while true that unreinforced concrete doesn't hold up well to tension and wouldn't be good for our modern mega structures like high-rises it simply isn't true that it would be impractical for modern structures as many modern buildings are the same scale or smaller than roman buildings; to properly do the question justice you have to compare like to like modern bridges to roman bridges, modern sewer infrastructure to roman sewer infrastructure, modern stadiums to roman amphitheaters, and just about any structure under 6 stories. the thing people are wanting to know I think is why are we using reinforced concrete for smaller projects like foundations, stadiums, and bridges when the Romans were able to build similar structures that lasted longer with unreinforced concrete.
Weird how modern concrete cant even hold without having cracks for even 4 years while roman concrete can hold on without a single crack for probably century’s
The discussion should not be limited to the choice between modern reinforced concrete, with all its advantages and faults, vs. Roman concrete used the way it was during the days of the Roman empire. Why can't Roman concrete be reinforced, perhaps with corrosion resistant materials like Kevlar, carbon fiber or stainless steel? Sure, cost would be a problem in some places, but it could be used only in the most vulnerable areas of a structure to minimize that cost. From what I've heard, Roman concrete was used in the footings for the Golden Gate bridge. What if it had been used in the first couple of stories of the Surfside Condominium in Florida? If that prevented the deterioration that triggered the collapse of the complex, many would consider it a worthwhile investment.
It should be noted that modern concrete by itself seems inferior that ancient Roman concrete, however interesting prospect that is overlooked is the fact that the seawater bonded with the concrete to fill in the pours to further strengthen it, wether or not rebar reinforced roman concrete is feasible or not is not a information as of this moment I've been able to find, but it would be an interesting experiment worth trying out, even more so with this latest discovery of the self healing properties of the Roman concrete, and how their "hot mixing" technique futhered the curing process. Also just a side note the Roman's didn't have just 1 sort of concrete they had several or rather their concrete mixes where constantly evolving so that the structures that survived are what currently scientists have been trying to reverse engineer.
Because modern concrete is cheaper and easier to use globally Doesn't mean it's better. There will never be a modern concrete pour , steel.reinforced that lasts 2000 years. Simple
Roman concrete is far superior, and actually strengthens overtime. (Submerged marine Roman concrete.) Also highrises and many other modern structures are not efficient or conducive to healthily habitation. Furthermore, roman concrete could be reinforced and equivalent ashes can be found all over the world, Chile, East Africa and Japan. This argument against Roman Concrete is not very good as it boils down to cost, which will always be high until there is mass production and adoption. So this is a fallacy as well.
As he said, Romans had different structural needs and uses. They used very large solid blocks that were almost never stressed to their limits, and meant for places that were supposed to last for a long time, they were pillars of the civilization, buildings meant to endure, but still just rooms meant to fill a purpose. In essence, it was a lot of concrete and mass for a relatively small volume of area contained within it. The amount of concrete used for just one office room, could be more than even several apartments use today. So in essence, they were over engineered. But of course they also had to withstand not just weathering, but also war. People will come and burn down your village, people will come and knock down walls, but they're probably not going to spend the effort in destroying these large concrete structures. It's just not practical or worth the effort, and with the structure being soo resilient due to its scale, it would be better off kept intact. The utility of such monolithic structures, made it so that people wouldn't come in and knock down all your hard work on a whim because it would be too much effort; meaning less need to rebuild, less loss in war, and more resources focused elsewhere. When you got buildings like that up, you were sure that you wouldn't be needing to go in and replace it anytime soon. That also adds stability to a society, on top of being a gift to future generations that inhabit the city, as they could focus their efforts elsewhere rather than constantly rebuilding things that already took great effort to do so in the previous generation. Modern needs are a bit more fluid. If we built structures to last the ages, it wouldn't really benefit us, and require far more bulk. With the way society and its needs constantly change, a building could easily lose all of its utility in a few decades or a century and a whole new building is needed to meet the requirements and businesses and residents. Build a monolithic structure instead, and it may last, but it also may not really be conducive to the needs of society at that future time, while also taking far more effort to both build and get rid of.
