Roman architecture was characterized by the use of quarried materials such as chalk, sand, and pozzolanic ash in concrete or dry-stone construction. Debris and broken pottery were mixed with mortar to fill wall sections, while pumice stone or porous Tufa rock was mixed with concrete to render cement. The formula for Roman concrete also starts with limestone, and builders employed several varieties of stone for their strength, durability, and aesthetics. Stone supply was gathered locally, and the most famous surviving buildings of Roman architecture include the circular Pantheon in Rome, the Colosseum in Rome, the Pont du Gard aqueduct in southern France, and the Maison Carrée temple at.
The Romans developed brick making techniques that became the main building material in the 1st century AD for the walls of houses, Roman baths, and monuments. The remains of the buildings are a testament to the technology that dominated the period, as well as the power and resources of the Empire’s glory days. Stones, wood, marble, and materials produced such as “Roman concrete”, bricks, and even glass allowed the buildings to stand.
Roman society greatly depended on materials available nearby, as they provided the most easily attainable sources of stone, wood, and clay. Roman builders knew and discovered different techniques to build giant edifices, using stronger but lighter mortar, bricks, and volcanic stone. Unworked wood (“roundwood”), clay, and stone were the primal materials for building and never fell out of use. Vertical forked sticks were used to create vertical forks, which were used to create a unique and distinctive appearance in Roman architecture.
📹 We FINALLY Figured Out The Secret of Roman Concrete
Guys this is big news and it makes me really happy. I Cannot wait to see what the future brings with this. Get this months …
Why were the Romans so good at building?
Ancient Romans, driven by factors like wealth and high population densities, developed innovative architectural solutions using vaults, arches, and building materials. They built imposing infrastructure for public use, such as the aqueducts of Rome, the Baths of Diocletian and Caracalla, basilicas, and Colosseum. These structures were reproduced at a smaller scale in important towns and cities throughout the Empire. Some surviving structures are almost complete, such as the town walls of Lugo in northern Spain.
The administrative structure and wealth of the Empire allowed for large projects even in remote locations, and the use of slave labor, both skilled and unskilled, contributed to the success of Roman architecture.
Architecture often served a political function, demonstrating the power of the Roman state and specific individuals responsible for building. Roman architecture reached its peak during the reign of Hadrian, who rebuilt the Pantheon and left a lasting impact on northern Britain with Hadrian’s Wall. Roman prestige architecture was heavily influenced by ancient Greek architecture and the classical orders, originating from Magna Graecia, the Greek colonies in southern Italy, and Greek influence on the Etruscans. Greeks were employed in various capacities, particularly during the construction boom in the early Empire.
What materials did the Romans use to build their structures?
Roman builders employed a variety of natural materials, including stone, timber, and marble, while also utilizing manufactured materials such as brick and glass, as well as composite materials like concrete.
Did Romans have wooden houses?
The impoverished populace of Rome resided in rural areas in small villages comprising wooden huts. In contrast, those who inhabited the urban centers of the city lived in insulae, apartment blocks constructed from a combination of wood, brick, and concrete. These insulae typically consisted of six to eight three-story buildings.
What were Roman houses made of?
The construction of Roman villas involved the use of a variety of materials, including brick, wood, stone, and a cement formulation developed specifically for Roman construction techniques.
What were Roman walls made of?
The Roman walls, including the Servian Wall and house and monument walls, provide valuable insights into the evolution of Roman construction techniques. They transitioned from dry-stone and sun-dried brick walls at the beginning of Roman civilization to concrete core and brick facing walls by the beginning of the Empire. These walls provide insight into the history of ancient Rome and the different stages of the Roman economy and society.
The earliest Roman walls were dry-stone walls, constructed by placing stones of various sizes without mortar. These walls were called Cyclopean, named after Greek mythology giants Cyclopes. By the 6th century BCE, the Romans developed a wall construction method called opus quadratum, which increased the wall’s strength. Romans used blocks of limestome or tuff, a type of rock made of volcanic ash, which was abundant in Rome and its surroundings.
Before the invention of concrete, house walls were built with stones or sun-dried mud-brick, which has been used worldwide for thousands of years due to its durability and thermal insulation properties. Adobe is made by mixing earth with water and an organic material like straw or dung, and is cut into small units to dry quickly without cracking. Socles made of stone or rubble were laid as foundations on the ground to prevent wall cracking.
What materials were used to build the Roman Forum?
Roman architects were influenced by classical Greek designs but also created their own signature structures like basilicas, triumphal arches, domes, Roman baths, and amphitheaters. The Roman Forum and ruins served as inspiration for artists, with Giambattista Piranesi creating etchings depicting Rome views. Ancient Rome was also mentioned in historic literature, with William Shakespeare’s works set there. The Roman Forum’s decline led to the development of more elaborate structures north of it, facilitating economic and political events.
What building material did the Romans use to build the domes?
Roman architecture, unlike that of Ancient Greece, was characterized by rounded arches, vaults, and domes, which were built using concrete and brick. The weight of the aggregate material in concrete could be altered to allow lighter layers at the top of concrete domes, but it required expensive wooden formwork, or shuttering, to be built and kept in place during the curing process. Brick domes needed less formwork and could be more easily reused.
Roman concrete was built in horizontal layers laid by hand against wooden formwork, with the thickness determined by the length of the workday. This method allowed for similar construction to earlier corbel domes of the Mediterranean region, but with different structural characteristics. The aggregate used by the Romans was often rubble, but lightweight aggregate in the upper levels served to reduce stresses. Empty “vases and jugs” could be hidden inside to reduce weight.
