Tokyo To Build 350m Tower Made of Wood (theguardian.com) 108
A skyscraper set to be built in Tokyo will become the world's tallest to be made of wood. From a report: The Japanese wood products company Sumitomo Forestry Co is proposing to build a 350 metre (1,148ft), 70-floor tower to commemorate its 350th anniversary in 2041. Japan's government has long advertised the advantages of wooden buildings, and in 2010 passed a law requiring it be used for all public buildings of three stories or fewer. Sumitomo Forestry said the new building, known as the W350 Project, was an example of "urban development that is kind for humans," with more high-rise architecture made of wood and covered with greenery "making over cities as forests." The new building will be predominantly wooden, with just 10% steel. Its internal framework of columns, beams and braces -- made of a hybrid of the two materials -- will take account of Japan's high rate of seismic activity. The Tokyo-based architecture firm Nikken Sekkei contributed to the design.
Dpes it weigh (Score:3, Informative)
the same as a duck?
Re:Wood because nobody trusts Japanese steel anymo (Score:4, Interesting)
First of all, that story is from 2017. It isn't news.
Second, from the story, "The latest problems were discovered with shipments of more than 11,000 tons of steel, copper, and aluminum products made by Kobe Steel and its affiliates in Japan, China, Malaysia and Thailand."
So the actual true claim closest to the lie you told would be, "Being owned by a Japanese company doesn't magically cause product inspections to happen."
They're one of the world's biggest steel company, so 11k tons isn't actually very much.
No reports of problems at this point, only of faked test data. So some steel plants in "Japan, China, Malaysia, or Thailand" didn't do the testing for some of the products. This doesn't mean that there was a quality problem, only that there was a quality control problem. The people running the factory probably saw a long history of passing the quality tests, and decided to save some money and not do them. That's bad, especially if the parent company doesn't detect it and correct the problem.
But the story seems to really be that because Japan is so good at quality control, they discovered the faked test data even before it resulted in undetected problems in actual product quality.
It is already well known in the world that if you product comes from "Japan, China, Malaysia, or Thailand" that there might be variations in quality. Duh. I think people understand that whenever a product came from "Country A, Country B, Country C, or Country D." Duh. Does that mean that Country A had a bad reputation? No. No it does not.
Re: (Score:2)
If it had been discovered by a third party and the company had to be forced to do anything about it, then you'd have a point.
But the company discovered it themselves, and chose to not only correct it but also notify affected customers.
This story increases confidence in the test results given out by Kobe Steel, it doesn't decrease it. Which company are you posting for, anyways? lol
Re: (Score:1)
Fireproof? (Score:1)
I hope this doesn't end as a huge candle.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Fireproof? (Score:5, Interesting)
Well, consider the 67.3m Grenfell Tower which burned spectacularly [wikipedia.org] last June, killing seventy people. The tower was reinforced concrete, but it was the decorative polyethylene cladding that transmitted the fire at deadly speed, and the interior apartment furnishings that actually killed people.
So it's quite possible for a concrete building to become a fire trap; it's the superficial bits that are the risk. Massive wooden structural members might burn in theory, but like an over-large log they wouldn't catch fire quickly.
So I should think that a large wooden building could in principle be engineered to be for all practical purposes as fire safe as concrete building. The problem is knowing that something is safe in practice. Engineering is as much about the application of experience as it is induction from general principles. So if you build far beyond the limits of experience, you can never be quite certain of the behavior of a system.
Re: (Score:2)
Logs don't catch fire easily, but do burn well, as the roof beams of my grandparents' 17 century house burned very nicely.
Wood can be impregnated with fire retardent.
