HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > Engineering


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #1  
Old Posted Aug 3, 2009, 5:22 PM
M II A II R II K's Avatar
M II A II R II K M II A II R II K is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Toronto
Posts: 52,200
Arrow Skyscrapers Life Expectancy

An issue that so far that we haven't had to deal with especially in terms of the skyscraper type highrises is if there will come a time when they would have to be demolished whether it be because the skyscraper is not salvageable or not worth salvaging if it is possible.

And what of the glass, particularly those clad in glass, since glass is an amorphous solid......

Quote:
The transition from the liquid state to the glass, at a temperature below the equilibrium melting point of the material, is called the glass transition. The glass transition temperature is approximately the temperature at which the viscosity of the liquid exceeds a certain value (about 1012 Pa·s). The transition temperature depends on cooling rate, with the glass transition occurring at higher temperatures for faster cooling rates. The precise nature of the glass transition is the subject of ongoing research. While it is clear that the glass transition is not a first-order thermodynamic transition (such as melting), there is debate as to whether it is a higher-order transition, or merely a kinetic effect.


It's been suggested that glass can expand in certain places over time, and other side effects. I know one can replace windows but it would be a much bigger job to reclad an entirely cladded in glass building.
__________________
ASDFGHJK
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2  
Old Posted Aug 4, 2009, 6:19 AM
SpawnOfVulcan's Avatar
SpawnOfVulcan SpawnOfVulcan is offline
Cat Enthusiast
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: America's Magic City
Posts: 3,855
This is an issue that I've wondered about a lot. I've always worried that some of my favorite buildings will eventually not be able to stand up and will have to come down in some form.

I've always had faith in a good expectancy for bridges, but buildings is a whole other story.

I think that if maintained properly, a skyscraper could last well over 100 years.

This particular one in Birmingham has been standing for exactly 100 years now and is still in pretty good shape. It could use a renovation, but it's not gonna fall down anytime soon.

Glenfield Capital

This one is 93 years old, and just underwent a renovation, and I'm not expecting it to need replacing anytime soon either.

Jason's Blog

I've also wondered. Can we expect the modern skyscrapers, the newer ones, to last as long or longer than the older ones like the ones above or maybe the Empire State Building?
__________________
SSP Alabama Metros: Birmingham (City Compilation) - Huntsville - Mobile - Montgomery - Tuscaloosa - Daphne-Fairhope - Decatur

SSP Alabama Universities: Alabama - UAB - Alabama State
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3  
Old Posted Aug 4, 2009, 10:28 AM
Exodus Exodus is offline
Closed account
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,859
I don't see why most buildings couldn't last damn near forever if maintained properly. The only real peroblem is the shift in the soil over generations, and that depends where these buildings are built.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4  
Old Posted Aug 4, 2009, 1:06 PM
Kelvin's Avatar
Kelvin Kelvin is offline
Senior Slacker
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Freddy
Posts: 2,213
A building can stand indefinitely - if it maintained and or rebuilt as required. However, the cost to maintain will also eventually exceed the functional value of the property. At that point, a decision will likely be made to demolish it and replace it.

A property may also become functionally obsolete - meaning it can no longer serve the purpose for which it was built and is likewise demolished to provide space for a new structure that can.
__________________
Member of the SSPIA Senior Committee. Have a question? Go pester Tony.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5  
Old Posted Aug 4, 2009, 2:34 PM
M II A II R II K's Avatar
M II A II R II K M II A II R II K is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Toronto
Posts: 52,200
Of course there is that historical landmark status angle, and I imagine at least 95% of all highrises above 500 ft will be awarded that title.

So the vast majority of skyscrapers will continue to be kept irrespective of the maintenance costs or usefulness.
__________________
ASDFGHJK
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #6  
Old Posted Aug 4, 2009, 9:49 PM
SpawnOfVulcan's Avatar
SpawnOfVulcan SpawnOfVulcan is offline
Cat Enthusiast
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: America's Magic City
Posts: 3,855
Quote:
Originally Posted by M II A II R II K View Post
Of course there is that historical landmark status angle, and I imagine at least 95% of all highrises above 500 ft will be awarded that title.