Roman concrete was weak in tension, so it did not provide any structural advantage over brick or stone. However, it could be constructed with unskilled slave labor, facilitating the building of large-scale domes. Roman domes were used in baths, villas, palaces, and tombs, with oculi being common features. They were customarily hemispherical in shape and partially or totally concealed on the exterior.
Domes were closely associated with senatorial, imperial, and state-sponsored patrons and proliferated in capital cities and other cities with imperial affiliations. Domes were also very common over polygonal garden pavilions.
In Byzantine architecture, a supporting structure of four arches with pendentives allowed spaces below domes to be opened up, allowing weight loads to be concentrated at just four points on a more practical square plan. Domes were low with thick buttressing until the 9th century, and after the 9th century, they were built higher and used polygonal drums decorated with engaged columns and arcades. Exterior dome decoration became more elaborate by the 12th century, including engaged columns, niches, blind arcades, and string courses.
Did Romans use bricks?
The Romans developed brick-making techniques in the 1st century AD, which became the main building material for houses, Roman baths, and monuments. Opus latericium, or “brickwork”, used thick bricks to face a core of opus caementicium, with different dimensions across the empire. Opus mixtum, a hybrid style, consisted of opus reticulatum at the angles and sides of opus latericium. At the end of the Republic, the custom began to reinforce Opus Reticulatum with horizontal bands of bricks or flat tiles, dividing the lattice into panels.
This style was particularly widespread in the Flávio and Adriano periods. Over time, variations of these walls were seen with other material pages or the inclusion of wood, such as Opus craticium, a technique related to half-timbering. Studying and identifying these methods provides insights into the history of ancient Rome and the different stages of Roman economy and society.
What building material were Romans first used?
Concrete is the most widely used building material today, used in various construction practices, including road design and complex projects like the Burj Khalifa. The Ancient Roman Civilization, which began as an Italic settlement in 753 BCE, was the first to widely use concrete as a building material. The Roman civilization covered 5 million square kilometers and ruled over 50 to 90 million people, including about 20 of Earth’s population at the time. They brought many advances to the world, including technology, law, art, government, and architecture.
The Ancient Romans used concrete to build structures like the Pantheon Dome and harbors in the Mediterranean Sea, such as Caesarea Maritima. The Pantheon Dome is still standing and a popular tourist attraction, and other ancient Roman concrete structures or ruins can still be seen today. The longevity of Ancient Roman concrete was a mystery until 2014 when researchers concluded its origin.
What was the main building material for the Romans?
Stone was the primary construction material utilized by the Empire, while brick and concrete were employed for their respective advantages in speed and repeatability.
📹 What Made Ancient Roman Concrete So Durable?
If Roman concrete was so strong and durable, why arn’t we using the same materials today for modern buildings? The answer …
The fact that this has hunted the recess of my mind for years and finally knowing has just awestruck me with how simple it was, like people were going mad trying to mix all sorts of weird stuff in concrete like grounded up bird feathers and even pig blood to try and repacate or replace Roman concrete… it is amazing that it was just how you changed up the base ingredients order by one.
Ok there is a book (“Vitruvious the Ten books on Architecture”) that maps out step by step how to make it. Vitruvious wrote it for Augustus as kind of a resume showing off his skills in order to become the official architect of the empire. He goes into detail about how to build all kinds of structures and gives 2 different recipes for concrete (one for coastal construction and one for dry land). My question has always been why haven’t they used it? Is it due to the fact that the recipes seam primitive and unrefined giving the impression you would make a poorer quality concrete than modern Portland cement?
Hot take: after further research it’s determined due to the concrete lasting so long they end up making less money and it doesn’t get spread for wide use. I’ve seen YouTube websites making this kind of concrete for years testing it and finding that it was much stronger than regular concrete and that has also never been used main stream it would be nice to see us using these techniques I really hope it happens
I imagine even romen concrete would face longevity issues if you attempt to use rebar with it. From what I’ve read and seen, the rusting/corrosion of rebar causes expansion inside the concrete which leads to cracks and eventual failure. So in a lot of use cases, the romen recipe for concrete on it’s own wouldn’t give you a 2000 year life span. You’d have to use something other then steel for your rebar. 😉
Like you said, builders today will use this to save on materials instead of making the the structures last longer. Which is also the reason why most modern stuff doesn’t last as long: it’s efficient as possible with minimal regard to durability. Using steel rebar and mesh and I-beams dramatically reduces the weight of concrete required, but also limits lifespan to only that of a single empire. The US and EU aren’t building infrastructure for their future conquerors.
Squee! Stakui, I share your fan-girling over this discovery! I remember learning about Roman concrete over 20 years ago as an 18 year old history major, and listening to all my professors try to explain that, yes, it’s concrete, but it doesn’t really WORK like OUR concrete, and we don’t know why. Since then, as each new study came up empty, I wondered if we’d ever work it out,.. but now! This make so much sense. Congrats to the team that conducted this study! That’s one history mystery solved.
There’s apparently a LOT more to it. We had detailed descriptions of how to make it, but we didn’t use it, partly because of the availability and cost of the ingredients, but more importantly because of two unique differences to portland cement: 1) it can’t be poured like modern cement. It’s more like mud that can be pounded into shape. 2) It is apparently better against earthquakes, but worse at loadbearing, or in other words: you can’t built as height, but what you build lasts for half an eternity (which is also not that desirable for most modern projects, apparently)
This is just so incredibly fascinating. I’m not even that interested in things like architecture but god this is just so cool. I love history and so much knowledge can be learned from the ancient buildings and structures of Rome, and now we finally know how its lasted this long! Also extremely interesting how the Romans of over two millennia ago are literally teaching us better technologies then we have access to currently! Fascinating!