This, in addition to how houses are constructed, etc. First time I went to Japan to meet my inlaws I was surprised at the number of 1,2,3 floor houses and buildings that were made primarily of wood (my inlaws home for instance.) And this wasn't in rural Japan, but pretty much in Yokohama and Tokyo. Japanese authorities would have scrapped that out a long time ago if they had concerns about fire safety. They are still vulnerable to fire, just like any concrete building. It's the stuff inside that burns and k
Fireproof stairs make a difference (Score:2)
So it's quite possible for a concrete building to become a fire trap;
True, but how many more would have died if instead of just the cladding the main structural support material was inflammable? Most highrise buildings have staircases which are made of solid concrete to provide a safe, non-flammable escape route from most fires. When that fails, for example in the 911 attacks, the death toll can be one or more orders of magnitude larger because there is no safe escape route and the building will eventually collapse killing everyone who is trapped.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Fireproof? (Score:3)
http://www.nzwood.co.nz/faqs/w... [nzwood.co.nz]
sustainability (Score:1)
They could stand to make mention about replenishment and what about all the chemicals that are used to treat the wood?
It's as if these concerns don't even exist.
Re: (Score:3)
The whole skyscraper will be made from engineered lumber. Not for rot necessarily, but for consistent dimensions, stability, strength, etc.
Re: (Score:2)
Not for nothin', but Japan has as much forest as just about any other developed country.
Re: (Score:2)
The US mostly stopped processing lumber in the 1990s, but we still cut just as much.
Where does Japan get their lumber? From the US.
The previous contenders... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Todai-ji [wikipedia.org] in Nara is 57m and was built 300 years ago. Supposedly the old one was even bigger.
Re: (Score:2)
57m from that link is the length of the main building. The width is 50m. Judging from the picture that makes it ~25m tall. That is consistent with a statue height of 14.98m and the interior pictures which show the ceiling only a little taller than the statue.
It is true that the site originally had 2 pagodas of ~100m height.
Forest Substitute ? (Score:2)
high-rise architecture made of wood and covered with greenery "making over cities as forests."
LoL Is Japan so urbanised that its inhabitants can imagine that buildings* covered in greenery can seem like a forest?
* Created by chopping down a forest. The guys in the Amazon Basin hacking down the last of the rain forest must be having wet dreams over this news.
Re: (Score:2)
Japan is certainly urbanized, but still retains its forests [wikipedia.org].
Re: (Score:2)
If you ever manage to afford internet access, just fire up google maps and set it to satellite view and click on Japan. Lots of trees.
Also if you think the last of the rainforest is being chopped down, just click on South America and check.
Somehow I think we found the guy who can't imagine trees. ;)
Godzilla approves!! (Score:2)
What's Japanese for The Matchstick Building?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Kyodaina shakunetsu no farosu
Re: (Score:2)
Kyodaina shakunetsu no farosu
Squirrel!!
Terrible for long term use (Score:1, Insightful)
Wood certainly has it's uses, but it seems to me that a high rise is not one of them. Wood needs to be protected from the sun and elements. Who wants to have to paint or weather proof this thing every couple of years? I lived in a house with wood siding as a kid. I hated having to go out to scrape the old paint off and repainting it. I know paint and weather proofing has come a long way since I was a kid, but it's still going to need this done periodically.
This is why aluminum siding and later vinyl sid
Re: (Score:3)
Aluminum and vinyl siding are things because they're cheaper than wood.
If they were better, they'd either be more expensive, or wood siding would have been discontinued.
Also, consider this: in a tall building, the siding is not the structural support. So the subject isn't even about the siding. This building could have vinyl siding and the story would be the same story about a wooden building.
Also, you don't have to paint the wood for protection. There is also technology that places the protective chemicals
Would be illegal here... (Score:3)
Where I am, building code prohibits wood for buildings over 4 stories (though they're talking about allowing it for up to 5 or even 6 because the builders don't want to pay for concrete, and their lobbying is amazingly effective) Combined with the requirement for all buildings over 4 stories to have elevators, we have a ton of 4 story apartment buildings. We've also proven repeatedly that wood is a HORRIBLE material for any multi-family building, as we've had quite a few burn to the ground leaving hundreds of people homeless. Of course each time they say that if only they'd made this minor tweak to the building code the disaster wouldn't have happened, but then the next one happens despite whatever tweak they say will solve it.