So the vast majority of skyscrapers will continue to be kept irrespective of the maintenance costs or usefulness.
I think you're right. Those buildings that I posted above are both on the national register of historic places, if I'm not mistaken. I know that City Federal is... that's one thing that I didn't think about.
__________________
SSP Alabama Metros: Birmingham (City Compilation) - Huntsville - Mobile - Montgomery - Tuscaloosa - Daphne-Fairhope - Decatur

SSP Alabama Universities: Alabama - UAB - Alabama State
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #7  
Old Posted Aug 5, 2009, 12:04 PM
M II A II R II K's Avatar
M II A II R II K M II A II R II K is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Toronto
Posts: 52,200
That'll probably be the exception to the rule.
__________________
ASDFGHJK
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #8  
Old Posted Aug 16, 2009, 11:13 PM
rkrause rkrause is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 18
Watch the History Channel's "Life After People" DVD. It gives a good engineering perspective of the life expectancy of skyscrapers. With ongoing routine maintenance and rehabilitation, a modern high rise can effectively stand forever.

It is rather amusing, however, to contrast today's monumental constructions with those from thousands of years ago -- projects like the Great Pyramids and the Roman Coliseum are still standing strong with very minimal human intervention.

--Randall
__________________
Sears Tower Fan Site | Sears Tower Facebook Page
"Celebrating 25 Years Online (1998-2023)"
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #9  
Old Posted Aug 18, 2009, 1:57 AM
Architype's Avatar
Architype Architype is offline
♒︎ Empirically Canadian
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: 🍁 Canada
Posts: 11,934
Interesting; I'm just wondering how you could safely demolish a supertall building if there are other buildings very close by.
And, what is the record for the tallest building ever demolished (was it the Singer Building?), and how was it done?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #10  
Old Posted Aug 18, 2009, 8:44 AM
sopas ej's Avatar
sopas ej sopas ej is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: South Pasadena, California
Posts: 6,847
Quote:
Originally Posted by Exodus View Post
I don't see why most buildings couldn't last damn near forever if maintained properly. The only real peroblem is the shift in the soil over generations, and that depends where these buildings are built.
What about metal fatigue? Is that an issue with steel-frame buildings?
__________________
"I guess the only time people think about injustice is when it happens to them."

~ Charles Bukowski
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #11  
Old Posted Aug 18, 2009, 1:29 PM
Kelvin's Avatar
Kelvin Kelvin is offline
Senior Slacker
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Freddy
Posts: 2,213
Changes to soil conditions below the structure would be considered a rarity.

Metal fatigue is not an issue provided that vibrational frequency is below a certain threshold value (the so-called constant amplitude value). At or below this value, the number of cycles to failure is effectively infinite. Above this value, the number of cycles to failure is a real number; but could still be tens or even hundreds of millions of cycles. For certain structures, the failure limit could be very small - but we try not to build those ones!
__________________
Member of the SSPIA Senior Committee. Have a question? Go pester Tony.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #12  
Old Posted Aug 18, 2009, 1:31 PM
orulz orulz is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 584
duplicate

Last edited by orulz; Aug 18, 2009 at 1:34 PM. Reason: duplicate
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #13  
Old Posted Aug 18, 2009, 1:34 PM
orulz orulz is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 584
Quote:
Originally Posted by Architype View Post
Interesting; I'm just wondering how you could safely demolish a supertall building if there are other buildings very close by.
And, what is the record for the tallest building ever demolished (was it the Singer Building?), and how was it done?
If the site is extremely constrained I imagine the only solution would be to dismantle the building in a more orderly fashion, which would be extremely expensive, and might perhaps make it more feasible to reconstruct / remodel / update the existing structure.