When I was child in Albania, using Hydrated lime in concrete or mortar was the norm. Quicklime is simply limestone fired at ultra-hot temperatures in a makeshift furnace made out of Limestone. Then after the material is cooled (quicklime) you then quench it in water (Hot, Violent chemical Reaction to make Hydrated Lime). You end up with a white paste like material (Hydrated lime) that you add to mortar or concrete. It can even be used by itself with aggregate to form mortar or very soft concrete. One more use, amongst many other, is to use Hydrated Lime to paint the exterior of the house white. So, the article is wrong in saying that you add quicklime to the mix, you have to add a lot and the reaction with water would be too violent. You first turn Quicklime into Hydrated Lime in a pit, then you use that to adjust the concrete properties. You must look at it as such, you see concrete/mortar as a spectrum, with concrete in one end and mortar in the other. So, 100% cement aggregate mix would make concrete type and 100% Hydrated Lime makes Mortar, anything in between adjusts the flexibility to hardness of the mix. So just to sum up and mention the truthful part of the article, yes, the Hydrated lime gives the mix self-healing properties and makes it flexible. It does so because it forms crystal structures that can reset with humidity, if a micro crack forms it then can reseal itself with humidity. Making it flexible and excellent for structures that will continue to flex and settle, like buildings and structures that are large and/or span over large distances.
A lot of people are going like “such masterful engineers” and so on… What do you wanna bet the Romans didn’t really know nor care as much back then? They just happened on a mix and a way of making it that worked, and by chance it was also stupidly good, which they probably didn’t (and couldn’t) even find out for at least several decades. Until it stood the test of time it was probably just “good enough” and no one cared to try and tinker with the thing. Not like they had powerful microscopes to look through and be like “aww yissss, muh lime lumps”. ^^
We know how to make concrete that lasts centuries with no trouble. We don’t use it because construction was the first sector that adopted planned obsolescence. Nobody needs the same building taking the development spot for over 50 years. We know how to mix it, we know how to counter oxidation from rebar. But nobody(from investor’s PoV) needs that extra time and cost. If you want to pay for it, you can get it. It’s usually the types used for infrastructure, for example highways. Same as how you can get lightbulbs lasting decades… by simply running expensive one at 30% load. We know how to make things last, we just live in an age of tinfoil and cardboard ¯\\_(ツ)_/¯
Awesome! I always love hearing about Roman concrete and now we know why it was so great! An important caveat, though: Tephra or other pyroclastic rock (Ash or Tuff) is rather quite finite. Italy has a lot of it because volcanes. Volcanoes are not very common, comparably, in the world and not all volcanoes produce ash or pyroclastics. We could physically make such fine, rough particulates (that bond well in aggregate mixes) in the future when we, as humanity, have access to near-unlimited power and just simply melt rock to produce the required tephra.
The volcanic ash was used in the concrete to make it lighter. The concrete was mixed using blood and water. Concrete is exothermic and gets hot as it cures. With blood in the concrete, it seals and does not allow water to enter. This keeps the concert from exfoliating due to steam from the heat in the summer and water freezing in the winter. That is why the Pantheon is still standing after two thousand years and showing very little to no degradation. Both blood and milk can be used to accomplish longevity in concrete however there is a minor drawback to doing so, the building will smell of rotting blood or milk for a period of time. I have been unable to find the recipe for how much blood or milk is needed and I suspect the smell is due to overuse of blood or milk. I also suspect that it is a part of the blood or milk that seals the concrete and separating out that part and not using more than what is needed will eliminate the drawback of rotten smell.
romans also used terracotta powder in place of volcanic rocks, the effects were the same but weaker, still they rarely shipped rock far away, we called the most common mix cocciopesto, you can find it on the italian wikipedia well explained on the english page it talks about aggregate made with clay which is also a part of the thing but incorrect because it did not confer the hydraulic properties if you use anything bigger than fine dust. It’s common and old knowledge here in italy I don’t know why all these articles are popping up right now
I remember seeing a documentary from like, 10 years ago talking about them starting to look for this. They thought it had something to do with the technology from Portland cement. Cool that they finally figured it out though. I’m still wondering whether the Roman stuff has similar dimensional strength to our modern version, since I figure the chunky nature may effect where it forms shear lines in response to compression.
So in a Pathfinder game my brother is running, I’m playing a Gargoyle Fighter with an unusually high charisma and intelligence. One of the businesses I’m putting him into is making concrete as the world he is in, still uses specially cut stone to interlock blocks together, rather than mortar or pour able building materials. Roman concrete was one thing I was having him work towards and this just made everything cooler, but much harder for me. I love it
You have no idea how long I’ve wanted to know this thank you so much. I remember seeing some random theory’s a long time ago talking about the use of pigs blood. I am an avid player of dnd and I was struggling with the issues of time travel in a game and one of the issues was anything you built might be gone by the time you time traveled forward. I’m really glad to hear it’s going to be used in modern architecture and thank you for making this.
So I’m a civil engineering student and while this is really cool it’s utility is still yet to be determined. Cost is really important and depending on the cost it might not be used. As well if we do we won’t use it per se but new concrete will be made with the self healing in mind. Another key detail is what the physical properties are because it might not be strong enough to be a valuable building material for the cost.
How about the shroud of Turin and the treadle loom ideas? Based on analysis, the thread pattern and error types show a treadle loom. This type of loom was not used for linen in z twist until around the twelfth century. There are a number of scholarly papers on this, but it doesn’t seem to get talked about much.
This reminds me of an old myth of washing clothing downstream of the fallen hero’s of old. It would make a ton of sense if that discovery later led to lye being later used as a hardening seeing as how calcium rich it is. I also thought that sea shells comprised a lot of the calcium that was in Roman concrete?
