> It turns out that another chemical reaction, known as carbonation, might also contribute to Roman concrete’s longevity.
Roman concrete was made lime cement (calcium dioxide); which cures via carbonation (hardens with carbon oxide). And adding pozzolan to lime makes it hydrolic (hardens with water). Is it surprising that it can still carbonate some? Modern concrete has steel which rust and crack concrete. You can use fiberglass rebar for longevity, or build without rebar even, but that is more costly and and less efficient.
Stainless steel rebar is a thing. It's expensive, but structures built with it last much longer. Washington State now has a policy that bridges over salt water will be built with stainless steel rebar. Stainless steel costs much more, but total project cost goes up less than 10%.
Epoxy coated rebar looked promising for a while, but it's on the way out. Water gets in at cuts and joints. So all field joints have to have field patching.
There is a great comparison. Two piers were built in the 1940s, side by side, one with carbon steel rebar, one with stainless steel rebar.[1] Go look.
> Stainless steel costs much more, but total project cost goes up less than 10%.
I think people are often surprised how little materials cost affects the total cost of a job.
I'm having this argument at work, where I want some more expensive cabling installed in a bunch of offices across Scotland so it doesn't need to be done again in another ten year's time, but "that stuff is so expensive, do we really need it?" is what I'm running up against.
So as it turns out today I'm giving them a breakdown of the cost of the job. Guess what the expensive bits are?
Did you guess "wages for two guys, hotel rooms for two guys, 800 miles of diesel, and a couple of ferry tickets?"
As I understand it, concrete has excellent resistance to compression but fails easily on traction, while steel bars are exactly the opposite. That is why you put rebar in concrete: the steel handles the traction loads and the concrete handles the compression. This works well because both materials have similar coefficients of thermal expansion, so as the temperature changes they both expand and contract at the same rate. I suppose you can engineer fiberglass to have the same thermal expansion coefficient and use it to replace steel (assuming it is just as strong on traction). But how would you "build without rebar even"? Wouldn't your beams start cracking at the bottom, where they are subject to traction?
To build without tension you have to build structures that basically look like Roman structures [1]: a bunch of tightly spaces arches so that the entire thing is in compression, with no meaningful tension anywhere.
But it turns out that's pretty inconvenient; we really like doing dozens of feet of span for highway overpasses, building floors, and everything else. So we put rebar in all the concrete and just acknowledge that that means it has an absolute maximum lifespan of a century or two, and will certainly not last for millennia the way pure concrete in pure compression can.
The “it’s built so everything is under compression” is great thing to bring up, but fyi your link is AI generated, filled with senseless repetition and “it’s not just x, it’s y”.
Looking it up on archive.org shows it was generated this year.
As one of my professors said back in time: "Steel is one of the best materials for a number of applications. We don't use it only because it's abundant. "Abundant" and "good" are not always mutually exclusive."
> Wouldn't your beams start cracking at the bottom, where they are subject to traction?
You have a few mistakes here. I’m not trying to demean you, but I’m going to number them just for clarity, as it can get confusing when there are many misunderstandings.
1. You are intending to ask about tension (which the rebar helps with), not traction (the force your tires exert against a road).
2. Tension is not only experienced at the bottom of beams, the location with the most tension will depend on the geometry. For a vertical beam, I think tension will probably be pretty even through the whole beam in most “normal” designs and loading configurations. But it will really depend on the geometry and on the loads being applied.
3. I think when you say concrete beams you’re meaning columns (apologies if I’m wrong about this). Concrete columns are remarkably good at holding up without rebar, because they experience almost exclusively compression! And indeed, ancient Roman designs did not use rebar at all :). It’s certainly possible.
Modern concrete has steel rebar, which is very useful, but eventually corrodes. Stainless steel rebar could be used if longevity mattered, but usually it doesn’t because the building will likely become functionally obsolete and need replacing before then.
Related, Grady Hillhouse on the myth of Roman concrete.
> The miracle of modern chemistry has given us a wide variety of admixtures like superplasticizers to improve the characteristics of concrete beyond a Roman engineer’s wildest dreams. So why does it seem that our concrete doesn’t last nearly as long as it should? It’s a complicated question, but one answer is economics. There’s a famous quote that says “Anyone can design a bridge that stands. It takes an engineer to build one that barely stands.” Just like the sculptors job is to chip away all the parts of the marble that don’t look like the subject, a structural engineer’s job is to take away all the extraneous parts of a structure that aren’t necessary to meet the design requirements. And lifespan is just one of the many criteria engineers must consider when designing concrete structures. Most infrastructure is paid for by taxes, and the cost of building to Roman standards is rarely impossible, but often beyond what the public would consider reasonable.
