89
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
30 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
[-] Bobo@lemm.ee 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Yeah, I think people got rubbed the wrong way only from the title. I don't think they bothered to read it. I don't think the article in any way emphasised that Roman concrete is better than modern; rather it talked about findings of certain researchers. It was the chemistry which I found interesting.

[-] CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Agreed. The article doesn't really make Roman concrete sound great, it even mentions how limited in availability the volcanic ash they used was.

If we wanted to build to last longer, I imagine not using iron-based reinforcement would get us most of the way there, especially where ice isn't a concern.

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

Science

13000 readers
2 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