@@peoplez129 I am not just talking about monumental structures, but mid-level and domestic architecture as well. In my town where I live we have 100s of house that are 500 plus years old and they are not over engineered, but build out of durable local materials that have stood the test of time. Nothing we build today could last that long and we have more resources then they ever had. Our architecture is less adapted to our needs--- not more. It's a hard pill to swallow, but the fact remains that we are simply building crap nowadays and we are sadly content with this.
@@felixguerrero6062 Many of these buildings were government buildings meant to make the empires endure. They couldn't simply rebuild things every 20 years or even 50 years, as many of these things were large undertakings by the societies that built them. Take the Colosseum for example. It was a centralized gathering place to view entertainment and stuff. It had a specific purpose. Could you imagine such a building in use today as a centralized location for such a purpose? Not really. Now we have multiple locations that fill more specific roles, at difference scales. And when it comes to wear and tear, we as a society are much harder on our structures today. Take a roman road for example....it didn't have semi trucks driving down it at high speeds. So in some regards, the reason why many things have lasted, is because of the less stress put on them by simpler civilizations with their simpler uses. You also have to keep in mind the size and distance differences. While Romans did move concrete distances, that was to build relatively small cities in comparison to today. Rome only had about 450,000 people. A lot, but we have cities numbering in the millions, tens of millions even. The logistics start to change quite a bit when you need to build things up for that many people. Then there's other city complexities, like where cities are built. Today, we can build cities in places Roman cities couldn't exist, because the ground is too soft to support the mass and weight of such beefy structures. We also have other things like roads bordering everything, which adds another complexity, and we also need to make all of that work together with things like proper drainage. Without that type of civic engineering, most cities would regularly be dotted in flooded areas. And all of those structures like road and sewers, can affect the surrounding stability of the ground. Population is not only higher, but density of people per area is higher too. All of this culminates into challenges for modern engineering. And there's other factors too, like the lack of slave labor, the more normalized lifestyles that lead to a larger middle class and other complexities like the various extra aspects to society. Our industry today is far more varied, producing literally millions of different types of products. For Romans, it was much simpler, therefore people could focus on just those things, and change wasn't rapid, therefore a structures usefulness lasted longer. The Colosseum for example, was used for nearly 600 years. Even if we built a structure that stood the test of time like it today, the usefulness of such a building would last only a fraction of that time. Even design aesthetics have changed many times over in the last 100 years alone. Places like churches are one of the few places immune to this, because churches themselves are a monolithic entity, always serving one singular purpose that does not change. An office building built in the 1950's though, has a far different configuration and needs than one built today. Neighborhoods change as well, some get richer, others get poorer, and as a result, surrounding infrastructure is affected, either by becoming more useful or less useful. Factory buildings are one good example, where when manufacturing moved overseas, a lot of these buildings simple went unused and left to decay. Populations even migrate as cities sprawl in one direction or another, as prosperity becomes available or lost in regions. Building ever lasting structures would be a big issue. Both economically and socially.
@@peoplez129 The fact that a medieval timber framed house can last 500+ years disproves your entire thesis. Modern cement can only last 70-80 years at most and already shows signs of significant degradation after 30 years. Our modern building materials are simply inefficient, costly and toxic.
@@felixguerrero6062 They don't last that long without constant maintenance that pretty much results in what is effectively a near full replacement of the building. There's a lot of 100, even 200 year old homes and buildings in many places. It's just that at some point, they stop being maintained for one reason or another.
While I don’t think we should replace any method of modern concrete with this Roman concrete, it could have its place on a smaller scale as a substitute for Portland in some small sized instances.
Exactly, it's not better or worse, just different. Anf it wasn't a "lost recipe", Roman concrete has been used for hundreds of years when circumstances indicated a good application. The Bell Rock Lighthouse in Scotland (Rennie and Stevenson), 1807 is an example that springs to mind.
