structural integrity of buildings that are hundreds of years old?

File: 1461618901922.jpg (207KB, 960x960px) Image search: [Google]

207KB, 960x960px

yes.

>>8041469
this is the best thread on /sci/ today .

>>8041469
Pretty good really. Viaducts built by Romans 2000+ years ago are still standing.

I would be much more concerned with buildings from the 1970's.

>>8041471
This does not expand dong

>>8041469
The buildings still standing are normally very sound and do not have foundation problems. This is because they were made with longevity in mind and without the consumerist mindset of saving money.

The foundations of some of those structures go down further than anything else build in the area since their construction. Depending of course on the original ground composition. 25 feet or deeper foundations were common.

>>8041469
Is that Strasbourg? I think I ate in that restaurant in the right corner

>>8042851
And these kind of buildings are protected by law, so the owners need to give it regular check ups and maintenance, if they let the building deteriote while they own it they can get some serious legal problems.

>>8042920
Strasbourg or bruges.

>>8042920
bruges

alsace will never have our high quality belgian brick :)

File: 1461443257009.jpg (47KB, 960x640px) Image search: [Google]

47KB, 960x640px

>>8042822
maybe you should take the fedora off your microdick senpai ?.
fucking cucktheists ruin everything .

File: Mayor_Bellwether.jpg (34KB, 500x333px) Image search: [Google]

34KB, 500x333px

The question is, what effects does ageing have on a building?

Erosion of the stone/cement from weather effects or excessive pollution. Subsidence of the foundations over time. Damage by humans; both general wear and tear or accidental damage. Modifications to the structure by extensions or adjacent buildings. Acoustic/vibrational disturbance from heavy traffic on nearby roads. etc etc.

I'm no civil engineer but if we assume the building was structurally sound in the first place we only have to consider the factors mentioned above (and others I've missed)

>>8042746
>more concerned with buildings from the 1970's.
This to be honest family

>>8041469
They were built by the best Mathematicians. I do think they have nice or perfect geometry.

>>8043834
best mathematicians? building?

fuck boy you have 0 idea of anything

structural engineering is a science thats no older than the XIX century.

Most builders before that just used more or less mystified variations of the trial and error method

that being said most old buildings last because they are ridiculously overbuilt, some could hold up to twice the weight they currently hold

>>8043383
You mean... I can be a taco even if I DON'T go to Taco Bell?

Think about it this way: if they've been standing for hundreds of years, their structural integrity must be pretty good

>>8041471
This movie triggered me, it was worse than the first one

Anyone interested in structural integrity and engineering should read this book, in my opinion. Surprisingly entertaining given the subject matter, which makes for an easy read.

But anyways, in particular there's one chapter of the book that discusses why old masonry structures are so resilient. In part it has to do with the fact that they are generally constructed such that most of the building lay in compression, so fractures won't necessarily cause it to fail. It's more along the lines of making one brick into two smaller bricks in some cases. Also the fact that since they were designed with little to no actual engineering, they were designed largely using heuristic practices which involved simply overdesigning the everloving shit out of things (i.e. when in doubt, beef it up). Outrageously high factors of safety lend themselves well to enduring structures.

If I remember in the morning I'll dig the book out and post some relevant excerpts, maybe an illustration or two.

File: structures.jpg (18KB, 231x346px)

18KB, 231x346px

>>8044911
Forgot pic