this post was submitted on 11 Sep 2023
88 points (100.0% liked)

Science

13009 readers
11 users here now

Studies, research findings, and interesting tidbits from the ever-expanding scientific world.

Subcommunities on Beehaw:

Be sure to also check out these other Fediverse science communities:

This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
alyaza@beehaw.org
Gaywallet@beehaw.org
remington@beehaw.org
88
Why Roman concrete is still stronger than RAAC (and other modern concretes) (www.chemistryworld.com)
submitted 1 year ago by Bobo@lemm.ee to c/science@beehaw.org
27 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

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.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] hallettj@beehaw.org 25 points 1 year ago

I remember finding this Practical Engineering video on Roman concrete to be informative: https://youtu.be/qL0BB2PRY7k?si=5exDGyEK_LTfGNOy

Veritasium also has a chapter on ancient concrete in this video: https://youtu.be/rWVAzS5duAs?si=EJ8rPDTPHlq90kgW

My memory is fuzzy, but I think some of the details are:

  • We know how to make Roman concrete, but it's not necessarily the best choice, and it might be more expensive than is appropriate for a given project.
  • Ancient structures don't have rebar, so they don't degrade due to rust causing expansion. But rebar is so useful that it's often a worthwhile trade-off.

Definitely see the other comments here about survivorship bias, and higher demands on modern structures.