Timeline for Did Ancient Roman insulae reach more than 10 storeys?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
15 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Feb 27, 2018 at 2:47 | review | Suggested edits | |||
| Feb 27, 2018 at 5:03 | |||||
| May 21, 2017 at 9:14 | comment | added | Pere | Building high buildings is challenging, but structural limitation aren't as hard as the answer says. Thickness of walls in first floor isn't going to waste most of footprint space. In Barcelona, there is plenty of 19th century and 20th century brick buildings about 10 stories high and over, with 15 to 45 cm thick walls - and 19th century bricks weren't much better than Roman ones. | |
| S Aug 23, 2013 at 8:21 | history | suggested | Aarão Xisto Salazar | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
corrected a spelling mistake. it was written "ay" instead of "any"
|
| Aug 23, 2013 at 7:20 | review | Suggested edits | |||
| S Aug 23, 2013 at 8:21 | |||||
| Aug 23, 2013 at 0:21 | review | Suggested edits | |||
| Aug 23, 2013 at 1:06 | |||||
| Aug 23, 2013 at 0:01 | history | edited | Pieter Geerkens | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 499 characters in body
|
| Aug 22, 2013 at 23:54 | history | edited | Pieter Geerkens | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 499 characters in body
|
| Aug 22, 2013 at 23:52 | comment | added | Pieter Geerkens | @James: Yes, and no. Ostensibly the 200 feet is roughly 20 stories, but there are two caveats: (1) That is assuming modern brick/concrete, which is significantly stronger than ancient Roman; an (2) such a building (and I use the term loosely) would have a bottom half resembling the Great Pyramid, with an 8 or 9 or 10 story insula perched on top. Usable non-wall space in the bottom stories would be on the order of only 10 to 15% of footprint. | |
| Aug 22, 2013 at 16:51 | comment | added | James | Can you relate the 200ft to a number of storeys? | |
| Aug 22, 2013 at 12:55 | comment | added | Lennart Regebro | @jwenting It's possible that their strongest concrete was stronger than typical portland cement (50MP) but their typical concrete was far from that strong, and came in rather around 6MP. academia.edu/1214963/The_toughness_of_Imperial_Roman_concrete The strongest they found in that research was 30MP, far below modern concrete. The average of about 6MP is less than half that of their bricks. | |
| Aug 22, 2013 at 12:29 | comment | added | jwenting | @LennartRegebro poured concrete is stronger than laid bricks, even when not reinforced. And Roman concrete was particularly strong, stronger than typical concrete used today. | |
| Aug 22, 2013 at 12:22 | comment | added | Lennart Regebro | @jwenting They did not use reinforced concrete of any type, so it's doubtful it would have made a difference. | |
| Aug 22, 2013 at 11:26 | history | edited | Pieter Geerkens | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 269 characters in body
|
| Aug 22, 2013 at 8:44 | comment | added | jwenting | Romans knew about and made large scale use of high strength concrete, not (just) brick and mortar or natural stone. Claiming they can't have built tall because of using brick is therefore incorrect. The lack of steel is a good point, Roman construction would have used wood, iron, copper, and bronze instead. | |
| Aug 22, 2013 at 4:23 | history | answered | Pieter Geerkens | CC BY-SA 3.0 |