A large part of why Roman concrete lasted longer than ours tends to is that we suffer from a shortage of narcissistic emperors with the means to wield entire economies towards their own immortality.
The same is said for why we don't build classical buildings anymore and trend towards more featureless stuff... and it's also mostly bullshit with plenty of counterexamples.
Truth is it's often just a bit cheaper so we trend that way under capitalism, we change styles faster and have come to subconsciously accept shorter lifespans and the kind of things you can build more practical for cars, large overhangs, etc
Most infrastructure is paid for by taxes, and the cost of building to Roman standards is rarely impossible, but often beyond what the public would consider reasonable.
Would you pay 10x more to have something that lasts 100x or even 1000x longer? The upfront cost is higher, but the TCO is ultimately lower. IMHO it's ultimately a form of planned obsolescence. This becomes even more obvious when plenty of expense is spent just on "engineering" to deliberately reduce lifespan.
First, we can’t summon infinite money to pay for things. Paying 10X more per bridge means we can build 1/10th as many bridges or we have to start stealing from other budgets.
Second, we don’t know what the needs will be for the bridge in that location 100 or 1000 years from now. It could need to be torn down to be widened. Maybe we’re all riding around in electric vehicles that coordinate perfectly with each other and the bridge isn’t needed for cross traffic any more. We don’t know.
No, because there are public projects that make sense at 3–4% discount rates that haven't been funded, so it would clearly make more sense to direct funding towards those projects first before trying to fund anything that requires a sub-1% discount rate.
The thing is, we're actually pretty crappy at knowing what we'll need 50 years from now, much less 500. Doesn't make sense to overbuild for an unknown future, when hundred years from now us will likely be able to do a far better job anyway.
That's to consider the commons solely materialist utility. The Romans built meaning through arts that still speaks to this day. Efficient construction becomes worthless over time.
The whole promise of engineering is not to build a bridge that stands but to build a bridge that barely stands. It is not a good idea to build a bridge that last 500 years. You likely destroyed valuable resources to build one. Build a bridge that lasts 100 years and save those resources. In 100 years the technology to build bridges improves so much that it is lot easier to build a new one. At least in most countries like India.
Modern concrete includes plastic fibers like polypropylene, fly ash (a great source of arsenic, lead, and mercury), silica fume, formaldehyde, and often even PFAS
This type of concrete does not give us any more flexibility in the future to rebuild or upgrade because doing anything to it could turn it into an environmental and public health hazard
Nobody is going to tear down old bridges and rebuild them at enormous costs just because technology changed. Some things can't or won't be redone and so it's worth it to build it to last and getting it right on the first try.
This is exactly what we did with houses, buildings. We had perfectly functional 100+ years old fully functional, gorgeous buildings and we replaced those with brutalist concrete/glass barely functional garbage.
In Europe we have plenty of old buildings. The good ones (i.e. made by very wealthy people) tend to be decent, with a skew towards huge living rooms but tiny rooms. The cheaper ones are a mess to mantain: cold in winter, hot in summer, expensive to renovate (it could be more expensive to renovate than to build a new one), bad to no isolation, in my region terribly humid, usually too dark with minuscule windows for modern standards.
With roman buildings that last 2000 thousand years we are looking at survivor bias. Near me there are some roman ruins from a (cheap and small) public bath that are barely distiguishable from a pile of bricks. The are some nearby pre-roman ruins in better shape.
You need to actually reduce draft a bit (often old houses like mine tend to accumulate flaws that the elderly living there before didn't fix anymore.)
and use a heating sources that matches.
Having a fireplace is fine. It could overheat the house whilst also keeping air dryer and it's essentially renewable (compared to the alternatives and houses made of more plastic insulation than anything else) if you don't mind air quality dip in winter.
That said i can see how that's no longer an option in places that have drastically increased their population
They weren't torn down because there was better technology available. They were torn down because they were falling apart, or were no longer meeting the needs in that location. I love old buildings – my house is 250 years old – but there's no denying that generally they are less suited to current needs than newer buildings.
But we are currently doing it when a bridge can't handle modern traffic levels because it was designed thinking in 50's traffic (single lane for each direction without peatón or bicycle ways to 4 or 6 lanes and pedestrian and bicycle ways).
There must be a better format and distribution method than this. Ideologically a strong brand name and domain, yet ads every two sentences. Even with ad blocking, there is constant aggressive attempts at attention.
