perhaps they know how to build durable?
2 Likes
According to Bill Bryson in “A Short History of Nearly Everything”, it’s glazed ceramic tile. He gives us a pretty good scenario of what happens to earth and all the things that we’ve created, if humans were to suddenly disappear. Ceramic tile appears to be the human made material that lasts the longest.
2 Likes
The structural design can increase the lifespan of the building materials, but that’s not what this topic is about. The building materials can also increase the lifespan of a structure. For example, if someone designed a bridge with lattice trusses and built it with printer paper, then it probably wouldn’t last very long. Whereas, if the bridge was built with futuristic ultra-durable weather-resistant super materials, then it would probably last much longer. In fact, those theoretical ultra-durable building materials might make the lattice truss unnecessary. Building materials can shape structural design, so I think finding the most durable building materials should come before finding the most durable structural design. Considering the amount of educated people in the world and that we live in the information age, I’m curious to see if there’s a new superior building material (possibly being synthesized by structural engineers, discovered by astronomers, or something) that hasn’t gone mainstream yet.
Check this out. This building material that MIT invented is ten times stronger than steel.
https://www.fastcodesign.com/3066988/mit-invented-the-material-well-need-to-build-in-space
Also, there’s self-healing bio-concrete which can fill small cracks with limestone that bacteria produce.
There’s a material that reflects heat from the Sun, so it can supposedly replace air-conditioning. I think the glass layer doesn’t sound very durable, but I love the idea of simplifying air conditioning into a mere building material.
This statement is not indicative of the traditional, iterative process of building design. Materials, textures, colors, finishes, structural systems, etc., each are significant components to be considered in the design of buildings. However each proposed edifice should properly be analyzed based upon its intended function and geographic situation (as well as budgetary, code and zoning constraints) before any ultimate determination as to which materials, structural items, etc. will be best suited to the intended purpose. There are numerous considerations that factor into what a building’s final appearance will be.
I agree that there’re many factors other than building materials in building design. Practically speaking, building materials aren’t as important as the other factors because there’s not that much to choose from. Common materials are wood, concrete, metal, glass, plastic, and some specific-use components (like insulation, roofing, etc.). But there are evident problems with the building materials degrading very quickly. If I were an architect, then I’d want to supply my customers with buildings that do not lose visual aesthetic in a few years. I wouldn’t want my clients to have to deal with unsightly scuffed paint, structural damage, or something. There’re a lot of damaged building materials and chipped paint jobs out there, but I want better than that for people. Hence the topic.
You’ve sort of answered yourself.
All the other factors make the material.
Your MIT stronger than steel is a perfect example. They didn’t make it in a vacuum (pardon the pun) they made it to work in space. They didn’t think, right, lets make a material that is 10 times stronger than steel, hey look it works in space too, how lucky is that.
They looked at all the factors involved in what was necessary for a material to function in space, and they worked from there.
2 Likes
The MIT news article about the new graphene material said nothing about space. I think they were trying to make a strong lightweight material for vehicles, buildings, and devices.
I’m pretty sure that the author of the other article was just speculating that the new material would bring us closer to having a space elevator.
The headline specifically mention Space.
This article is written by Co.design.
https://www.fastcodesign.com/3066988/mit-invented-the-material-well-need-to-build-in-space
This article was written by MIT. It has no mention of space. My speculation is that MIT was trying to make a strong lightweight building material, then an author thought it would work in space. I’m pretty sure the building material came before the design.
I give up today. The moon is obviously full somewhere.
I saw this and made a comment.
I’ll not be making any more.
1 Like
The article that mentions “build in space” was written by
The article that has no mention of space or vacuums was published by MIT.
I think MIT is a more reliable source of information than Co.Design regarding the material that MIT invented. If MIT designed the material specifically for space, then I think they would’ve mentioned space in the article from MIT.
If you change your mind on giving up, then feel free to elaborate on your joke. I have no idea what the joke is.
I’d rather not debate about the importance of building materials. I’m simply asking what the most durable building material is.
Ah the space elevator, sadly the tensile to weight ratio nessessary is off the charts and I’m not holding my breath, even carbon nano tubes won’t do it, but maybe some very distant day. This articles author seems to confuse compression with tension.
I read the article and it seamed to be saying that the relevant strength discovery is less about the material and more about the molecular shape forming, that the massive surface area allows greater compression strength in any material, the article says that this process could be used with more “affordable” materials, cus there’s no graphene at Home Depot.
And did you see the scary failure mode of that block? No yeilding, no plasticity, just catastrophe. I don’t think I’ll be building my house of that quite yet. Pretty cool stuff though.
Properly designed and built insitu or precast concrete structures will be here for centuries.
High MPa, high tensile steel reinforcement with the correct concrete cover and a high level of surface finish turns concrete into something truly remarkable.
Liquid stone.
One of my favourite things.
Or grow a baobab tree? Oldest of them seem to be able to live for 6000 years or more.
2 Likes
Allthough some of us here like to hitchhike through the possibilties or galaxy, I always prefered Arthur C ‘s ‘City and the stars’
were he desscribes a city that is completely controlled and maintained by a central computer. There are no signs of decay, eg there is no dust, because everything is under constant control and energyzed, the buildings, moving sidewalks etc. Like an organic ‘creature’ (or SketchUp Model😃)
1 Like
Since you didn’t mention cost, I would go with diamonds. They’re usually good for a billion years or more. Diamonds get their strength from the strong covalent bonds between the elemental carbon atoms that make up their crystal lattice. Fully interlocking diamond bricks would not only be structurally sound, they would also retain their lustre for a long, long time. Essentially forever.
1 Like
In the not-so-distant future, nanobots will keep almost any building material in a pristine condition as they repair the atomic and molecular damage that occurs with oxidation and age.
2 Likes
Here is one attempt in glass;
1 Like
As already mentioned several times in this thread, concrete is pretty durable. Research on concrete hasn’t stopped. UHPC (ultra-high-performance concrete) which is very dense and available with a variety of non traditional réinforments, like e.g glass fibers is is quite impressive.
Some concrete formulations can “heal themself” when the cracks are not to large.
1 Like
This topic was automatically closed 91 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.