That is “concrete” and useful tech we need for longevity of civilized building. Great to see ancient tech being finally put into production. I’m anxiously awaiting for them to figure out another k-old tech’s so we can finally move forward (no irony). Imagine if pyramids as reactors theories were true.
I learned this years ago, I don’t think this is something that was just figured out. That said, if companies start producing this stuff, they absolutely cannot go cutting corners and pinching pennies, or it won’t work the way they want it to – which will probably cause them to say it’s not as good as current concrete.
I think the only question on my mind after perusal this is how the hell did the romans ‘know’ this recipe and process would create self healing concrete in the first place? Yeah, there’s trial and error, but it feels more like they stumbled across it by accident, or was given this recipe. To be able to analyse the concrete and understand its benefits feels very futuristic in its concept.
It may not be strictly accurate, but I’ve always gotten a kick out of a comment my dad made years ago, when we were perusal a TV program about Roman architecture. The narrator solemnly intoned, “and to this day, we still haven’t learned the secret of how Romans made their concrete so strong.” My dad’s response was, “there’s no real secret. You get a good mix, lay it right, and let it cure for two thousand years.”😊
It’s interesting to think about where we would have been in terms of scientific knowledge if there was not such a loss of knowledge transfer after the fall of the Roman Empire, and then in the early Dark Ages around 700AD and again around 1100AD. Only about 10-15% of Roman records survived through the Syria and Turkey region and later second hand scientific teachings were incorporated into Islamic libraries. And those websites protected that knowledge for about 4-5 centuries only to become “rediscovered” and improved upon during the renaissance era. If that somehow that all persisted in an unbroken line it’s amazing where we might have advanced over that time. We certainly wouldn’t have to reinvent concrete so many times 😂
I remember learning about this when I was like 7 and it stuck with me ever since. Your enthusiasm is amazing and equally as shared with me, because finally the “secret” has been FOUND! Rather interesting that it was simple and not complex in hindsight. I always imagined this rediscovery with be a kin to some something like some super secret knowledge.
Just a note: Concrete creation is one of the HIGHEST contributors to industrial air pollution, so ANY innovation that would allow them to make less is good for the environment overall. They should make it manditory to use the Roman style concrete for everything if it has better properties and lasts longer.
Finally. A way to build my dream house to lasts beyond my lifespan for not just me, but my descendants as well. As an Asian, we lives with our children and the children will inherit our stuffs. I will inherits my mom’s house, but looking at it now, it would likely collapse before i even get my hands on it. I would love to comission a house using this material.
“cost saving effort” No. This bodes ill for commercial production. More durable materials means less maintenance and less production of new material which (while environmentally sound and socially responsible) doesn’t factor into commercial longevity. Remember quarter over quarter profits have to grow exponentially forever no matter environmental impact or resource availability. Planned obsolescence is important to keep the gears grinding and the impact is for later generations to solve… I love baby boomers.
We’ve known much of the secret for years, just not necessarily some of the details. We’ve also long had recipes for more durable concrete, but those run rapidly into cost issues that make them untenable for publicly-funded infrastructure purposes. And it’s not as if all concrete used by the Romans was always so durable. The concrete structures that last tend to be very large, high-compression structures, while others have benefitted from atypical protections even despite being built with incredibly durable concrete. And, importantly, we know that for every Roman concrete structure still in existence, many hundreds or thousands more crumbled to dust over time.
But we’ve known how Roman concrete healed itself, for decades. Pozzuolana, lime, water, etc. The only reason we don’t make it now is the cost of mass production, it’s cheaper to make it the bad modern way. This all seems like much ado about nothing, at least nothing new, however I welcome the renewed interest in Rome by the popular media. 🙂
Another cause of reduced life of modern concrete is steel reinforcement with rebar. The steel corrodes over time as moisture penetrates the concrete. This eats away at the concrete from the inside. The benefit however is that the concrete is much stronger and can be used in more complex shapes. A potential solution to this is using different materials for reinforcement such as basalt strands. There is research ongoing with different types of materials for both small scale fibers and large scale reinforcement structures added. What needs to happen is putting a 100 year minimum lifetime requirement on construction projects open for bids. Then the contractor should be required to show the technology and process they intend to use to accomplish that long life goal as part of the bid. This will drive demand for longer life construction and the construction industry will follow along with the requirements of the customers.
I think theres a pretty big misconception a lot of people have about this that should be cleared up: the typical “modern” concrete that we always refer to when discussing this is NOT the pinnacle of our technology or capabilities. Dont get me wrong, Roman concrete is incredible. But despite us not knowing until recently how exactly the Romans made their concrete last so long, concrete technology is still easily leaps and bounds ahead of what it was in ancient times. Thats not at all to say that their technology is obsolete, or that it cant prove incredibly useful in developing new mixes. But it will likely not hugely change our building practices in the long term, because building techniques and materials are driven by other factors. What most people dont understand is that buildings nowdays are never intended to last thousands of years. What purpose would it serve if the new parking lot downtown is still around 2,000 years after our civilization is gone? Its all about cost. We absolutely could make longer lasting structures, and we absolutely have developed better concrete than what is commonly used. But it would make any new building project prohibitively expensive. Concrete is pretty specialized – we have mixes that cure fast, ones that set better depending on the temperature, ones that cure underwater. Its all purpose-driven, and that purpose rarely includes the need for structures to last longer than 100 years.
This explains why the Bastion walls of my hometown, Gibraltar, despite being pelted and smashed by at least 3 sieges worth of cannonballs are still in pristine condition, we have a giant lime rock-formation, the Rock of Gibraltar, which created vast amounts of lime for use in concrete production, look up Lime Kiln Steps if you want to see the main production hub. They probably accidentally created concrete similar in recipe to Roman Concrete than modern concrete, or concrete being used at the time of it’s construction in other parts of the British Empire.
