How Ancient Roman Concrete Was Able to Last Thousands of Years

The source[0] of this low quality article (referenced at the very end under "Science Advances") has been posted a few times [1][2][3][4] never more than a few points, all a year ago.

[0]: https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.add1602?adobe_mc=... [1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34292891 [2]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34300071 [3]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34315784 [4]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34404936

It's a neat trick, I'd be curious to see how those "self-healing" carbonate networks do in a simulation under load. We need to be careful around any notions about Roman concrete being somehow superior; this is one of those intellectual traps that Western civilization - having had a somewhat overactive overachiever as a father - can sometimes fall into. It's such a romantic notion - ha! romantic. I kill me - that it's hard to not fall for it a little.

It is, however, important to note that Roman structures were generally overbuilt, with >5 meter walls not uncommon on lower levels (with such thicknesses capable of loads a fraction of those of modern concrete). And of course there's survivorship bias; we might just be seeing the Roman equivalent of Cheyenne Mountain.

Probably the main reason contemporary structures have such relatively short shelf life is the inclusion of ferrous materials; although they make a much stronger structure, that rust inside the concrete is basically an egg timer so far as long term is concerned.

I feel like I've seen this title every month for the last 20 years. And of course, the not-included subtitle is: romans didn't have cars, that weighted a lot