How Ancient Rome’s Concrete Has Survived 2,000 Years (2017)
time.com
time.com
Part of it nearsighted thinking, the other part is consideration that money could be spent on like nicer decor, or maybe build larger number of 100 year buildings than a smaller number of 1000 year buildings.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_Gate_Bridge#Conception
Buildings and roads are technologies that have existed for thousands of years, and may continue to exist for thousands of years. If you want to protect people and things from the world, it's hard to do better than walls and a roof. If you want to get from point A to point B by land, it's hard to do better than a network of cleared spaces. Sure, we may not know exactly what people in 100 years will want, but it's likely they'll still want buildings and roads.
I suspect monuments are the only thing that benefit from longevity.
I was imaginging government buildings built for 100 years, but I figure climate control and window design has radically changed and older buildings are probably uncomfortable in these ways without retrofitting.
95% of European cities downtown?
Regular concrete can last for 100 years and who knows how design /needs can change during that so it makes sense not to build with much more expensive 500 year concrete.
Bridges are another story.
If the carbon footprint is a concern, it might be a perfect opportunity to propose alternatives to the carbon-intense techniques we've adopted. For example, William Fairbairn invented a hand-powered crane, whose 642-to-1 ratio meant two men turning cranks could lift 60 tons. Our land and water-born vessels could also probably be innovated on with similar efficiency, if it wasn't so damn easy to burn ancient vegetation.
Are you claiming that a contemporary construction project would be able to build the Hoover Dam? That was almost 100 years ago and a lot of things have changed...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long-time_nuclear_waste_warnin...
Discussed here this: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20115211
> cbanek: Building the next [Saturn V] would be really hard
Leading edge technology isn't known by that many people to begin with, so it's easier to lose. Even though the organization that built Saturn V rockets was huge and lasted several years, there are still details that will take, as I understand it, a bit of archaeology to get at. If a technique doesn't become routine, can technology be said to have progressed up to that technique?
The 1960s had a generation of highly skilled welders, machinists, and sheet metal workers that had honed their craft in the factories of the second world war. The USA today doesn't seem to have the same quantity of skilled workers and NASA has to design parts differently to allow automated tools to do the work.
But those fabrication techniques probably would have been considered routine at the time, although maybe above-average in complexity. So even a routine technology can be, in a sense, lost if it falls out of demand.
On my return, I knew what was missing but had no idea where it was. In the ensuing decade, the company had been through three generations of documentation archives and I had to ask to get access to anything in the new system. I didn't know what to ask for. Further, they gave me a new login and could not provide access to my old email account. (Much of the documentation was shared via email attachments.)
I got lucky and ran across another engineer who had worked on the project and had saved a bunch of stuff. He was now with IT, had helped with the document migration and knew where I could find it. I found that a pretty tenuous way to propogate technical history.
That was over a ten year period and many of the participants were still alive and working there. Any break in the chain and they would have had to start the next generation from existing code and the embedded comments (which would be cryptic if you didn't understand how and why the system worked the way it did.)
Imagine thinking that the ancients knew more than we ever will, and trying to study their works to get at just some of the wisdom they had held. I think few if any people read ancient authors that way today.
however my memory on this subject may be shaky.
It does not. It fades, gets lost. Where are the Steve Wozniaks and bill gates? Where are the people truely understanding this stuff. Where are the people who can optimize code like back in the days?
For vast swaths of human mind, popular opinion tended to see the future as bleak and the past as filled with greater men, accomplishments, etc - the good days are behind us. Post industrial revolution thinking and adoption of science has mostly changed that opinion to hope - the good days are ahead of us.
As for people who can optimize code like back in the day: I am not sure where you work, but I bet if you look at the best engineers in the best tech companies today (google/ Facebook / Netflix / amazon / Uber / palantir) you’ll find a lot to be impressed with.
> Modern cement mixtures tend to erode, particularly in the presence of seawater, but the Roman recipe of volcanic ash, lime, seawater and a mineral called aluminium tobermorite actually reinforces the concrete and prevents cracks from expanding, researchers found.
If that steel bridge can be kept from rusting, it can keep a long time.
Incidentally, this fatigue vs. approaching the strength limit issue is why airplanes have limited flights. The fuselage/hull is made to last long enough, but not necessarily do well longer than that.
But the advantage rebar gives you is a gradual failure mode, where the steel holds the block together while the concrete cracks.
Without rebar, the failure of concrete is usually catastrophic (instant).
(Think of how hard you'd have to shake the Great Pyramid of Giza to make it collapse. That's not concrete obviously, but it too is under compression almost entirely, except for the corbel and lintel ceilings. The proper arches used in Roman concrete construction show that with the right engineering you can push unreinforced concrete pretty damn far. The Pantheon is probably the most impressive example of it. Compare how well it's withstood earthquakes with the Colosseum.)
The reason why the Collosseum fell is that everybody removed it's lead rebar because it was worth money when Rome fell--without that lead rebar in the joints, every earthquake knocked a bit more off the building.
The Romans lived in an active fault zone and understood building to survive earthquakes.
A bridge that stands for 2000 years without (much) maintenance isn't survivor bias, it's disruptive technology.
