The concrete dome of the Pantheon in Rome remains stable enough for visitors to walk beneath, and some Roman harbours have underwater concrete elements that have not been repaired for two millennia – even though they are in regions often shaken by earthquakes.

Whence this remarkable resilience of Roman concrete architecture? It’s all down to the chemistry.

  • flatbield@beehaw.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    I have heard too there are differences in available raw materials. Even our newer concrete is not as good as older.

    Notice also they said common cement too. I suspect supply and demand meaning cost and obsolecense are what we design for. For that matter too cheap patio blocks are not as good as expensive ones. Sad but we do not build for even decades let alone centuries.

    Keep in mind too that technology does not automatically improve. For tech to even continue at the same level we have to continually practice it.

    • mayooooo@beehaw.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      1 year ago

      We build for decades, literally ALL of our materials are better. We know why we make things the way we do and we choose according to the thing we are building. Now, I think we are doing some practice with concrete because it’s the most used thing in the world, it’s even a strong co2 contributor. There is no mystery about the concrete, no conspiracy, there is nothing but the fantasy being peddled by people who need to find fisting in their lives so it can fill that emptiness

      • Bebo@lemm.eeOP
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Well if some research on Roman concrete can help us better understand self healing, won’t that be good?

        • mayooooo@beehaw.org
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          We already know how it works and it doesn’t work for modern uses of concrete. Of course it’s good to know, but it’s been some years now that people keep talking about roman concrete as if it’s adamantium or something

    • snooggums@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      Our newer concrete is better for the goals we are setting in construction, which does not tend to include permanence. Our goals are mostly about strength to weight ratios and other properties that allow for massive numbers of floors with and as little mass as possible with reliability measured in decades. Basically guaranteed to last reliably with minimal upkeep.

      We are continuously practicing new ways to build with concrete, wtf are you talking about?