4 ms·
Also funny if you consider we have "Fachwerkhäuser" (Timber framing houses) here in Germany which are up to about 800 years old. I would be curious if this will
by fileeditview 5y ago
Also funny if you consider we have "Fachwerkhäuser" (Timber framing houses) here in Germany which are up to about 800 years old. I would be curious if this will hold true for concrete houses in 500-800 years.
- ByteJockey 5y agoIf you build it right, sure. Some roman concrete structures are still standing, and we've had better concrete than them for at least 50-100 years. That doesn't necessarily make building everything out of it good, but concrete can definitely last a long time.
- rootusrootus 5y ago> If you build it right Which means very heavy, and only designs that can use gravity to hold them together.
- robocat 5y agoI am pretty sure you don’t want to depend on gravity to hold your home together in an earthquake. “scientists have revised ground accelerations at the two stations to 1.37g and 1.51g [vertical G force]”.
- rootusrootus 5y agoI agree. My point was that 'build it right' in the Roman definition was to use a lot of concrete, no reinforcement, and gravity to hold it all together. It is not really feasible given our expectations for modern buildings.
- bsder 5y agoRome is an active fault zone. And the Romans knew how to build earthquake-proof structures. The Colosseum fell because people stole the lead rebar--not because of the concrete.
- lstodd 5y agoIt's actually debatable if concrete in (most of) modern construction is on par with Roman concrete that lived to this day. Sure there are compositions that are in fact better, but are they used in common buildings? I think the answer is 'no,' since costs won't cut themselves.
- elzbardico 5y agoModern concrete itself is really good. The problem is with all the steel rotting in reinforced concrete.