|
I'm hoping some structural engineering goons might be able to help me out here. I'm thinking long and hard about the costs and benefits of residential construction with insulting concrete forms. While reinforced concrete can make for a spectacularly strong structure, able to survive anything nature has to throw at it, the source of its strength is also the source of its fatal weakness: the rebar inevitably rusts and causes spalling, cracking and the demise of a once-sturdy edifice in a depressingly short amount of time. Given that reinforced concrete structures are very greenhouse-intensive, can't really be recycled, and are expensive to demolish, I find that problem hard to accept for a single-family home. This is doubly annoying because there are light-frame houses out there made of 2x4s and the like that easily survive well over a century, and failing to meet even the poor standard set by a mediocre stick build adds insult to injury. But the positive characteristics of ICFs continue to impress me, so I want to know what, if anything, can be done to extend the lifespan of a reinforced concrete building out to 125+ years. (That's satisfactory to me; I don't want to build another Pantheon.) I've heard that fly ash has excellent pozzolanic qualifiers that can help improve lifespan, and that there are various forms of galvanized, coated, stainless, non-ferrous (aluminum or silicon bars), and even non-metallic reinforcing bars (GFRP, CRRP, basalt), as well as various structural fibres that can be added directly to concrete mixes, but I have no real idea as to their current practicality or cost. I would also expect that, due to cladding, roofing, and the properties of the EPS forms, the concrete might be at least a little bit protected. A low w/c mixture might help by sucking up water for a while, too, but again I'm at a loss because I can't really predict its effects. Could someone knowledgeable help fill this rank amateur in? How solvable is this problem?.
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2017 03:38
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 19, 2024 16:09 |
|
|
David Corbett posted:insulting concrete forms Not going to help out somebody who is so disrespectful of concrete.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2017 07:32
|
|
|
I would imagine a big part of the reason why concrete isn't used for residential construction in the US has a lot more to do with people's perception of the medium rather than it's unsuitability. When you look at how poorly most new residential developments are constructed, I can't imagine that reinforced concrete protected by eaves and coated on the outside wouldn't last much, MUCH longer.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2017 13:38
|
|
|
John Smith posted:Not going to help out somebody who is so disrespectful of concrete. Brutal (  ). Do you have any better suggestions? JnnyThndrs posted:I would imagine a big part of the reason why concrete isn't used for residential construction in the US has a lot more to do with people's perception of the medium rather than it's unsuitability. Certainly, the key factor here would be the presence of chloride ions and their permeation through the concrete matrix as well as its loss of pH. Obviously a house will have a lower degree of exposure than a bridge deck, but I don't know enough to speculate as to how much less and what kind of implications that might have. I can't really speak to the lifespan of average new construction; I think, given the nature of concrete and the costs of working with it, it should be expected to last considerably longer than OSB and farmed wood and any failure to achieve that would be unacceptable. Given that new wood construction is pretty cheap and far less environmentally damaging*, I think it can get away with short lifespans. *Comparing apples to apples, anyway. Certainly even a basic ICF house will probably outperform a wood house built strictly to code minimums, but there's no reason you can't build wood to be positively frugal on energy. So I'm just talking about construction here.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2017 15:33
|
|
|
I think generally the key with buildings is maintenance, no matter what you build it out of you'll need to replace and repair the element-facing areas of it as they wear out. A leaky roof will gently caress your walls whatever you make them out of. Even if you build yourself a concrete bunker if you don't maintain it you will have a really dank-rear end concrete bunker. Similarly even if you build it out of something else, as long as you maintain it it should last a long time, but you can't guarantee that maintenance after you're dead or after you move out, or after you get old. Life gets in the way, finances and priorities change. OwlFancier fucked around with this message at 17:16 on Apr 11, 2017 |
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2017 17:11
|
|
|
You can use cathodic protection to extend the life of the rebar. But generally speaking there's no way around being on top of maintenance. Why design a building for 125 years of no one giving a poo poo about it? Also, if environmental consideration is paramount, consider that fifty years from now environmental technology may be considerably better. Imagine what an energy efficient building built in 1892 would look like and how much work would have needed to go into it between then and now. Saving money for eventual replacement or major upgrade fifty years down the line can be a better strategy than assuming you have to last unchanged from 2017 to 2142.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2017 20:56
|
|
|