I propose the communal brain rot is less to do with short form video, and more to do with the everyday experience of trying to read something enlightening, tickle your curiosity - and be just absolutely fucking hammered with autoplay interstitials and 720x90 and 300x250 bullshit.
I'm sure hidden in the links is a link to the paper, which you can pay to get the no-nonsense study.
This is the third or fourth degree of scientific reporting; first is the paper, second is a news report, third is adult pop sci magazines, fourth is youth pop sci magazines. Pick your poison / preference.
The folk of the 1930s were entirely capable of making poor quality concrete that barely lasted 30 years (source, my father, born 1935, still alive despite having mixed many a batch of concrete and having laboured).
The reason you don't see that walking about is that poor quality 1930s concrete was replace 50+ years ago.
I don't see how this would work because you're saying that the older sidewalks are scrapped and rebuilt when they hit a state of 'x' deterioration, so you only see > 'x' state ones. But how then could it be that newer sidewalks are allowed to fall below 'x' instead of also just being scrapped and rebuilt?
Municipal budgets cratered hard over the past couple decades, roadway maintenance is given precedence over sidewalk maintenance, and SUVs and electric vehicles do considerably more roadway damage per vehicle. So there’s concurrent causes promoting a global decay in sidewalk maintenance in cities that expanded without the necessary tax base to support maintenance: see for example Los Angeles (current-day example!) repaving all but one foot’s width of their roadways so that they don’t have to fix broken sidewalks. This doesn’t contradict the survivor bias point! If anything, it’ll accelerate it: you’re about to see just how many (or few) sidewalk squares survive the underspend. Citizen science, here we come!
Politics, money allocation, taxation, etc. The US had a golden age last century and is now in decline. It can still bounce back but it needs a political and legal revolution, in this particular case, it needs to tax the wealthy and spend it on municipal improvements.
But that's socialism / liberalism and apparently that's terrorism now.
Edit: if you were an expert in this field and that link saved you from typing, and you mentioned you could confirm every word, that’d make sense - I think those Flash models were tested as being as reliable as a coin flip in some hallucination test scenarios, so linking it’s like… eh do I wanna read potentially-only-plausible history?
Roman concrete was made lime cement (calcium dioxide); which cures via carbonation (hardens with carbon oxide). And adding pozzolan to lime makes it hydrolic (hardens with water). Is it surprising that it can still carbonate some? Modern concrete has steel which rust and crack concrete. You can use fiberglass rebar for longevity, or build without rebar even, but that is more costly and and less efficient.
Epoxy coated rebar looked promising for a while, but it's on the way out. Water gets in at cuts and joints. So all field joints have to have field patching.
There is a great comparison. Two piers were built in the 1940s, side by side, one with carbon steel rebar, one with stainless steel rebar.[1] Go look.
[1] https://worldstainless.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/02/ref19_...
[1] https://worldstainless.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/02/ref19_...
I think people are often surprised how little materials cost affects the total cost of a job.
I'm having this argument at work, where I want some more expensive cabling installed in a bunch of offices across Scotland so it doesn't need to be done again in another ten year's time, but "that stuff is so expensive, do we really need it?" is what I'm running up against.
So as it turns out today I'm giving them a breakdown of the cost of the job. Guess what the expensive bits are?
Did you guess "wages for two guys, hotel rooms for two guys, 800 miles of diesel, and a couple of ferry tickets?"
Well, you're way ahead of today's crowd then.
But it turns out that's pretty inconvenient; we really like doing dozens of feet of span for highway overpasses, building floors, and everything else. So we put rebar in all the concrete and just acknowledge that that means it has an absolute maximum lifespan of a century or two, and will certainly not last for millennia the way pure concrete in pure compression can.
[1]: https://www.theartnewbie.com/blog/rome/roman-arch
Looking it up on archive.org shows it was generated this year.
No, steel is better in both ways, ten times over. It's just more expensive, concrete is a "filler" to cheap out construction.
If you think about it, all engineering is about cheaping out things. It's pretty easy to build awesome projects having unlimited budget.
You have a few mistakes here. I’m not trying to demean you, but I’m going to number them just for clarity, as it can get confusing when there are many misunderstandings.
1. You are intending to ask about tension (which the rebar helps with), not traction (the force your tires exert against a road).
2. Tension is not only experienced at the bottom of beams, the location with the most tension will depend on the geometry. For a vertical beam, I think tension will probably be pretty even through the whole beam in most “normal” designs and loading configurations. But it will really depend on the geometry and on the loads being applied.