In 1970 I was looking at a Roman seawall and with a background in geology, said “Concrete, huh?” and everyone said no, it was some kind of conglomerate sand and stone. A decade later…the scholars swung around to my point of view. Modern concrete, even with rebar, certainly won’t last up 2000 years. Seawall or not. It’s about time someone looked into why and how they did better.
I’m a little interested in cements and just a few points I want to add. Keep in mind survivor bias. MOST Ancient Roman concrete didn’t last nearly as long as thousands of years. And this really isn’t GIANT NEW news. We knew that the examples of very old concrete to have self healing and a good description of the chemistry and mechanics of it for a long time at least since I ( a grey hair man) was in college. Recalsification at sights with ocean interfacing concrete is as interesting and it seems like the mix and both contributing “self healing” ways were well described lot’s earlier than your giving credit here. The limestone and seashell “chunkiness” seem to be able to unlock slow “dissolving” capabilities. I’m sure the papers you’re referencing are great and add to the understanding but this isn’t THAT revolutionary. Because cement concrete is such an important, prolific, expensive and energy intense building material it’s been really heavily studied in last 20 years. If you study anything that allows you to make even the smallest addition or contribution to understanding concrete it’s super important but the idea that “Recently rediscovered ancient Roman technology revolutionizes modern industry” is overstatement and sensationalism.
Guys you’re not seeing the very obvious reason we never figured this out. Less need of concrete means less need of concrete manufacturers. Why would the people that specialize in figuring this out take the time to fund research to figure it out, when they’re making their money just fine. I’m glad we finally cracked this again as a species, and hopefully this means our civilization too will have some remnants in 2000 years
The Haigh Sophia in Constantinople uses an ancient Eastern Roman mortar (concrete, if graded gravel is added) made out of equal volumes of slaked lime + powdered bricks + river sand. It has a very high tensile strength that it is as if it is reinforced with steel rebars. And after more than 1,500 years it is still chemically active. In fact, one archeologist has demonstrated, he pointed to an underground water cistern but the rocks are wet with salty water but still he took a mixture of equal volumes of slaked lime and powdered brick already blended and mixed with just enough water to make it semi-plastic and semi-liquid, then he slapped it against the wet salty rock wall and he said, THAT IS GOOD FOR THE NEXT 5,000 YEARS!
Can we, can we get roads made like this? I’d love some roads that actually hold up decently well. Obviously we’ll still have to content with the absolute incompetency of the idiots who don’t plan for anything and immediately dig massive holes in freshly laid asphalt to run utilities and crap that should have been dealt with before the road was laid. But man, some long-lived interstates and highways would be so nice.
Concrete is a very wide definition. The Concrete at the base of a skyscraper is not the same concrete used to surface a driveway… So it’s not a simple as you’re making out… Environment, conditions and land stability are also very significant to longevity of structures. Built between 1881 and 1883, Temple Court Building (aka 5 Beekman Street) is the oldest skyscraper in the world still standing today. Constructed from red Philadelphia brick, tan Dorchester stone and terracotta, it was also the first high-rise in New York at a height of 150 feet (46m). It’s not just the Romans, Göbekli Tepe in Turkey predates the Romans by a few thousand years, Bulgaria, France, Rome wasn’t the first by far to build long lasting structures… Before you say they didn’t use “concrete”… The earliest recordings of concrete structures date back to 6500BC by the Nabataea traders in regions of Syria and Jordan. They created concrete floors, housing structures, and underground cisterns.
7:02 Or just make use the Roman method with cheaper alternative substances, which may in fact accomplish the same goals (methodology), but better: and thus create both cheaper and even longer lasting concrete top-covers/layers for roads which last a lot longer than current types/methods. Which could radically improve infrastructure in a multiplicity of abstractions from road re-work rate to tire wear rates to vehicle shock replacement rates. To say nothing of how much faster it could lead to meaningful implementation of basic infrastructure for under-developed countries with an eye towards resource conservation and efficient/clean disposal of waste.
Okay, how does it do with the freeze/thaw cycles? It would be so cool to know roads are safe from chunks of debris flying up after a car runs over it. Where’s my Material Science textbook from years ago? I should brush up on how aggregates work, just because it’s a little dusty–though I suppose that’s expected since I’m not in structural or civil engineering and I don’t work at an aggregate company…..
One question comes to mind, though, which has been in the back of my head for months now. We now know Roman concrete lasts as long as it did, but did the Romans know it had these capabilities? If the chunks of Lime had been added on purpose than that would suggest that they did, but that reminds of a passage by Vitruvius in which he gives ‘us’ advice on what walls to select when building something. Here he says that Opus Incertum walls(walls with a concrete filling and a stone facing) would be less wise if one wants a durable wall, for he says it is expected to last only 80 years. When someone wanted to say, sell a house and the price had to be stated, the inspector would ask for the year of construction, and deduct 1/80th of the investment costs for each year the walls were standing to calculate the current value of the house. Now, why would they do that if they intentionally added the lime to make the wall last seemingly centuries? Certainly by the time of Vitrivius the qualities of their concrete must have been observed? In fact, he goes as far as to say that if one really wanted a durable house one has to simply use unfired mud bricks, whose walls would not deteriorate significantly over time if the plaster layer was intact.
