Slashdot Mirror


Sticky Rice Is the Key To Super Strong Mortar

lilbridge writes "For over 1,500 years the Chinese have been using sticky rice as an ingredient in mortar, which has resulted in super strong buildings, many of which are still standing after hundreds of years. Scientists have been studying the sticky rice and lime mortar to unlock the secrets of its strength, and have just determined the secret ingredient that makes the mortar more stable and stronger. The scientists have also concluded that this mixture is the most appropriate for restoration of ancient and historic buildings, which means it is probably also appropriate for new construction as well."

57 of 194 comments (clear)

  1. Two more by qortra · · Score: 5, Funny

    Based on experiences with my dishwasher, I can also predict that buildings made with oatmeal or cheese will also stand the test of time.

    1. Re:Two more by mcgrew · · Score: 2, Informative

      Or potatos. Do NOT put potatos down your garbage disposal; I found that out the hard way. Had to rent an electric plumber's snake to unplug the damned drain. The disposal has no problems, it's after they go down the drain and harden.

    2. Re:Two more by timeOday · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Rice is pretty strong. My wife once dumped a partially-cooked pot of rice down the kitchen sink, where it proceeded to swell up to an impenetrable clog. Being a fool, I got a plunger and just kept at it with increasing force until the all the water (and drano) that had pooled up, suddenly went right down the drain - and straight into the cupboard, because I'd knocked the rice-cemented plumbing right off the bottom of the sink.

    3. Re:Two more by IndustrialComplex · · Score: 4, Informative

      Or potatos. Do NOT put potatos down your garbage disposal; I found that out the hard way. Had to rent an electric plumber's snake to unplug the damned drain. The disposal has no problems, it's after they go down the drain and harden.

      It's ok Dan, you can use 'Es' this time.

      But on a serious note, you were essentially putting one half of a binary glue down your drain. The other part of that binary product is water which your disposal kindly mixed for you.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wheatpaste

      --
      Out of modpoints but really liked a post? 1BDkF6TtmmeZ3yqXbz9yhdYVqRYnwFoXDj
    4. Re:Two more by nigelo · · Score: 5, Funny

      The other favourite is to carefully capture the dirty water in a bucket when disconnecting the drain, stand up, then think: 'where can I lose this? I know! Down the drain...' Wet feet.

      --
      *Still* negative function...
    5. Re:Two more by Pharmboy · · Score: 2, Funny

      In this instance what he needed was a bucket and a new "P" trap. Or at least a bucket and a chisel, to remove the cemented rice. I have had plenty of maintenance men say that rice kills pipes.

      Raw rice isn't too good for birds either as they tend to eat, drink, expand & explode. Similar to pitching a seagull an Alka Seltzer, only in slow motion. This is why the tradition was changed to throw bird seed.

      --
      Tequila: It's not just for breakfast anymore!
    6. Re:Two more by eclectus · · Score: 4, Informative

      The 'feeding rice to birds will make them swell up & explode' is a myth. snopes even says so.

      http://www.snopes.com/critters/crusader/birdrice.asp

      --
      This signature is a waste of 42 characters
    7. Re:Two more by russ1337 · · Score: 3, Funny

      while living in Military barracks we had single rooms each with a sink and cupboard against one wall. It was a common prank to disconnect the drain in a buddies room while he was out drinking, because you *knew* he was going to piss in it during the night instead of walking all the way down to the toilets.

      the thought process is excellent: ahhh..... wait why are my feet wet! no no no ... can't stop!....ahh f&K it....

    8. Re:Two more by DMUTPeregrine · · Score: 2, Informative

      Bird feed often contains sunflower seeds and other seeds with higher fat and protein content. Birds like that more.

      --
      Not a sentence!
  2. The romans build concrete buildings by Colin+Smith · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Many of which are still standing, 2000 years later.

    I predict the common factor may be the concrete.

    hth.

    --
    Deleted
    1. Re:The romans build concrete buildings by Mindcontrolled · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Tell that to the idiots who build the building I am working in in the 70s - concrete, and nothing but concrete. It is crumbling now. Yay for engineering efforts...

      --
      Ubi solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant.
    2. Re:The romans build concrete buildings by jgagnon · · Score: 3, Funny

      Water is also a common ingredient. Hmmm... :p

      --
      Remember to maintain your supply of /facepalm oil to prevent chafing.
    3. Re:The romans build concrete buildings by Chris+Mattern · · Score: 5, Informative

      There are people who know how to do concrete right. And then there are people who know how to do concrete cheap.