@Player 98 All this nonsense about Roman concrete on the basis of some research in America is a bit puzzling. It's as if the rest of the world doesn't exist and whatever the Smithonian Institute discovers as it plays catchup in a vacuum is a miraculous revelation from on high. It's more than a bit pathetic, especially when the assorted nutjobs on here take it as a personal affront when somebody points out the actual facts on the basis of evidence from the rest of the world. No doubt you will also hear from a few of these armchair experts. I hope they're not too tiresome.
You say it would not be practical to use Roman concrete for modern structures like high rise buildings because the romans didn’t use it for that? Did the Romans try to build modern high rise structures? If they didn’t, then you are essentially saying it won’t work because the ancient Romans didn’t try it... that is absurd. Why can’t we try it if the Romans didn’t? Maybe it will work in spite of not being previously tried if it wasn’t tried.
@@longiusaescius2537 that's not true oh, you're talking about the apartments were no more than Nine Stories, but the Romans were Building the tallest buildings in the ancient world, they're also building the biggest buildings an ancient world. Attractive medieval and ancient European architecture was quite phenomenal and even in today's standards is quite amazing. Gothic architecture the Roman Colosseum the domes and Etc or just complex that last for centuries and centuries.
@@thestructuresguy8355 bullshit, the rebar rusts fast and makes the concrete spald concrete without rebar is useless, concrete with rebar gets rust cancer in a generation or two
@@vladtheimpaler3625 Stone structures are your best bet. But, you should consider your environment. What kinds of natural disasters will you be facing? What kinds of temperatures can you expect at the extremes, and on average? Stone is long-lasting, but if it is mortared stone, it will crumble in an earthquake. Look up how the Incas cut their stone and fitted the pieces together for and example of stone walls that can withstand powerful earthquakes. And stone doesn't have great thermal properties, so if you live somewhere cold, consider a different material, or maybe just use stone as the façade. There are other materials that can last a very long time, modern concrete isn't one of them, by the way. >Straw bale construction can potential last indefinitely if the walls aren't covered with anything that impedes the breathability of the house. By that I mean, you'd have straw bales in the wall, then a layer of hempcrete or cob of daub or something like that on the outside, and you wouldn't cover that with some kind of vinyl pain. Inside the house, you'd have the walls covered in plaster or something, and again you'd need a breathable paint of lim ewash to maintain breathability, so the bales never rot. This would be a stick or timber-framed house (or a self-supporting dome) and it could in theory last for centuries. Walls are typically over 2 feet thick, at least. >Adobe construction lasts for millennia. This is ideal for arid or semi-arid climates, and this has good thermal properties. Adobe can either be brick of superadobe or hyper adobe, or rammed earth. These can word in rainy places, as long as the walls are protected with wide eaves and a pitched roof. >Cob house, pretty much the same applies, these are made of mud and straw and sand and other materials, and has good thermal properties. You can control the thickness of the walls, and again needs rain protection. This kind of construction, as well as adobe, lend themselves well to dome building, which is the strongest shape for withstanding earthquakes, and also intense winds from hurricanes or tornadoes. Using wood to frame your house will give your house flex during and earthquake, and wooden homes have also been able to last for centuries, as long as the house, and the beams, are allowed to breathe. This means that if and when they get wet, they are allowed to dry. Attempting to seal old timber beams on medieval houses has actually led to the destruction of many of these beams. Water finds a way in despite the sealing, but can't get out so easily, and not too long after it's rotting away. There are beams from the 1500s which were fine and structurally sound for centuries, and the come the 1930s or 50s, some seals it with tar or something, and then only 50 or so years later the beam is garbage. Why people feel the urge to fix things that aren't broke I will never know. Anyway, that was just a small sampling of some proven time-defying construction methods, hope that helps. Definitely don't go for modern concrete, unless your idea of "forever" is 50 or so years. I'm sure if you look up the vernacular building methods from wherever you are, that will be a great jumping off point for how to build a long-lasting home, and one that is suited to your environment.