Yes, we only see the best of Roman architecture, and most Romans probably lived in wooden shacks or stone apartments that have long since crumbled or been demolished.
But Roman concrete is chemically different than the Portland cement that was invented in the 1800s, and although there's certainly a distribution of building quality and workmanship that will result in a wide spread of lifetimes, we don't have any reason to expect that any concrete building built from Portland cement and exposed to the elements like Roman seawalls were will last 2,000 years. The distribution just doesn't have that long of a tail to it.
When we see these structures standing, our reaction should be "wow! How did they do that? What can we learn?"
Not "well, I bet they also built a lot of bad buildings too; nothing to see here".
When you build something twice as good as the average, it's a fluke. When you build something 20x as good as average, it's worthy of study. Even if these are atypically good examples of Roman architecture[1], you can't pull off the moon landings by launching a ton of backyard fireworks and hoping for a long-tailed success distribution.
The best buildings represent the state of the art of the best architects and the best masons working with access to quality materials and an adequate budget and timeline. Not dumb luck and guesswork paying off.
[1] Which there are decent reasons to not expect. For example, we know that many Roman buildings were demolished deliberately by later generations because they weren't Christian enough, rather than because they collapsed.
How they were built is probably more interesting, but still would be useless
Hence, we can indeed learn something by studying it.
Roman concrete wasn't disruptive. It was disrupted.
I'm amazed by this mentality. It's like the very possibly of a technology being forgotten, rather than surpassed, is axiomatically impossible.
If "everyone who knew the recipe died" counts as getting disrupted, then yes, it was disrupted. And if Roman concrete counts as more expensive because the supply is literally zero, the yes, modern concrete can be seen as cheaper.
But understand that modern Portland cement wasn't invented to improve on Roman concrete, but rather as an attempt to replicate it, because nobody until then had any guess.
In this case, I actually think the naive mindset is the one that assumes, more durable is better. No, more durable is more durable. Is static typing "better" than dynamic typing? No, it's a different tool for a different task.
Please don't fall for clickbait. It sounds so cool to have lost a technology over time, and it certainly is possible, but I don't think that's what happened here.
Here's a quick Google source. Sorry for PDF. https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https:/...
1) This certainly doesn't imply that Roman concrete was discarded because a more cost effective formula came along. The fact is that it was lost to civilization for over a thousand years, and then Portland cement was discovered. There was no period of time in which a contractor could choose one or the other and selected Portland cement for price or performance reasons. So beyond a doubt the Roman technology was lost.
2) That article is pretty unconvincing, being basically just a blog post by a cement guy who points out the same things that anyone else should already expect, all of which were mentioned in the comments section here. And not only because the author misspelled Raman spectroscopy.
3) Survivor bias has been addressed in several other comments. It's a valid point if someone points to a 2,000 year old bridge and says "my building needed repairs after just 10 years; clearly no Roman buildings ever had that problem". Yes, I'm sure the Romans also built buildings that fell apart within 10 years and needed repairs. Those bridges don't say anything about the quality floor. But that's really missing the point.
The quality ceiling is also not an accident which is my point about the moon landings. Most rockets launched in the 20th century were backyard fireworks, so you could point to the moon landings as "survivorship bias that doesn't reflect the crude state of 20th century rocketry in which most rockets were just backyard fireworks and few even made it to space, we just only remember the ones that did".
But that statement, while true, also makes it sound like the moon landings were a statistical fluke in which a bunch of people who had no idea what they were doing got lucky and lauched some fireworks that made it to the moon. That would just be wrong. Likewise the best Roman buildings were not built by luck, but by skilled engineers with large budgets, and they are just as impressive as they seem. It's no coincidence that the structures that survive are high budget state infrastructure projects, government and religious buildings, and estates of exquisite craftsmanship, and not random commoners' houses, even though there were probably 10,000 houses for every aqueduct.
Survivorship bias also doesn't mean there's nothing to learn from those materials. Probably not every batch of Roman concrete was perfectly formulated to perform optimally, but that's no reason not to study the surviving samples and note their impressive durability.
Randomness isn't everywhere. If you dump a thousand ball bearings in the ocean and pull them up ten years later, you expect to see a thousand rusty ball bearings. If one of them is somehow still smooth and polished, you don't conclude that erosion just acts randomly and it's survivor bias. Instead, you should look closer and see if maybe that one was actually made of 316 stainless or something.
So is a building like the Burj Dubai, but this is an incredible understatement of the technology involved. The reason Roman concrete is interesting is that until ~50 years ago we had no idea what made it so durable. Dams are being built using these discoveries, sounds quite useful to me.
Rome was not building all that much stuff, they simply didn’t have nearly the population or wealth we do. Think the population of Tanzania and the GDP of Libya spread across as much land as India.
Meanwhile we can see structures like Portus Adurni that are mostly intact. A meaningful percentage of their larger structures are still around.
Last time I looked into this I came away with the observation that preindustrial concrete was very labor intensive. We use it for it's physical properties and because it's 'cheap'. Roman concrete wasn't cheap at all.
The central Roman government was able to marshal the effort necessary to produce it on a ongoing basis for particular uses. But I understand Romans mostly used brick and mortar for ordinary construction.
After the Roman Empire fell apart concrete probably didn't make sense.