Why REBAR???

Why do we continue to use this deadly Rebar metal spears in the construction of buildings?

The Romans, who used the same Concrete we use today, did not make use of any metal reinforcement bars whatsoever in their buildings, and some of them still stand today!

Rebar does not necessarily make buildings stronger! In fact it can rust from small cracks and salt seepage, and when the steel bar turns to rust INSIDE of concrete, it expands to a greater volume than it originally had, and if tightly sealed and bonded to the concrete as it normally is, this causes insane internal pressures that tear the building apart.

Rebar can also lead to a variety of workplace accidents as you see here, where it has impaled an Indian construction worker.

It is very deadly -- and no, the little safety caps or 90 degree bends they sometimes put into rebar do NOT help avoid impalement, as i will demonstrate in the next image

Other urls found in this thread:

tribunesandtriumphs.org/colosseum/building-the-colosseum.htm
twitter.com/AnonBabble

...

Thanks to them i didn't die in an earthquake in 2001.

Some buildings where I live (near the Mediterranean) actually do suffer greatly from rebar rust and expansion, but at least if a rocket hits them everyone inside isn't doomed to die in a collapse ya feel me?

how does that even happen?

magic

Quantum Physics

>Concrete is a material that is very strong in compression, but relatively weak in tension. To compensate for this imbalance in concrete's behavior, rebar is cast into it to carry the tensile loads

>during the 18th century, rebar was used to form the carcass of the Leaning Tower of Nevyansk in Russia, built on the orders of the industrialist Akinfiy Demidov. The cast iron used for the rebar was of high quality, and there is no corrosion on them to this day.

>While any material with sufficient tensile strength could potentially be used to reinforce concrete (glass and basalt fibers are also common), steel and concrete have similar coefficients of thermal expansion

Did he die?

>some

New bridges use stainless steel rebar so it doesn't rust.

roman concrete was not at all the same concrete we use today. It's much stronger and meant to last longer.

t. absolutely not a civil engineer

Rebar allows you to make thinner floors, beams and columns. It saves money.

of the two or so thousands years of roman civilization, dozens of concrete structures still stand.

Reinforced concrete is good shit man. As an aside, how would OP pic look if a slab of unreinforced concrete collapsed on him instead? :3c

>pic
>nigga
>sharpened rebar
No construction hazard involved

I hate drilling into an area of concrete only to find that the rebar is too close to the surface to allow for an anchor to be installed.

The wall ends up looking like somebody has taken pot shots at it with an AK-47, by the time you find a clear spot.

t. electrician training to be an electrical engineer

Romans didnt make the truly massive structures we make today. Their structures also had this walls and thick floors.

The answer is fiberglass or composite rebar. It should become the standard.

It lasts much much longer than rebar, which steel reinforced structures only last 50 years before they need replacing.

Make this without rebar

Of course they did.

tribunesandtriumphs.org/colosseum/building-the-colosseum.htm

>The outer wall is estimated to have required over 100,000 cubic meters (3,531,466 ft) of travertine stone which were set, without mortar, and held together by 300 tons of iron clamps

>It has been calculated that 300 tons of metal were used just for the clamps

Unless you claim that bars =/= clamps? I guess?