Adding steel makes modern concrete better? Adding steel ensures concrete will fail. Steel could be added to either kind of concrete but both will eventually fail. The Romans didn't build buildings to last 100 years
Nor did they build wafer slabs. Every material to its application, there's no "better" or "worse" materials, just better or worse builders who choose the materials.
Roman concrete is not the only known concrete in history but there are others. For your information, scientist are studying different ancient concrete samples to integrate with modern cement hoping to make a strong concrete someday but since ancient concrete recipes is lost scientist hopes to reverse engineer the composition. For your information architecture and engineering already exist in ancient times that is why people believe the gods/aliens that gave the ancient people such advance knowledge.
The number of times I've relayed the misnomer about the "mystery and superiority" of Roman concrete... I'm embarrassed! Thanks for setting the record straight. Great job!
Roman concrete is still better, not being able to support the absurd creations of Modern architecture (which have 50-year lifespans at best and contribute to human depression) is hardly a fault. It's a feature. Rather, there is something wrong with Modern architecture that it requires disposable, non-recyclable materials with short lifespans in order to be built. Roman architecture is not only long-lasting in the sense that it's still standing, it's also long-lasting in the sense that it was built on the human skill, using the Golden and Silver ratios which are universally aesthetically pleasing, and which give them a timeless appeal and don't alienate people. Modern concrete is only "better" if you think building ecological disasters made of glass that look outdated within one generation and need to be torn down within two generations is "better". This is a common opinion of planners, penny pinching developers, and some architects; but it is not a common opinion of people who have to live in and among these buildings, and pay the taxes levied when it's time to tear them down, or look at the eyes sores of city lots under perpetual construction because nothing is built to last anymore.
You're confusing architecture and engineering with a dash of environmentalism thrown in. That's why imprecise words likel "better" and "worse" are useless in discussing materials unless the specifics of the sense in which the words are used is set out very clearly. Better or worse for what? The environment? The buyer's pocket? Aesthetics? Strength? Durability? Safety? Ease of working? Transportability?. It's nonsense to try to support a material as "better" when you're making an arguement on the basis of how people chose to use that material rather than the characteristics of the material itself.
Do you realize how much it costs each year to fix our streets because of current concrete? How many accidents and traffic delays it costs? Also, the current concrete causes 7% of Co2 in the environment. Roman concrete might cost more but it would benefit us way more in time.
Not buying your claim ! You present highly selective facts in a way that makes you sound more like a simple salesman. Science is contradicting your vid completely... i'm just not motivated enough to deliver you the ready links 😆
What's the point of merely saying "You're wrong and being deceptive" without giving at least the main idea of the counterpoint in a sentence? "THAT WHICH CAN BE ASSERTED WITHOUT EVIDENCE, CAN BE DISMISSED WITHOUT EVIDENCE."
I'd still prefer a thick accent that those high pitched robovoices that make me want to stab my ears out. Stupid tiktok seems to have made those even more popular 🙄
Roman concrete's recipe was actually lost. The information about in being known since 18 century lacks sources. I never heard of it. Quite the opposite.
Roman concrete's recipe was actually lost. The information about in being known since 18 century lacks sources. I never heard of it. Quite the opposite
while true that unreinforced concrete doesn't hold up well to tension and wouldn't be good for our modern mega structures like high-rises it simply isn't true that it would be impractical for modern structures as many modern buildings are the same scale or smaller than roman buildings; to properly do the question justice you have to compare like to like modern bridges to roman bridges, modern sewer infrastructure to roman sewer infrastructure, modern stadiums to roman amphitheaters, and just about any structure under 6 stories. the thing people are wanting to know I think is why are we using reinforced concrete for smaller projects like foundations, stadiums, and bridges when the Romans were able to build similar structures that lasted longer with unreinforced concrete.
The short answer to all of your questions here is cost from many aspects: design, construction, schedule and material availability! Hope this helps!
Weird how modern concrete cant even hold without having cracks for even 4 years while roman concrete can hold on without a single crack for probably century’s
Concrete is an art. The Romans knew this. Your dopey highschool classmate turned concrete laborer doesn't, and he never will.
