Ancient buildings are usually large chunks of stone. Or in romes case, and probably some societies around that time, concrete that we have no idea how to duplicate nor want to. Becuase where the profit in that
Or in romes case, and probably some societies around that time, concrete that we have no idea how to duplicate nor want to.
AFAIK the ingredients for roman concrete are known, they're just comparatively expensive and IIRC lead to something that starts off weaker and more fragile and only gradually grows to be tougher over time because whenever it cracks and water gets in it just does the same reaction that formed the concrete in the first place, effectively gluing itself back together. Great for making something that's still a recognizable structure thousands of years later, less so for getting structural support for a building fast and in large quantities.
Roman concrete contains lime clasts which give it the ability to heal as it erodes and cracks. Including lime in modern concrete would quickly rust the rebar, making it infeasible for most of the buildings we use it for.
This was true until the inexpensive development of Basaltic Rebar
Which begs the question of why there isn't widespread replacement using basalt rebar alongside EMC derived concrete, I always chalked it up to some kind of institutional inertia among large concrete corporations, but that's just a guess on my part
It's more often a matter of design life in construction. Advances in engineering have made it much more possible to design building that just barely stand up, and 'advances' in neoliberalism have made it impossible to build anything else.
Planned obsolescence in construction isn't impossible or anything though.
Ancient buildings are usually large chunks of stone. Or in romes case, and probably some societies around that time, concrete that we have no idea how to duplicate nor want to. Becuase where the profit in that
AFAIK the ingredients for roman concrete are known, they're just comparatively expensive and IIRC lead to something that starts off weaker and more fragile and only gradually grows to be tougher over time because whenever it cracks and water gets in it just does the same reaction that formed the concrete in the first place, effectively gluing itself back together. Great for making something that's still a recognizable structure thousands of years later, less so for getting structural support for a building fast and in large quantities.
Roman concrete contains lime clasts which give it the ability to heal as it erodes and cracks. Including lime in modern concrete would quickly rust the rebar, making it infeasible for most of the buildings we use it for.
This was true until the inexpensive development of Basaltic Rebar
Which begs the question of why there isn't widespread replacement using basalt rebar alongside EMC derived concrete, I always chalked it up to some kind of institutional inertia among large concrete corporations, but that's just a guess on my part
Planned obsolescence applies to construction companies too? 🤷♂️
It's more often a matter of design life in construction. Advances in engineering have made it much more possible to design building that just barely stand up, and 'advances' in neoliberalism have made it impossible to build anything else.
Planned obsolescence in construction isn't impossible or anything though.