Just one more reason which… cements” my belief that if so many of the Ancient Libraries *hadn’t been burned and all their contained knowledge lost, resulting in us re-learning certain techniques… Then I bet we’d have gotten to space a hundred years earlier! Keep in mind I’m talking about the snowball effect: we lost knowledge, had to spend time piecing the info back together, which might not even be as good as before… or yes, certainly could have turned out better in some cases… Who knows! Which is my point – one can only guess at “how much” was lost, or even “what” was lost. (perhaps an AI simulation will be able to determine such an outcome someday!) I’m just glad we’ve finally cracked this secret. 😁 ✌️
This has been known by restoration builders for a long time, we build with quicklime it’s an amazing material it’s breathable, as you say it self heals but only generally if it’s still under compression. It’s the best mortar for building with stone or old bricks, modern cement is an awful material and does so much damage when applied to beautiful old buildings. It has its place in modern settings though, obviously
They could have figured this out years ago if they’d just had a clumsy new lab worker mixing the thing in the wrong order… Heck, I always assumed ‘mix unslaked lime and sand, add water’ was how the recipe for concrete actually went. Why would you take the energetic reaction part out of the rock-making part? If it wasn’t impractical, I would straight-up melt the stuff and pour me some obsidian stone…
2:38 idk why but i can´t help but relate this to early mosaic. Compound material, long lasting. I think the problem with todays Portland cement is it´s just to homogenous. We usually arm it with rebar as well. To provide the necessary strength. Roman concrete was basically liquid bricks, of differing shapes and sizes. Pretty brilliant.
Turkish Horasan concrete and Persian/Arabian Sarooj (it was used in both Persia and Arabia) which was eventually used by the Timuruds and the Mughal empire in India as well, has the same self healing properties as Roman concrete, they just used different pozzolanic admixtures but produced a very similar product in terms of performance. Take the Central market of Istanbul built-in ottoman times, it sits on a rather large matte foundation of horasan. There also are buildings in Iran Arabia and Mughal India/Pakistan region that used Sarooj successfully. For example it was used in the construction of the rather complicated well and brick masonry pier foundation of the Taj Mahal.. Before the Romans the Phoenicians in punic North Africa also used similar concrete but they only used it for things like sink basins and bathtubs. I don’t think archaeologists have found it in large constructions.. yet.
That’s nice ! It will never be used Construction is a racket like everything else . I’ve been in the meetings The very last things the bureaucrats want is a mix that will last 2000 years . Even if they did, they would cause another crisis To remove moneys from the serf class . Look into how municipal bonds work . I’ll help you. 8% / 0 risk of default . I’m a bridge building construction superintendent . This breaks my hart to see so many people struggling. And I’m forced to play along with this wickedness, and deception May god forgive me !
So, behind all this fluffy text you are trying to bump up watch time, you are just saying that they didn’t mix concrete so well as we do now and didn’t brake lumps… Also, todays concrete is reinforced so there is that part that you just “seem” to forget to explain. Don’t get me wrong “Roman” concrete is amazing and groundbreaking, but modern concrete is just a mix of so much stuff that you need to be careful what you are adding into it. As a Civil engineer this is nothing “ground breaking” and behind every “amazing” thing there is just simple, logical, scientific explanation. Heck, even PTFE was invented by simple chance… And look how widely it is used. They probably didn’t know why, they just passed it down generations of builders because it worked. And what is the most dangerous thing about all of your “amazement” is that today, there are strict regulations for how long something needs to stand the test of time. Romans didn’t know how long something would stand the test of time. Today, when we use particular type of cement for concrete (yes, there are different “grades” of cement and different types of concrete, which you probably just forgot to mention) we can be 99.999% sure that it will be safe during the “exploration” period of that building. Ok, I get it, this explanation wouldn’t get as much clicks as your article, but I just hope that someone who isn’t civil engineer will see this, and maybe have a better understanding how things really work. Roman emperors didn’t ask for price, they ordered what needed to be done, that is why you have such colossal buildings.
What do you mean anything more or anyting we should always know more about you everything and explaining More everything sad to say has to be a realization cuz most people just don’t get it unless you point the facts how to them knock knock it’s just that’s just seems to be the way it is. But if anything is messed up I’m completely completely atrociously literate so.
This discovery is fantastic; your enthusiastic delivery conveys its importance. Here’s the real appeal. What else (besides dry lime powder, then water) could we add to Portland cement ? To make it less ecologically horrid, to make it Carbon neutral, to use locally available, (bio-renewable?) common materials instead of expensive industrial imports, among other unforeseen properties. Exciting possibilities all around.
Another ancient mystery recently solved is, “The Iron Pillar of Delhi.” en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_pillar_of_Delhi Its super strong and it’s made of iron, so it should have disintegrated into a pile of rust 1000 years ago. It was revealed that the strength of this pillar was due to “Carbon Nanotubes.” Additionally, again, it doesn’t rust.
Modern concrete is really good. Our techniques grind particle sizes to very precise amounts to limit waste already. This sounds like it would add extra lime, meaning weight and expense, that doesn’t do anything for 50 yrs. By then we’d need a bigger building and would have knocked it down. Seems like a waste to me….
I have wondered how some of the new Ultra High Performance Concrete countries have developed will hold up long term. Some of them have yield strengths that exceed 40,000 psi which is ridiculous. The stuff is so new I dont know if they can even estimate how long it will last. Has countries redesigning bunker busters it’s so strong
This is simultaneously a glorious discovery and a frikkin forehead slap moment, for me. You see, i’ve been following articles from researchers trying to create “microcapsules” inside enamels and polymers to “self heal” microfractures in various plastics and resins, as well as attempted research to do the same in metals. (I first grew interested as a young teen back in 1988 with the Aloha Airlines Flight 243 disaster, when the airplane peeled open on its own due to microfractures from metal fatigue–my family worked for Boeing, so it was a big dinner table talk when they finally determined the cause, since it affected aircraft retirement-from-service rates, which in turn affected airplane production quotas.) Anyway, so I’ve been following these researchers’ attempts at creating microcapsules of unhardened resins that, when affected by a microfracture, would break open, fill the cracks, and solidify, sealing them back up again. At the same time, I’ve researched other things (terminal research junkie, what can I say?), one of them being what makes concrete work: You burn the limestone to drive out the carbon dioxide bonded with the calcium, etc, to create quicklime, which is then mixed with water to change it to slaked lime, which can then be used to mix with sand to form modestly strong mortar & cement. And by adding larger chunks of aggregate, you can make it very strong concrete–a lot of the strength comes from the larger rocks and chunks of pottery, etc (which absorbs water during the mixing process, which is then slowly released into the concrete around it, hardening the material that much more to help make it waterproof, which is yet another reason why Roman concrete was strong enough to be, well, waterproof).