The discussion should not be limited to the choice between modern reinforced concrete, with all its advantages and faults, vs. Roman concrete used the way it was during the days of the Roman empire. Why can't Roman concrete be reinforced, perhaps with corrosion resistant materials like Kevlar, carbon fiber or stainless steel? Sure, cost would be a problem in some places, but it could be used only in the most vulnerable areas of a structure to minimize that cost. From what I've heard, Roman concrete was used in the footings for the Golden Gate bridge. What if it had been used in the first couple of stories of the Surfside Condominium in Florida? If that prevented the deterioration that triggered the collapse of the complex, many would consider it a worthwhile investment.
It should be noted that modern concrete by itself seems inferior that ancient Roman concrete, however interesting prospect that is overlooked is the fact that the seawater bonded with the concrete to fill in the pours to further strengthen it, wether or not rebar reinforced roman concrete is feasible or not is not a information as of this moment I've been able to find, but it would be an interesting experiment worth trying out, even more so with this latest discovery of the self healing properties of the Roman concrete, and how their "hot mixing" technique futhered the curing process.
Also just a side note the Roman's didn't have just 1 sort of concrete they had several or rather their concrete mixes where constantly evolving so that the structures that survived are what currently scientists have been trying to reverse engineer.
Because modern concrete is cheaper and easier to use globally
Doesn't mean it's better.
There will never be a modern concrete pour , steel.reinforced that lasts 2000 years.
Simple
Doesn't need to last 2000 years...
Roman concrete is far superior, and actually strengthens overtime. (Submerged marine Roman concrete.)
Also highrises and many other modern structures are not efficient or conducive to healthily habitation.
Furthermore, roman concrete could be reinforced and equivalent ashes can be found all over the world, Chile, East Africa and Japan. This argument against Roman Concrete is not very good as it boils down to cost, which will always be high until there is mass production and adoption. So this is a fallacy as well.
As he said, Romans had different structural needs and uses. They used very large solid blocks that were almost never stressed to their limits, and meant for places that were supposed to last for a long time, they were pillars of the civilization, buildings meant to endure, but still just rooms meant to fill a purpose. In essence, it was a lot of concrete and mass for a relatively small volume of area contained within it. The amount of concrete used for just one office room, could be more than even several apartments use today.
So in essence, they were over engineered. But of course they also had to withstand not just weathering, but also war. People will come and burn down your village, people will come and knock down walls, but they're probably not going to spend the effort in destroying these large concrete structures. It's just not practical or worth the effort, and with the structure being soo resilient due to its scale, it would be better off kept intact.
The utility of such monolithic structures, made it so that people wouldn't come in and knock down all your hard work on a whim because it would be too much effort; meaning less need to rebuild, less loss in war, and more resources focused elsewhere. When you got buildings like that up, you were sure that you wouldn't be needing to go in and replace it anytime soon. That also adds stability to a society, on top of being a gift to future generations that inhabit the city, as they could focus their efforts elsewhere rather than constantly rebuilding things that already took great effort to do so in the previous generation.
Modern needs are a bit more fluid. If we built structures to last the ages, it wouldn't really benefit us, and require far more bulk. With the way society and its needs constantly change, a building could easily lose all of its utility in a few decades or a century and a whole new building is needed to meet the requirements and businesses and residents. Build a monolithic structure instead, and it may last, but it also may not really be conducive to the needs of society at that future time, while also taking far more effort to both build and get rid of.
@@peoplez129
I am not just talking about monumental structures, but mid-level and domestic architecture as well. In my town where I live we have 100s of house that are 500 plus years old and they are not over engineered, but build out of durable local materials that have stood the test of time. Nothing we build today could last that long and we have more resources then they ever had. Our architecture is less adapted to our needs--- not more. It's a hard pill to swallow, but the fact remains that we are simply building crap nowadays and we are sadly content with this.
