Why do abandoned concrete buildings decay so fast?

A location for the new Bond film was apparently inspired by Hashima, a “ghost island” in Japan that formerly housed a mining community. The mine was only abandoned in 1974, and yet the buildings now seem to be in a pretty advanced state of decay.

Obviously they haven’t been maintained in that time, but why has the actual fabric of the concrete deteriorated so much in less than 40 years? Concrete buildings that are in use don’t have anything done to the actual surface of the concrete, as far as I am aware, and they don’t crumble like this. Is it simply that the less hardy elements of the building (wood, metal etc) decays without maintenance which in turn allows water inside the fabric of the building? I find it strange that the effect is so great.

That building is surrounded by sea water. Salt is pretty rough on … everything.

I’m just guessing…I mean WAY out on a limb here…but I wonder if the concrete used at Hashima incorporated coral/shells or coral sand instead of rock aggregate. That may make it deteriorate faster.

Part of the answer may be in the link you provided:

Sea spray and harsh weather can do an awful lot of damage to concrete that isn’t maintained.

As a data point, my girlfriend’s family has a beach house and completely repainting it is part of required maintenance every few years. The nearby beach houses where the owner does not maintain it properly show significant decay very quickly.

While it would be much clearer up close and in person, I do wonder in your Hashima photo how much of the deleterious appearance of the structure isn’t concrete discolored by dirt and algae and it’s the wooden rails especially that actually are in an advanced state of decay. Not that decay isn’t ongoing but in many examples it’s difficult to put a quantifiable value on it’s state without some cleaning and close inspection.

I’d also think that the original structural integrity would have a large effect. For example if elements don’t have the proper support gravity is going to have a more pronounced effect over time. If a large amout of interior rebar was left exposed, it’ll beging to expand as it rusts and will fracture the surrounding concrete much like ice within a rock crevice. And as mentioned, things like the weather, ground stability etc will play a major role.

All this just suggests that yes, concrete structures decay but a number of factors will have a large effect on whether the rate is relatively fast or slow.

If you click on the picture you get a higher resolution picture. There it is clear that in a lot of places the concrete has fallen away exposing the rebar within.

Google image ‘WWII gun emplacements’. There’s some pretty good looking concrete.

A major factor in building decay is whether the roof is intact or not. Once the roof fails, a building will decay very much faster. Water and wind will efficiently attack the walls from both sides, plus vegetation will grow on the inside as well.

Another point is that the buildings were abandoned 40 years ago, but they were built much before that–they might have been 60 years old at that point, apparently, and maintenance might well have been spotty for a while before that.

It’s mostly the rebar inside the concrete rusting and causing the concrete to spall. Concrete is permeable; if concrete is exposed to corrosive environments it should be sealed or otherwise (galvanic protection, large amounts of cover, etc.) protect the rebar.

Hmm, that’s a good point. I’ve seen the WWII German-built coastal defences in Guernsey - right on the clifftops and exposed to the sea spray - and they are in much better shape than Hashima. Presumably they used better concrete.

It’s probably more to do with the fact that they were designed to absorb heavy gunfire. I doubt the buildings in Hashima would be falling down if the walls were three feet thick for every eight feet high.

According to the Japanese version of the wikipedia article, one of the 7-story apartment buildings (Block 30) was built in 1916, and is the first concrete high-rise apartment building built in Japan. (Originally 4 story, but built up to 7 stories “shortly after”). Because of the poor quality it deteriorated rapidly, and was renovated in 1953 by adding new concrete.

The largest apartment building (Block 65) was built in 1945. This is the one in the OP’s link. I imagine it didn’t help that it was constructed during wartime, under severe shortage of construction materials.

This coastal defense bunker in NJ has been in trouble due to erosion. This thing used to be 900 feet inland!