Bosnian pyramids were built of concrete five times stronger than modern concrete. Five different institution for materials confirmed this and Polytechnic Institute of Turin, Italy, also find that roman concrete is resembling that one of 30 000years old Bosnian pyramids. So, recipe already existed long ago.
Nah, its like making cars out of aluminium and stainless steel…….it would never rust out. Thats bad for profits, the manufacturer cant see you a new car every 8 years, because it now lasts for decades. Planned obsolescence is real business model, it wastes energy and leads to poor quality,poor performing rubbish, but it makes more $$$$.
This reminds me of bio-mimicry, except the biological organism we’re mimicking is ourselves and specifically the behaviors and technology that our ancient counterparts had developed. So much of our species’s evolution has become technological, and without reliable information sharing through the generations those evolutionary developments can be lost from the cultural “gene-pool.” But the physical technological structures our historical counterparts built can still contain that information. Instead of mimicking biological structures of other species we are mimicking our own species’s technological structures. Incredible.
Good morning from Nigeria, with all due respect sir, please kindly send me detailed information on roman Concrete,I have some gigantic building projects to execute in Nigeria using Roman concrete and kindly recommend a prestigious civil construction company that can handle this project with Roman concrete.thanks.
The testing of this can come to work for the Roman concrete because of the lime But this part about standard Portland cement can’t repair it self is a very big lie . Any testing lab can do this simply I did when I was a young man under 30 . 30 of my years ago I asked my boss about the idea and he said that’s a great idea so we found the paperwork and found out this cylinder was 25 MPA and was tested 5 years ago. I retested the cylinder and it came back to 25 MPA. So nothing new under the sun 🌞
I have some heads to smack over this one. There’s Scadians that have teased me relentlessly for, while drinking many years ago at a Vlad party, suggesting the ‘incomplete’ mix someone was describing might mean parts could dissolve and fill cracks when wet, because said person was obsessed with the sea adjacent Roman concrete and focused entirely there. The words of an old Scadian noble come to mind. “Often, the yeoman holds insights.”
I thought people knew about the process of making Roman concrete? I saw a documentary on the History website over a decade ago (when they still actually did documentaries) talking about how they figured out this concrete method. It was about the underwater concrete walls Herod commissioned. But I guess this study confirmed their observations further?
Im a supervisor at a concrete company and was always amazed at how their structures stood the test of time. I knew something had to be up with the concrete they use as its in no comparison to todays concrete and that fascinated me but that wet concrete…now thats mind blowing. 🤯 Wish i could be one of the ones working with scientist coming up with roman concrete. 😊👨🔬
@The Infographics Show You may want to edit this article because there are many errors here, the most notable one being the line at around 4:03 to 4:18. The CO2 emissions are mostly not from burning fuels to heat the furnace, but from a reaction occurring between limestone and clay, which releases CO2. The other errors are minor ones, but this is a very big mistake, sign you didn’t do your research thoroughly.
I actually watched a documentary on this when talking about concrete the less viscous (less water) in concrete the better it holds its shape use of pumas rock and volcanic ash also made it more durable A YouTuber made a article comparing concrete and the less water he added the harder it was to form but it was far stronger when hardened
We have to question our “modern Society” are we really more advanced than our ancestors 2000 years ago ? It depends on the point of view…yes we are way more advanced in term of speed, but at the cost of quality. Just look how ambitious and noble was the architecture until the end of the XIX century, and how poor the architecture is now, with cubic buildings
i wonder how effective having certified historians help work on this roman concrete making project as well. they’d be able to help research the past, the environment, the people, their mindsets, and give different perspectives to the current scientists. at least, it’s my hope, based on what i know historians are capable of.
We use fly ash now and less vitamins rich sand. Depending on the slump and grade we can still make concrete stronger then them. Roman concrete also had raw minerals in it which they didn’t need metal to keep the strength. We have that too but way more expensive. It’s a lot cheaper and easier to use local resources then import. These people in these comments probably never touched a trial or a float in their life😂
“Dear, look at this. They can’t figure out how we made concrete. Now they can’t even read the hundreds of places it’s written down. They can’t cipher either. They can’t do the 5th grade math to calculate that man’s total contribution to global warming is a calculation that comes out to .006, which is too small to measure within normal sun activity variations. It was far warmer when we were kids. Besides, it’s been getting colder for them for a while now because of less Sun activity. Don’t say anything. They’ll be back on the ice age kick they were on a few years ago.” The reason it isn’t used today is it won’t work to make the structures you have today with it or you couldn’t afford them. Anybody can make something that will last forever. It takes a real engineer to make something that barely does the job.
Romans perfected their cement in 100-200 years of experimenting and using. You telling me we can’t figure out a similar blend with all the laboratories in the world and pouring 19 billion tons of concrete per year ? Sounds like either crass incompetence or there simple is no interest in figuring it out. My money is on lack of interest. If stuff you build last for 2,000 years, well then after a while you don’t have to build anymore, so your business goes belly up since you can’t sell the same amount of cement. Best business is repeat business.
