Elizabeth Barrette (ysabetwordsmith) wrote,
Elizabeth Barrette
ysabetwordsmith
  • Mood: busy

Roman Concrete

Tags: crafts, history, news
Subscribe

  • Post a new comment

    Error

    switch
    default userpic

    Your IP address will be recorded 

    When you submit the form an invisible reCAPTCHA check will be performed.
    You must follow the Privacy Policy and Google Terms of use.
    Help
  • 7 comments
fayanora

fayanora

June 16 2013, 23:27:01 UTC 8 years ago

What I like about Roman concrete is that not only was it stronger, it was more durable. Isn't it still going strong after 2000+ years? Whereas our modern concrete starts crumbling in about 10 or 20 years...
thnidu

thnidu

June 17 2013, 01:53:41 UTC 8 years ago

Yes, indeed. Did you follow the link and read the article?

"…
Over the past decade, researchers from Italy and the U.S. have analyzed 11 harbors in the Mediterranean basin where, in many cases, 2,000-year-old (and sometimes older) headwaters constructed out of Roman concrete stand perfectly intact despite constant pounding by the sea.

The most common blend of modern concrete, known as Portland cement, a formulation in use for nearly 200 years, can’t come close to matching that track record, says Marie Jackson, a research engineer at the University of California at Berkeley who was part of the Roman concrete research team."
ysabetwordsmith

Yes...

ysabetwordsmith

June 17 2013, 02:06:33 UTC 8 years ago

I did read the article. I'm fascinated by the chemical reaction. It's also supposed to be more earth-friendly, although I'm a little concerned about the supply and acquisition of volcanic ash. But it's worth exploring.
thnidu

Re: Yes...

thnidu

June 17 2013, 02:10:18 UTC 8 years ago

Yes, I assumed you had. I was addressing Fayanora, who asked "Isn't it still going strong after 2000+ years? Whereas our modern concrete starts crumbling in about 10 or 20 years..." -- which is right in the story.