Much of the post-war construction in Japan is of nearly ubiquitous concrete construction, often using prefabricated slabs. This was largely because Japan lacked much in the way of structural metals and wood for reconstruction, and because the traditional wood framed rice paper structures of the pre-war era proved to be highly prone to propagation of firestorms. Concrete is an essentially fireproof material that can be fashioned out of (mostly) local materials, preformed and prestressed in a production-line fashion, and made into essentially any shape using minimal structural steel. This use of concrete is especially apparent in Okinawa, which was devastated by Allied bombing and invasion, and in which virtually no pre-war structures remain (except in a few of the outlying islands of the Ryukyu Archipelago). Even structures such as picnic shelters/observatories and railings are made of concrete textured and painted to look like wood.

While most people think of concrete as being inert “like rock”, as an aggregate material it is really a prefractured material with a matrix to hold it together, and while it can accept considerable compressive stresses it resists tension, torsion, and combined loading very poorly. Like all composite materials, it is only as strong as the weakest material when it comes to corrosion and degradation. Concrete buildings often show evidence of degradation only a few decades after construction, and this is especially true in nations like Japan. Concrete is degraded in three basic ways; erosion due to action of wind and waves, spallation (large flakes or slabs separating off of the surface) usually due to subsurface stresses such as corrosion or freezing, and through fracture which is due to tensile and torsional stresses which are not taken up by the reinforcing structure (rebar).

Why are Japanese (and many other) concrete buildings prone to degradation while modern concrete structures in Europe and North America more resistant? There are multiple reasons:

Corrosion: Japan, as an island nation in which much of the population lives in near-marine conditions, has a corrosive environment. While the aggregate material (sand and rock) is generally highly resistant to natural chemical action, the matrix can be dissolved by acids, electrolytic action, and many oils, especially those formed by petroleum residue. Spallation or through fracture can expose the tensile fiber to the elements which can further accelerate wear by corrosive expansion, i.e. rust from the rebar expands, forcing greater internal stress in the concrete and separating the rebar from the concrete substrate.

Poor materials: Local materials, especially aggregates, were used without care for proper size, composition, and necessary hardening, making a lot of the construction of particularly soft concrete that does not resist erosion or fracture. Some of the aggregate materials used, like those containing mica, laumontite, and pyrite may actually degrade material strength and accelerate corrosion.

Poor/no sealing and hardening: Japanese post-war buildings are not generally sealed, painted, and have insufficient hardening, making them prone to both erosion and spallation. Similar effects can be seen on old military concrete structures built around the same time.

Weather: People often think of Japan as being a tropical nation; while this is true for the more southern islands and possessions, the Home Islands (Honshū, Hokkaidō, Kyūshū, and Shikoku) are hemiboreal to subtropical and experience cold and often snowy winters in the north as well as considerable rainfall and large temperature variations throughout the year. Heavy tropical storms, depositing seawater well inland, are common during the monsoon season in the more southern areas of the Home Islands and in the southern possessions.

Seismic activity: Japan is, of course, a volcanic archipelago with a high degree of geological activity. Anyone who has owned a home with a basement in a temperate zone is familiar with the damage that almost inevitably occurs due to subsidence of the ground during freeze/thaw cycles, e.g. foundation cracking. This leads back to through fracture, exposing the rebar to corrosion and the resulting effects.

Even good quality concrete structures in temperate climates require periodic maintenance (applying sealants on exposed areas, patching cracks, reinforcing areas stressed by subsidence, et cetera). Many concrete structures that are built with aesthetic requirements will apply a facade of some kind; either a surface treatment that is attached to but concealing the structure, or an actual separate non-structural facade built of wood, sheet metal, brick, or other material that can be removed and replaced. This both conceals superficial (and sometimes significant) damage to the underlying structure and may to some extent protect it from rain and climate extremes.

Stranger

Also, doesn’t Japan have a lot of earthquakes? That’ll put a lot of stress on something built for expediency, rather than durability, I would think.

Is there a chance that some of the damage to the building was done by a bunch of guys with sledgehammers, trying to make the site look older and more decrepit than it was last year?

So a bunch of guys take a boat out to some shit hole island and do hard labor for many hours to slightly alter the appearance of a building… what’s part two of this plan?

Who cares. Part three? Profit!

Stranger On A Train, outstanding response. Thanks for the insight!