@@felixguerrero6062 Many of these buildings were government buildings meant to make the empires endure. They couldn't simply rebuild things every 20 years or even 50 years, as many of these things were large undertakings by the societies that built them. Take the Colosseum for example. It was a centralized gathering place to view entertainment and stuff. It had a specific purpose. Could you imagine such a building in use today as a centralized location for such a purpose? Not really. Now we have multiple locations that fill more specific roles, at difference scales.
And when it comes to wear and tear, we as a society are much harder on our structures today. Take a roman road for example....it didn't have semi trucks driving down it at high speeds. So in some regards, the reason why many things have lasted, is because of the less stress put on them by simpler civilizations with their simpler uses.
You also have to keep in mind the size and distance differences. While Romans did move concrete distances, that was to build relatively small cities in comparison to today. Rome only had about 450,000 people. A lot, but we have cities numbering in the millions, tens of millions even. The logistics start to change quite a bit when you need to build things up for that many people. Then there's other city complexities, like where cities are built.
Today, we can build cities in places Roman cities couldn't exist, because the ground is too soft to support the mass and weight of such beefy structures. We also have other things like roads bordering everything, which adds another complexity, and we also need to make all of that work together with things like proper drainage. Without that type of civic engineering, most cities would regularly be dotted in flooded areas. And all of those structures like road and sewers, can affect the surrounding stability of the ground. Population is not only higher, but density of people per area is higher too. All of this culminates into challenges for modern engineering.
And there's other factors too, like the lack of slave labor, the more normalized lifestyles that lead to a larger middle class and other complexities like the various extra aspects to society. Our industry today is far more varied, producing literally millions of different types of products. For Romans, it was much simpler, therefore people could focus on just those things, and change wasn't rapid, therefore a structures usefulness lasted longer.
The Colosseum for example, was used for nearly 600 years. Even if we built a structure that stood the test of time like it today, the usefulness of such a building would last only a fraction of that time. Even design aesthetics have changed many times over in the last 100 years alone.
Places like churches are one of the few places immune to this, because churches themselves are a monolithic entity, always serving one singular purpose that does not change. An office building built in the 1950's though, has a far different configuration and needs than one built today.
Neighborhoods change as well, some get richer, others get poorer, and as a result, surrounding infrastructure is affected, either by becoming more useful or less useful. Factory buildings are one good example, where when manufacturing moved overseas, a lot of these buildings simple went unused and left to decay. Populations even migrate as cities sprawl in one direction or another, as prosperity becomes available or lost in regions.
Building ever lasting structures would be a big issue. Both economically and socially.
@@peoplez129
The fact that a medieval timber framed house can last 500+ years disproves your entire thesis. Modern cement can only last 70-80 years at most and already shows signs of significant degradation after 30 years. Our modern building materials are simply inefficient, costly and toxic.
@@felixguerrero6062 They don't last that long without constant maintenance that pretty much results in what is effectively a near full replacement of the building. There's a lot of 100, even 200 year old homes and buildings in many places. It's just that at some point, they stop being maintained for one reason or another.
While I don’t think we should replace any method of modern concrete with this Roman concrete, it could have its place on a smaller scale as a substitute for Portland in some small sized instances.
Exactly, it's not better or worse, just different. Anf it wasn't a "lost recipe", Roman concrete has been used for hundreds of years when circumstances indicated a good application. The Bell Rock Lighthouse in Scotland (Rennie and Stevenson), 1807 is an example that springs to mind.
@Player 98 All this nonsense about Roman concrete on the basis of some research in America is a bit puzzling. It's as if the rest of the world doesn't exist and whatever the Smithonian Institute discovers as it plays catchup in a vacuum is a miraculous revelation from on high. It's more than a bit pathetic, especially when the assorted nutjobs on here take it as a personal affront when somebody points out the actual facts on the basis of evidence from the rest of the world. No doubt you will also hear from a few of these armchair experts. I hope they're not too tiresome.
You say it would not be practical to use Roman concrete for modern structures like high rise buildings because the romans didn’t use it for that?
Did the Romans try to build modern high rise structures? If they didn’t, then you are essentially saying it won’t work because the ancient Romans didn’t try it... that is absurd.
