We've known for a long, long time why. Because we only see the things that lasted. Make thousands of buildings in hundreds of cities over Europe and the Near East and sure, a statistically...
We've known for a long, long time why. Because we only see the things that lasted. Make thousands of buildings in hundreds of cities over Europe and the Near East and sure, a statistically insignificant number of them will still be standing today.
Modern concrete is much, much better than Roman concrete for the criteria that we have for concrete. Lasting 1000 years is not one of those criteria - being cheap, workable, safe, reliable, and sustainable are all far more useful things for concrete to be.
Not to say the research isn't good - just the clickbait science communication. Learning from statistical survivors is a great way to improve things generally.
I seem to recall reading about this previously. Even though the Roman concrete is self healing, aren’t there other things that need to consider that make modern concrete more superior? I feel like...
I seem to recall reading about this previously. Even though the Roman concrete is self healing, aren’t there other things that need to consider that make modern concrete more superior?
I feel like I remembered reading that the Roman concrete was more brittle and less resilient to tremors/earthquakes or something
The link mentions a version of the story was previously published in January 2023, which lines up with your recall. Even ignoring the material science side, reinforced concrete has significant...
The link mentions a version of the story was previously published in January 2023, which lines up with your recall.
Even ignoring the material science side, reinforced concrete has significant advantages over concrete alone, especially in terms of seismic soundness.
We've known for a long, long time why. Because we only see the things that lasted. Make thousands of buildings in hundreds of cities over Europe and the Near East and sure, a statistically insignificant number of them will still be standing today.
Modern concrete is much, much better than Roman concrete for the criteria that we have for concrete. Lasting 1000 years is not one of those criteria - being cheap, workable, safe, reliable, and sustainable are all far more useful things for concrete to be.
Not to say the research isn't good - just the clickbait science communication. Learning from statistical survivors is a great way to improve things generally.
I seem to recall reading about this previously. Even though the Roman concrete is self healing, aren’t there other things that need to consider that make modern concrete more superior?
I feel like I remembered reading that the Roman concrete was more brittle and less resilient to tremors/earthquakes or something
The link mentions a version of the story was previously published in January 2023, which lines up with your recall.
Even ignoring the material science side, reinforced concrete has significant advantages over concrete alone, especially in terms of seismic soundness.