Re: (Score:2)
Fire sprinklers address fire risk, and wood buildings (when complete) are generally more survivable than light gauge metal structures. Their main problem is that while under construction they are a huge fire risk.
Low-rise wood structures are pretty safe (with a concrete podium for the garage). When you go over 75’ to the highest occupied floor (code definition) then things become more complex.
Re: (Score:3)
We've also proven repeatedly that wood is a HORRIBLE material for any multi-family building, as we've had quite a few burn to the ground
So? In many cases concrete doesn't form as much of a structure as it does simply provide fireproofing for the steel reinforcing within it. Just because something has "wood" in the name doesn't automagically make it a firehazard. We can fireproof wood just as well as any other structural member.
Also building codes are iterative. "the next one happens" and will always happen. The key part is the rate at which they have happened and are happening continues to decline.
Re: (Score:2)
Also building codes are iterative. "the next one happens" and will always happen. The key part is the rate at which they have happened and are happening continues to decline.
Note this is also true of monetary policy and recessions. In the 70s, they were still trying horrible things like price controls.
Re: (Score:2)
We can fireproof wood just as well as any other structural member.
Refractory bricks are good up to 1600 C and can withstand that indefinitely. What kind of temperature can "fireproof" wood withstand, and for how long?
Re: (Score:2)
Refractory bricks are good up to 1600 C and can withstand that indefinitely. What kind of temperature can "fireproof" wood withstand, and for how long?
Really damn high. Wood is a combustible and doesn't weaken or melt with heat. You just need to starve it from combustion ingredients or keep it below ignition temperature and you're sweet. A standard fireproofing membrane sprayed on top of wood suffice. Hell if you really want to get funny, encase the wood in concrete. That's pretty much how any decent length of horizontal concrete supporting structure works.
Re: (Score:2)
Really damn high. Wood is a combustible and doesn't weaken or melt with heat. You just need to starve it from combustion ingredients or keep it below ignition temperature and you're sweet. A standard fireproofing membrane sprayed on top of wood suffice.
Do you have a source for any of that? I looked and the only thing I found other than advertisement pieces is this [springeropen.com], which says lignin, the structural component of wood, starts breaking down at 250 C and is completely broken down when it reaches 500 C. For comparison, jet fuel will burn at 800-1000 C and gasoline is over 2000 C. There's a lot of molecular oxygen and hydrogen in wood, so temperature alone is sufficient to start the combustion, even if oxygen is not present. What you're left with afterwards is
Re: (Score:2)
Where I am, building code prohibits wood for buildings over 4 stories
You left out the part where building codes normally cover normal buildings, and often the tallest buildings in a city are taller than the code "allows" because special cases, including the biggest buildings, are expected to require a variance anyways.
The code in my city says buildings can only be 40', but a quick drive around town says that there is not actually a prohibition of buildings over 40', simply an additional process.
Yeah, if you want to build a wooden skyscraper there is going to be more to the p
I really hope.. (Score:1)
I'll believe it when I see it... (Score:5, Informative)
When I read this, I immediately wondered why it was even possible to build a 1,100 ft tall wooden building, more than eight times taller than the current record for the tallest wooden building. This Guardian article [theguardian.com] goes into more detail about the engineering of tall wooden buildings, and cites this Canadian Wood Council case study [ctbuh.org] for some of its information. In short, the wood materials to be used are highly specialized fireproofed laminate composites. Calling the finished product wood is like calling Splenda sugar; just because it's a derivative of the original doesn't mean it's the same thing.
From an engineering perspective, a skyscraper undergoes incredible stresses. The building has to be capable of supporting itself and all the weight within it. It has to withstand the tremors of earthquakes, the forces of wind and water, and not lose its strength over time, even as it's exposed for decades to UV rays. The building materials need to have a unique combination of sheer strength, tensile strength, and compressive strength. A combination of steel and concrete give you all three. But natural wood is inconsistent. Flaws like knots and cracks in the grains weaken its sheer strength. Wood has great tensile strength in the direction of the grain, but is very weak against the grain. And it works the opposite way with compression. The only way to overcome these weaknesses is with laminates, which are very expensive (currently, due to the lack of demand) to produce.