Why can’t we try it if the Romans didn’t? Maybe it will work in spite of not being previously tried if it wasn’t tried.
Their Insula were 9 stories high btw
@@longiusaescius2537 that's not true oh, you're talking about the apartments were no more than Nine Stories, but the Romans were Building the tallest buildings in the ancient world, they're also building the biggest buildings an ancient world.
Attractive medieval and ancient European architecture was quite phenomenal and even in today's standards is quite amazing. Gothic architecture the Roman Colosseum the domes and Etc or just complex that last for centuries and centuries.
I have a question. If I want to build a home to last for generations, what materials do I use?
Concrete! A well designed concrete with the right rebar and the optimal curing conditions can last a really long time with some maintenance
@@thestructuresguy8355 It seems like stone structures last forever. Pyramids are still standing after thousands years.
Better ask somebody with less fishy smelling motives my dear friend 😉
@@thestructuresguy8355 bullshit, the rebar rusts fast and makes the concrete spald
concrete without rebar is useless, concrete with rebar gets rust cancer in a generation or two
@@vladtheimpaler3625 Stone structures are your best bet. But, you should consider your environment. What kinds of natural disasters will you be facing? What kinds of temperatures can you expect at the extremes, and on average? Stone is long-lasting, but if it is mortared stone, it will crumble in an earthquake. Look up how the Incas cut their stone and fitted the pieces together for and example of stone walls that can withstand powerful earthquakes. And stone doesn't have great thermal properties, so if you live somewhere cold, consider a different material, or maybe just use stone as the façade. There are other materials that can last a very long time, modern concrete isn't one of them, by the way.
>Straw bale construction can potential last indefinitely if the walls aren't covered with anything that impedes the breathability of the house. By that I mean, you'd have straw bales in the wall, then a layer of hempcrete or cob of daub or something like that on the outside, and you wouldn't cover that with some kind of vinyl pain. Inside the house, you'd have the walls covered in plaster or something, and again you'd need a breathable paint of lim ewash to maintain breathability, so the bales never rot. This would be a stick or timber-framed house (or a self-supporting dome) and it could in theory last for centuries. Walls are typically over 2 feet thick, at least.
>Adobe construction lasts for millennia. This is ideal for arid or semi-arid climates, and this has good thermal properties. Adobe can either be brick of superadobe or hyper adobe, or rammed earth. These can word in rainy places, as long as the walls are protected with wide eaves and a pitched roof.
>Cob house, pretty much the same applies, these are made of mud and straw and sand and other materials, and has good thermal properties. You can control the thickness of the walls, and again needs rain protection. This kind of construction, as well as adobe, lend themselves well to dome building, which is the strongest shape for withstanding earthquakes, and also intense winds from hurricanes or tornadoes.
Using wood to frame your house will give your house flex during and earthquake, and wooden homes have also been able to last for centuries, as long as the house, and the beams, are allowed to breathe. This means that if and when they get wet, they are allowed to dry. Attempting to seal old timber beams on medieval houses has actually led to the destruction of many of these beams. Water finds a way in despite the sealing, but can't get out so easily, and not too long after it's rotting away. There are beams from the 1500s which were fine and structurally sound for centuries, and the come the 1930s or 50s, some seals it with tar or something, and then only 50 or so years later the beam is garbage. Why people feel the urge to fix things that aren't broke I will never know.
Anyway, that was just a small sampling of some proven time-defying construction methods, hope that helps. Definitely don't go for modern concrete, unless your idea of "forever" is 50 or so years. I'm sure if you look up the vernacular building methods from wherever you are, that will be a great jumping off point for how to build a long-lasting home, and one that is suited to your environment.
Very good video!
Nice job Mo!
The guy above is a concrete researcher. www.linkedin.com/in/matthewdambrosia
This is the principle: Find the best, use the best. Diversity is only applicable if it is the best choice for a certain environment.
