• jabjoe@feddit.uk
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    10
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    How the hell have we messed up concrete? The Romans had concrete that is still with us today.

    • GreatAlbatross@feddit.ukM
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      15
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      The difference between a Victorian bridge and a modern one, is that the Victorian one was built to definitely stay up, while the modern one is built to just stand up.

      Because just is all you need, when you can calculate so much of the design, and know the service life.

      What’s happened here, is a lot of the buildings were built with a service life that was within the bounds of aerated concrete. The buildings were supposed to be replaced by now, but budget constraints have meant that they’ve been pushed beyond their service life.

      Or in analogous terms: You have to stay in a house for a week, you buy some disposable plates and cutlery.
      2 months later, you’re still there, and all the plastic forks have broken.

      • tal@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        and know the service life.

        According to other articles that I linked to in this thread, the problem was only discovered in the 1990s, that the stuff had a relatively short lifetime.

      • wewbull@feddit.uk
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        Couple that with the bidding process for infrastructure contracts, and anything built in the last 40-50 years by government contract is likely to be falling apart before too long.

      • jabjoe@feddit.uk
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        I’ve found nothing is more permanent than “temporary”.

        It’s economically and environmentally bad to make things to be temporary and disposable. Stupid short term thinking.

        • Roboticide@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          This is true, but it’s also more expensive, which means the owners now don’t want to spend the extra 25% to make sure their building lasts 500 years instead of 50.

    • Badass_panda@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      1 year ago

      To be fair, the Romans also had a lot of concrete that is not with us today, there’s a bit of survivorship bias going on here.

      • jabjoe@feddit.uk
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        Very true. But still, seams like we have been doing it long enough we should know what lasts.

        • tal@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          We have definitely built concrete structures that have lasted a lot longer than 30 years. This was a very particular form of concrete construction that was apparently only a few decades old when the issues were discovered.

          I mean, building one form of concrete structure doesn’t give us a complete understanding of every possible new variant invented and their tradeoffs.

      • Roboticide@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Sure, but Roman concrete was also actually really good due to the ingredients used. They had self-healing concrete millennia before we came up with the idea.

        A fair critique is the Romans built their shit to last and didn’t have advanced computers to calculate loads to just ~10% of failure, like we do now. We’ll use cheaper, local materials if it’s good enough and make sure the building stands for maybe a century. The Romans shipped ash and concrete ingredients halfway across Europe to make sure they were using the good stuff.

          • Roboticide@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            No, they also used a lot of wood.

            But doesn’t change the fact the concrete is good concrete. Better much of ours.

        • Caestus@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          One thing to note regarding the self-healing concrete. They came across that formula by complete accident. All they knew was adding volcanic ash resulted in longer lasting concrete but wouldn’t have known about the lime clasts that would mix with water and refill cracks.

    • Eufalconimorph@discuss.tchncs.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      1 year ago

      Roman concrete was more durable than most modern concrete, but was much, much weaker. It also relied on volcanic ash, which isn’t as readily available as the ingredients for portland cement. Being able to have larger freestanding spans and lower construction costs due to reinforcement is usually worth a much shorter design lifetime.

      The reinforced aerated autoclaved concrete was clearly a mistake, trying to make a concrete foam to reduce weight meant that more water could get to the rebar and cause corrosion much more quickly than in normal reinforced concrete.