P-Mack posted:You can use cathodic protection to extend the life of the rebar. But generally speaking there's no way around being on top of maintenance. Why design a building for 125 years of no one giving a poo poo about it? I'm not sure why there seems to be a common assumption that I had some sort of insane goony idea to build a house that never needed to be maintained. That's not it at all. The intention was to build a house that was in general just like a conventional house, except that it would benefit by having the structural strength provided by concrete rather than dimensional lumber. I'm no Frank Lloyd Wright; making exposed concrete look good is something that I doubt I'd ever be able to accomplish. Even if I could, I doubt I would; I'd rather build something that fits in. My concern wasn't that I wanted to find the right blend of concrete that would allow it to stand forever, unmaintained; it was to find the right blend that would prevent it from being a complete write-off in 75 years. I'm not sure what kind of maintenance could possibly be done on concrete; my understanding was that the concrete would inevitably load up with chloride ions, the rebar would just as inevitably rust, and then the whole thing would be an un-repairable write-off because remediation of in-place concrete costs many times more than simply tearing down the structure and building it again. If that's not the case - if concrete walls are somehow easily patched and fixed when the need arises - then I have been approaching this from entirely the wrong angle, and won't have any problem. But I have a hard idea understanding how the concrete/rebar bond could be broken. I certainly do hope that environmental technology will be better fifty years from now than it is today. With that said, I think that there are diminishing marginal returns. We're already able to build houses in many climates that can be passively heated by solar gains, and in any case it's fairly straightforward to build them to be net-zero energy usage with the use of solar panels. In terms of joules and watts, there simply isn't as far to go over there next 125 years as there was in the last 125. That's inviolable thermodynamics. So I'm not really sure that argument holds any water. If things have changed so much in the last fifty years that it's now totally impractical to build a house to last more than the next fifty, then concrete (barring some sort of other design need that can't be met by wood) is obviously the wrong building material. And I think we'll have lost a great deal by that change. David Corbett fucked around with this message at 04:15 on Apr 12, 2017 |
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2017 04:07
|
|
|
Concrete will stay up, but that doesn't mean you'd necessarily want to live in it if it starts sloughing off lumps and growing mold or some poo poo. All buildings need weatherproofing or they end up looking, smelling, and feeling like poo poo. Your roof again is going to be significant, most walls work fine as long as you either face them in something, paint them, and make sure the roof covers them properly. A concrete wall with a leaky roof is going to be horrible just as a brick or wood one. It might not actually collapse but you wouldn't want to live in the building cos it's still going to get damp. If you're going to be maintaining it, you can use something other than reinforced concrete. OwlFancier fucked around with this message at 19:39 on Apr 13, 2017 |
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2017 19:37
|
|
|
David Corbett posted:Concrete If you want to make the concrete for your house (basement or slab) last a long time here are a few things you can do. -Have a house with large over hangs on the roof. -Gutters that route the water discharge from a rain fall to a good place to drain it. -Patios and court yards and the yard in general, sloping away from the house. -Have a house on land with good drainage. -Rebar or matting or other re-inforced steel should be enclosed with concrete. (Not exposed on one end to rust away.) Senor P. fucked around with this message at 02:51 on Apr 18, 2017 |
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2017 02:45
|
|
|
Figure out a way to get it to stop moving, the biggest reason concrete has an issue not lasting is because the ground moves and causes it to crack and separate. Also, adding more portland cement to you mixture will add strength. Also, your patio should not connect to your house via rebar, all that will happen is you rip a chunk out of the wall and bend + break the rebar as your patio moves. Nothing will make concrete last forever, but keeping it from moving with good drainage is your best bet to keep it to last. David Corbett posted:I'm not sure what kind of maintenance could possibly be done on concrete; my understanding was that the concrete would inevitably load up with chloride ions, the rebar would just as inevitably rust, and then the whole thing would be an un-repairable write-off because remediation of in-place concrete costs many times more than simply tearing down the structure and building it again. If that's not the case - if concrete walls are somehow easily patched and fixed when the need arises - then I have been approaching this from entirely the wrong angle, and won't have any problem. But I have a hard idea understanding how the concrete/rebar bond could be broken. It depends what has happened to the concrete. I did mud/slab jacking and foundation repair for years, there are houses that we repaired the foundation on 15+ years ago that have not moved since.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2017 06:44
|
|
|
Using concrete for houses has been the default for over 50 years here. in the early days a big company made a huge mistake that caused the rebar to eat itself up in 20-30 years. Even those houses that opted not to have it repaired are still standing. It will probably be fine. Houses built in the 50's and 60's to replace the houses lost in WW2 used a lot of cheap concrete and i haven't heard of any houses being scrapped because the concrete has gone bad. These all have a concrete pile foundation. So you're probably good for at least 75 years if you use 1960's building techniques. Just overdimension stuff a bunch and you should be good for 125 years (i am not a engineer though).
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2017 17:58
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 19, 2024 16:09 |
|
|
If your concern is the embedded energy of the concrete itself, maybe try looking into rammed earth (Super-adobe with facade?) as an alternate? I know some designs don't even need to use rebar for that matter.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2017 02:41
|
|