Roman Concrete lasts longer: http://www.bostonglobe.com/ideas/2014/12/19/why-ancient-roman-concrete-still... On 12/26/2014 04:10 PM, Henry Baker wrote:
Actually, this statement isn't true. While rebar-reinforced masonry is stronger, it is _not_ more durable, and structures older than perhaps 100 years are a much greater risk of failure due to the inevitable corrosion and temperature-cycling effects. This is one reason why workmen are running around Manhattan *** tapping at every single brick *** to see if any are loose; this is now required after several people have been killed in the last decade or so from falling bricks.
Pure Roman-style masonry is far more durable, assuming that it was properly designed with the strength limitations of masonry in mind.