I doubt if most modern curtain wall systems probably have a lifespan of 100 years or so? Meaning that the building would have to be re-clad or at least refurbished every so often in order to keep the elements out. I guess you can consider that to be just a part of upkeep.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #14  
Old Posted Sep 25, 2009, 7:14 AM
Chicago103's Avatar
Chicago103 Chicago103 is offline
Future Mayor of Chicago
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Chicago
Posts: 6,060
When I see shows like Star Trek where structures like the Golden Gate Bridge, the Transamerica Building and the Eiffel Tower and other 19th-21st Century buildings are still standing in the 24th Century I have often wondered about how realistic that would be. From what several of you have said as long as the economics are there and/or historical status are there it is possible from an engineering standpoint. If the ancient pyramids of Giza and the Roman Colesium can stand for thousands of years then modern buildings should be able to stand for a few hundred years at least.
__________________
Devout Chicagoan, political moderate and paleo-urbanist.

"Auto-centric suburban sprawl is the devil physically manifesting himself in the built environment."
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #15  
Old Posted Oct 3, 2009, 11:13 PM
Rail>Auto's Avatar
Rail>Auto Rail>Auto is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Architype View Post
Interesting; I'm just wondering how you could safely demolish a supertall building if there are other buildings very close by.
And, what is the record for the tallest building ever demolished (was it the Singer Building?), and how was it done?
According to wikipedia:

It (singer building) remained the second tallest building ever destroyed after Avala TV Tower in Serbia destroyed during NATO bombing, until the September 11, 2001, collapse of the nearby World Trade Center. It is still the tallest building ever lawfully demolished.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Singer_Building
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #16  
Old Posted Feb 25, 2012, 4:00 AM
JohnMarko JohnMarko is offline
Architect
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Henderson (Las Vegas)
Posts: 58
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kelvin View Post
A building can stand indefinitely - if it maintained and or rebuilt as required. However, the cost to maintain will also eventually exceed the functional value of the property. At that point, a decision will likely be made to demolish it and replace it.

A property may also become functionally obsolete - meaning it can no longer serve the purpose for which it was built and is likewise demolished to provide space for a new structure that can.
If the building is maintained regularly, it will last forever - the cost to maintain it will not be a factor at all. If a building maintenence is halted, then damage will result, and too many times demolition is the result. But now, even that is costlyl, and the cost of rehabbing is more economical than demolition.

Functional obsolescence is also not a problem, since now many buildings are repurposed all the time.

Only in places like NYC where space is a premium, will large and newer structures require the demolition of existing lesser highrise structures (highest and best use for most economic gain).
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #17  
Old Posted Feb 25, 2012, 5:53 AM
Roadcruiser1's Avatar
Roadcruiser1 Roadcruiser1 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: New York City
Posts: 2,107
After doing my research the longest surviving skyscraper would be the Petronas Twin Towers in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. It would stand for 5,000 years after people leave.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #18  
Old Posted Feb 29, 2012, 5:37 PM
THE BIG APPLE's Avatar
THE BIG APPLE THE BIG APPLE is offline
Khurram Parvaz
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: NEW YORK
Posts: 2,424
The Manhattan Building in Chicago is the longest surviving building to use a skeletal frame. It was built in 1888, and is still standing today.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #19  
Old Posted Feb 29, 2012, 6:52 PM
jsr's Avatar
jsr jsr is offline
Is That LEGO?
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: ABS Dreamland
Posts: 378
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roadcruiser1 View Post
After doing my research the longest surviving skyscraper would be the Petronas Twin Towers in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. It would stand for 5,000 years after people leave.
How did you arrive at that figure?
__________________
jsr
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #20  
Old Posted Feb 29, 2012, 8:59 PM
marshall marshall is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 291
I think the Petronas Towers would survive for a long time without humans around because of the heavy use of stainless steel in their construction, which helps protect them against the high humidity and moisture in the warm climate where they are. Just a guess on my part, though.
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > Engineering
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 2:30 PM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.