You silly people. Romans took many years to build one structure. Some ancient building took as long as 60 years to complete. Our modern way of building is designed to complete within less than 1 year due to time and money pressure. This is why we cant build a long lasting quality buildings ancient people did.
You’ll always think about the bottom line too. If you want to live in a house made of Roman concrete then you can pay for it. Instead of blaming the evils of business why don’t you blame poor people for being poor? The less expensive you can make something the more people can afford it. It’s amazing how this simple fact eludes some people.
Paint an otherwise smooth wall and after a time = sections will flake away. Now paint a “rough” wall = and the paint will adhere to it much longer……….why?? Because the rough surface of the wall creates a foundation upon which the paint can stick to more readily……..so it was with Roman concrete. The volcanic residue was porous. In modern concrete one typically sees crushed stone added = in other words small bits of stone with non-porous sides. When one sees a chunk breakaway it often does so exposing those sides of those stones. Yet concrete made from a medium whereby the solution can enter those porous bits of rocks and harden = will be much more durable. That added medium accordingly helps to bind the concrete together.
The main reason we don’t use Roman concrete mixtures is because it is very labor intensive and therefore cost prohibitive. We can make extremely durable concretes today, even more durable than Roman concrete, but it’s just so expensive. We go cheap because we don’t typically care if lasts more than a few hundred years, and we don’t have armies of slaves to do our bidding. The real trick is reproducing the benefits of Roman concrete cheaply in scale.
One thing that needs to be mentioned is how long do we need the structure to last. Most of the time we build these structures to last 20-30 years. After that they become obsolete due to many factors such as needing more space and added maintenance cost. In turn, no one would spend more money on these materials, which is what would happen, if the structure will be torn down in 20-30 years.
The secret ingredient is animal bones and blood… haha something about anhydrite in magma that causes underwater crystallization. Talks about volcanic ash and lime sitting in sea water… anhydrite enriches water with sulfate and calcium, forming selenite gypsum crystals in underwater caves…. volcanic ash, sulfate check, lime, calcium check… I’m willing to bet there’s a temp or pressure variable.
Today we formulate many kinds of concrete with specific chemical properties for specific applications, we are more then capable making roman concrete and we have many forms that in fact are superior in ways and we can chemically engineer the mixes to exact desired properties. I’ve heard that claim that roman concrete is better then what we have today but that is a rumor and you got to be totally ignorant of how far we have come in science and materials engineering to believe that myth.
I did my thesis on volcanic ash as a partial replacement to cement for concrete. Results? We can’t use 100% of whatever sustainable material out there, you’ll always have to use a small amount of cement because it keeps the strength up. Too much of a replacement would make it durable against environmental attacks like sulphate attack from the sea but the strength of the concrete would be low which renders it useless against heavy waves and whatnot. We are using those great materials today, we are just not able to take cement out of the equation just yet and for as long as cement remains necessary, business will always choose it over another innovative material to keep costs down.
im early REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE
I won’t deny that the Romans were quite a constructive empire. But there really isn’t that much special about their concrete. You cannot feasibly use Roman Concrete in modern construction. I get so sick and tired of people going in and claiming how Roman concrete is superior to portland concrete. This all started from a rebutted article back in July of 2017 with the title “Why 2,000 year-old Roman concrete is so much better than what we produce today.” It is a misunderstanding. Roman concrete appears superior because the concrete was built in a sub-tropical climate. It also doesn’t suffer from the intense stresses modern concrete is faced with (Live loads, dead loads, safety factor SF, etc.) There wasn’t multi ton semi’s driving around. Bridges and roads are built with cheaper material in some cases, yes. But they are built more efficiently. If you replaced it with Roman Concrete, the structures would likely fail given the unreasonable amount of time that has to pass for the concrete to cure. Sky scrapers and the long bridges would take hundreds of years to complete. This is why it isn’t used. Additionally, the tropical climate surrounding most Roman structures means less freezing and thawing cycles (A common cause of concrete deterioration). If Rome was in a colder climate, that concrete would likely not be around in such a preserved state as it is today.
As a civil engineer student i can say there are a couple of big flaws in this article 1) volcanic ash and the likes is used in many buildings where these things are available in the region 2) roman concrete isn’t stronger than modern concrete it is significantly weaker than most highly specialised concretes 3) yes seawater strengthens roman concrete at first but significantly weakens it after a certain amount of time 4) most concrete is highly specialised for the task and place it is needed to do so it would be hard to replace it with untested roman concrete 5) in roman days architects built this stuff as architect and engineer was the same job until the 19th century when major forts were being constructed and proper engineer were needed to do the job If you want to know more about concrete and the likes we use today just google: cem 1 – 5 and its ingredients
Why should we downgrade to cave man concrete ?. modern concrete may not be as strong but it works if done correctly it is actually better everything we have accomplished so far has made things way to complicated we use concrete for everything bridges,buildings,roads,highways,bonkers the only weakness modern concrete has is secondary forces and using steel flexes this problem,and as long as the rust resistant coating that the concrete makes when put with steel it can last for an very long time until the concrete cracks and the coating gets compromised buy moisture and water you really think caveman’s concrete can support the weight of heavy modern construction methods? Like high ways massive skyscrapers, bridges and docks that support ships that could weight weight up to millions of pounds? I think not Roman concrete the way it was used in building worked because buildings weren’t as advanced as we built buildings now days the biggest thing made with Roman concrete you could compare to modern concrete bridges is those water canals but those things literally weigh less than modern bridges and would probably fail trying to handle all of that weight the even the Roman Colosseum‘s are lighter then skyscrapers made out of concrete 🤔🤔🤔