling a building with a separate dining room on top of a kitchen plus informal dining room as a Regular home seems to be a stretch.

Re: How to design a house to last 1000 years

#259

Post by roywiggins »

rsync wrote: post #98

This is a very odd design document and it makes me think this author has thought a lot about materials and buildings but not actually built anything . The steel moment frame, to someone with shallow knowledge, sounds so strong and resilient . But in fact, a rigid steel structure is more vulnerable to seismic (and even wind) loads than wooden framing which can flex and move and dampen those loads naturally. The stainl…

I'd carve it out of a cave somewhere.

https://www.cnn.com/travel/article/anglo-saxon-cave-house-sc...

Re: How to design a house to last 1000 years

#260

Post by rsync »

clairity wrote: post #251
rsync wrote: post #216

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You misunderstood my comment about steel in the ground ... I was trying to convince the OP that they don't need to worry about the corrosion since even in terrible circumstances the steel still lasts quite a while. With regard to your skyscraper experience: I'm not sure this is an apples-to-apples comparison. Skyscrapers are not made of skyscraper-height columns - they are a stack of elements that are connected every…

gotcha, my bad for misconstruing your point. joint strength relative to span strength is definitely a non-obvious issue to the average home owner-builder. i also vastly prefer wood/mass timber for aesthetic reasons. mass timber has better burn characteristics than steel, and i'd recently read that builders are actually starting to surround steel columns with cross-laminated timber (rather than concrete) for that reas…

"... and i'd recently read that builders are actually starting to surround steel columns with cross-laminated timber ..."

Somewhat relevant - might interest you:

https://easternwhitepine.org/this-office-buildings-wooden-fr...

TAMedia office building in Zurich.

Post reply on HN