3. I think when you say concrete beams you’re meaning columns (apologies if I’m wrong about this). Concrete columns are remarkably good at holding up without rebar, because they experience almost exclusively compression! And indeed, ancient Roman designs did not use rebar at all :). It’s certainly possible.
I don’t know if it is the case here, but it is a common mistake for some non-native English speakers. In some languages traction is a false friend.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galvanic_anode
There are also coated and non-metallic rebars.
> The miracle of modern chemistry has given us a wide variety of admixtures like superplasticizers to improve the characteristics of concrete beyond a Roman engineer’s wildest dreams. So why does it seem that our concrete doesn’t last nearly as long as it should? It’s a complicated question, but one answer is economics. There’s a famous quote that says “Anyone can design a bridge that stands. It takes an engineer to build one that barely stands.” Just like the sculptors job is to chip away all the parts of the marble that don’t look like the subject, a structural engineer’s job is to take away all the extraneous parts of a structure that aren’t necessary to meet the design requirements. And lifespan is just one of the many criteria engineers must consider when designing concrete structures. Most infrastructure is paid for by taxes, and the cost of building to Roman standards is rarely impossible, but often beyond what the public would consider reasonable.
https://practical.engineering/blog/2019/3/9/was-roman-concre...
A large part of why Roman concrete lasted longer than ours tends to is that we suffer from a shortage of narcissistic emperors with the means to wield entire economies towards their own immortality.
Truth is it's often just a bit cheaper so we trend that way under capitalism, we change styles faster and have come to subconsciously accept shorter lifespans and the kind of things you can build more practical for cars, large overhangs, etc
Would you pay 10x more to have something that lasts 100x or even 1000x longer? The upfront cost is higher, but the TCO is ultimately lower. IMHO it's ultimately a form of planned obsolescence. This becomes even more obvious when plenty of expense is spent just on "engineering" to deliberately reduce lifespan.
First, we can’t summon infinite money to pay for things. Paying 10X more per bridge means we can build 1/10th as many bridges or we have to start stealing from other budgets.
Second, we don’t know what the needs will be for the bridge in that location 100 or 1000 years from now. It could need to be torn down to be widened. Maybe we’re all riding around in electric vehicles that coordinate perfectly with each other and the bridge isn’t needed for cross traffic any more. We don’t know.
not recently
Turns out algae is hard to kill, especially when you feed the reflecting pool from a tidal basin.
This type of concrete does not give us any more flexibility in the future to rebuild or upgrade because doing anything to it could turn it into an environmental and public health hazard
This hasn't even been true for 200 years lol
With roman buildings that last 2000 thousand years we are looking at survivor bias. Near me there are some roman ruins from a (cheap and small) public bath that are barely distiguishable from a pile of bricks. The are some nearby pre-roman ruins in better shape.
You need to actually reduce draft a bit (often old houses like mine tend to accumulate flaws that the elderly living there before didn't fix anymore.) and use a heating sources that matches.
Having a fireplace is fine. It could overheat the house whilst also keeping air dryer and it's essentially renewable (compared to the alternatives and houses made of more plastic insulation than anything else) if you don't mind air quality dip in winter.
That said i can see how that's no longer an option in places that have drastically increased their population
I propose the communal brain rot is less to do with short form video, and more to do with the everyday experience of trying to read something enlightening, tickle your curiosity - and be just absolutely fucking hammered with autoplay interstitials and 720x90 and 300x250 bullshit.
I'm sure hidden in the links is a link to the paper, which you can pay to get the no-nonsense study.
This is the third or fourth degree of scientific reporting; first is the paper, second is a news report, third is adult pop sci magazines, fourth is youth pop sci magazines. Pick your poison / preference.
In fact, that institution is non profit and publicly funded, so what gives...
Anyhow reading the piece with Brave showed me no ads whatsoever.
From: https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.aeb0754
https://share.gemini.google/5g0gxGyOmAPD
The folk of the 1930s were entirely capable of making poor quality concrete that barely lasted 30 years (source, my father, born 1935, still alive despite having mixed many a batch of concrete and having laboured).
The reason you don't see that walking about is that poor quality 1930s concrete was replace 50+ years ago.
But that's socialism / liberalism and apparently that's terrorism now.
Edit: if you were an expert in this field and that link saved you from typing, and you mentioned you could confirm every word, that’d make sense - I think those Flash models were tested as being as reliable as a coin flip in some hallucination test scenarios, so linking it’s like… eh do I wanna read potentially-only-plausible history?