Very informative ! Thank you for this video
Adding steel makes modern concrete better? Adding steel ensures concrete will fail. Steel could be added to either kind of concrete but both will eventually fail. The Romans didn't build buildings to last 100 years
Nor did they build wafer slabs. Every material to its application, there's no "better" or "worse" materials, just better or worse builders who choose the materials.
They would be good for a lot of water stuff
It wouldn't be a bad idea to rethink the way we build structures.
So you can use Roman concrete as long as its got a steel structure pretty much
my question too.
Roman concrete is not the only known concrete in history but there are others. For your information, scientist are studying different ancient concrete samples to integrate with modern cement hoping to make a strong concrete someday but since ancient concrete recipes is lost scientist hopes to reverse engineer the composition.
For your information architecture and engineering already exist in ancient times that is why people believe the gods/aliens that gave the ancient people such advance knowledge.
The number of times I've relayed the misnomer about the "mystery and superiority" of Roman concrete... I'm embarrassed! Thanks for setting the record straight. Great job!
Record is far from straight. Have you done durability tests?
Great video 👍🏻 Thanks!
Roman concrete is still better, not being able to support the absurd creations of Modern architecture (which have 50-year lifespans at best and contribute to human depression) is hardly a fault. It's a feature. Rather, there is something wrong with Modern architecture that it requires disposable, non-recyclable materials with short lifespans in order to be built. Roman architecture is not only long-lasting in the sense that it's still standing, it's also long-lasting in the sense that it was built on the human skill, using the Golden and Silver ratios which are universally aesthetically pleasing, and which give them a timeless appeal and don't alienate people. Modern concrete is only "better" if you think building ecological disasters made of glass that look outdated within one generation and need to be torn down within two generations is "better". This is a common opinion of planners, penny pinching developers, and some architects; but it is not a common opinion of people who have to live in and among these buildings, and pay the taxes levied when it's time to tear them down, or look at the eyes sores of city lots under perpetual construction because nothing is built to last anymore.
You're confusing architecture and engineering with a dash of environmentalism thrown in. That's why imprecise words likel "better" and "worse" are useless in discussing materials unless the specifics of the sense in which the words are used is set out very clearly. Better or worse for what? The environment? The buyer's pocket? Aesthetics? Strength? Durability? Safety? Ease of working? Transportability?. It's nonsense to try to support a material as "better" when you're making an arguement on the basis of how people chose to use that material rather than the characteristics of the material itself.
a massive video
You will be awesome if you can improve your voice. It is not clear and smooth.
Do you realize how much it costs each year to fix our streets because of current concrete? How many accidents and traffic delays it costs? Also, the current concrete causes 7% of Co2 in the environment. Roman concrete might cost more but it would benefit us way more in time.
Most roads are made of asphalt
That's only your opinion. You have not proven it scientifically.
This is a good rundown, exactly the summary I was looking for.
Interesting. 👍
Great video
Definately learned something, very nice video
Surfside Towers
Good content.
some words I could not understand due to the accent
Not buying your claim !
You present highly selective facts in a way that makes you sound more like a simple salesman.
Science is contradicting your vid completely... i'm just not motivated enough to deliver you the ready links 😆
What's the point of merely saying "You're wrong and being deceptive" without giving at least the main idea of the counterpoint in a sentence? "THAT WHICH CAN BE ASSERTED WITHOUT EVIDENCE, CAN BE DISMISSED WITHOUT EVIDENCE."
Yes, and the articles about roman concrete present a thorough analysis meanwhile not trying to clickbait and sell ads.
Can hardly understand the guy
I'd still prefer a thick accent that those high pitched robovoices that make me want to stab my ears out.
Stupid tiktok seems to have made those even more popular 🙄
Roman concrete's recipe was actually lost. The information about in being known since 18 century lacks sources. I never heard of it. Quite the opposite.
what?
Planned obsolescence.
Roman concrete's recipe was actually lost. The information about in being known since 18 century lacks sources. I never heard of it. Quite the opposite
Rennie & Stevenson, Bell Rock Lighthouse. 1807. Roman mix was used for the mortar between granite keystones. It's still there.