Not to mention wood burns much easier.
My personal opinion is that there are some architects trying to get name recognition by coming up with something unique. I hope anyone considering to fund such imaginations take a lesson from the Spruce Goose and use wood when it's advantageous, not avant garde.
Re: (Score:2)
Partially, but it would probably fall down if you took out all the hydrogen.
Re: (Score:3)
They are a wood product manufacturing company. This model is quite common with Japanese companies too.
Set a high, long term goal and work towards it. The innovations and new ideas that come from the work keep the company at the forefront of the market. After all, there are plenty of other companies making wood products (or steel, or cars, or soft drinks or whatever) and overheads are low in China, so having a better product is the only way to compete.
The goal here is to produce new building materials out of
Re: (Score:2)
Also, wood is stronger than structural steel by weight, so not that hard to do.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Splenda is brand of sucralose, it is absolutely sugar, there is no question about that at all. It also has the same calorie content as other carbohydrates.
Re: (Score:2)
Unlikely.... Checkout the current tallest "wooden building" in the world under construction...
https://www.archdaily.com/8796... [archdaily.com]
What do you see? Two huge cement columns running down the middle of it.
I think the real question is how moral is it to use such materials, in a day and age when so much of our native habitat has already been lost and the remaining habitat is being rapidly cleared?
Even if the wood is sustainably sourced, which it probably won't be, creating a fashion like this encourages others to d
Re: (Score:1)
Seriously there must be better uses for such a precious commodity
It's not precious: wood literally grows on trees. At least in the developed world, most wood is harvested from managed forests, which are basically tree farms. Cut 'em down and replant. The timber company is incentivized to replant and practice good silviculture techniques because timber is their product.
From an environmental perspective, wood is a carbon sink. Trees absorb carbon, and timber stores it.
Re: (Score:1)
If they called it a "cellulose fibre re-inforced thermoset plastic composite" building, then it would not sound as 'green'.
Re: (Score:2)
sheer strength
ITYM "shear strength"
Old episode of South Park - ladder to heaven (Score:3)
This has already been done.
Fire! (Score:2)
As a showcase point-of-pride project, it will know doubt have a wow factor of the highest magnitude. Read the article and links within it - wood skyscrapers seem to be an idea on the ascendancy. Many of the putative benefits from a social, engineering, and ecological point of view no doubt have merit. However, there is a potential downside which was the first thing that came to my mind. Fire.
Looking at the concept renders in the article, try this estimate: 20 residential units per story, times 70 storie
Re: (Score:2)
Never mind fire; I'd be more concerned about wet rot and worse, ground termites. The only discouragement that works without regular reapplication is creosote (which of course has been largely outlawed).
Re: (Score:2)
End of life? (Score:2)
It will have so much glue and additives in it that it will even be fireproof and waterproof, bugs certainly won't like it.
Buildings eventually need to be demolished. What can be done with this engineered wood at that point? If we chop it up small and burn it, or dump it in a landfill, will the additives cause pollution? For that matter, if you drill a hole in a new piece of engineered wood, can you treat the debris like ordinary wood chips, or does it require special disposal?
Re: (Score:2)
Popular advice says that you shouldn't compost such wood chips. Small amounts go in the trash.
Disposal is a good question, for which good answers are available. In "throw away" cultures, the question has implicit assumptions of "doing it cheaply" or engaging in landfill habits.
In Japan and elsewhere, advanced incineration seems the preferred solution.
http://www.bvsde.paho.org/bvsa... [paho.org]
Light em if you got em (Score:1)
I sure hope they have a No Smoking rule that is enforced.
Rubner Holzbau (Score:2)
Google for "Pyramidenkogel" and "Rubner Holzbau" - you will be astonished, what's possible with wood.
Armchair Engineers (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Right on, kinda like telling them how to build nuclear reactors as well.