    4. Re:The romans build concrete buildings by zygotic+mitosis · · Score: 5, Funny

      You're working in the 70s? Aren't wages much lower? Why don't you invest in Apple, Microsoft, or IBM instead?

    5. Re:The romans build concrete buildings by Farmer+Tim · · Score: 4, Funny

      Works for Eskimos...

      --
      Blank until /. makes another boneheaded UI decision.
    6. Re:The romans build concrete buildings by ElectricTurtle · · Score: 3, Interesting

      You're sure there's no rebar, no iron at all? I doubt it. It's the iron inside the concrete that contributes to its decay, because the metal expands and contracts with seasonal changes in temperature. Concrete without iron in it may be structurally weaker, but it will last a lot longer if kept within proper parameters for loads. (Hence why the Romans' stuff is still around.)

      --
      I support the Slashcott and will not be reading or commenting from 2/10/14 to 2/17/14. Beta is steaming pile of dog shit
    7. Re:The romans build concrete buildings by SgtChaireBourne · · Score: 3, Interesting

      One additive that gives strength to concrete the Roman built with is blood. It doesn't have to be human blood. Funny how the quality of concrete and steel deteriorated during the period 1200 - 1500. I wonder what could have been going on in Europe then. ;) Blood still works well, but does tend to tint the material pinkish or reddish for a long time.

      --
      Beta is broken and the link to classic doesn't work. Stop wasting our time or there won't be anybody left here.
    8. Re:The romans build concrete buildings by EggyToast · · Score: 2, Informative

      This isn't concrete -- it's lime mortar (which isn't used anymore). This is just a very hard lime mortar due to the additives -- it doesn't give any strength comparisons to portland cement. I imagine it's significantly less strong, though, despite the headline. This is "super strong" compared to plain ol' lime mortar.

    9. Re:The romans build concrete buildings by Maxo-Texas · · Score: 4, Interesting

      It wasn't until the 80's or 90's that romans use of fly ash became common knowledge. Back in the 70's, roman concrete was still in the "ancient mysteries" column.

      --
      She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
    10. Re:The romans build concrete buildings by need4mospd · · Score: 5, Informative

      It's the iron inside the concrete that contributes to its decay, because the metal expands and contracts with seasonal changes in temperature.

      Uh, so does concrete. Actually, they expand and contract at nearly the same exact rate depending on the composition of the steel and concrete. Without the steel you'd need a ridiculous amount of concrete to make up for it because concrete has a lower tensile strength. Adding enough concrete to make it work properly would make concrete structures very bulky and would limit their height considerably.

      (Hence why the Romans' stuff is still around.)

      The Roman stuff is still around because it was VERY thick, not because it didn't have steel. It probably would be in significantly better shape if they used steel.

    11. Re:The romans build concrete buildings by need4mospd · · Score: 3, Informative

      "Nearly" is the operative word here. Repeat a 'near' difference 2000 times and tell me how inconsequential it is, especially when it comes to shifting the weight of a structure over and over again.

      That's not really how it works. After the concrete cures the concrete and steel are at a sort of equilibrium. Whenever the structure is at or close to that temperature, everything is peachy. It's at extreme temperatures when you start to see expansion(or contraction). The coefficient of thermal expansion for concrete and steel are not only very close, they are extremely low. Meaning you'd need un-earthly variations before you'd see any detectable amount of variation.

    12. Re:The romans build concrete buildings by ShakaUVM · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Eh, I thought the secret ingredient in Roman concrete was volcanic ash? When medieval people elsewhere tried making concrete to the ancient specifications, they ended up with some watery messes and gave up on the whole thing for centuries.

    13. Re:The romans build concrete buildings by Ihmhi · · Score: 3, Funny

      So that's why there aren't any Roman toilets around anymore. They couldn't handle the load.

    14. Re:The romans build concrete buildings by John+Hasler · · Score: 2, Informative

      > This is why they will throw crappy, rusted rebar into the mix, as it won't
      > matter as soon as it sets up.

      They use rusty rebar intentionally. Concrete bonds well to rusty steel.

      --
      Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
    15. Re:The romans build concrete buildings by ElectricTurtle · · Score: 2, Insightful

      That equilibrium is not perfect. The difference does stress and wear the structure over decades, centuries, millennia, especially in temperate zones where temperature can vary more than 100 degrees a year. Like I say, repeat that for 2000 years and see what things look like. You're right, the difference is very low, but when you're talking about really large structures over really long periods, ANY difference is significant. In that scenario, solid concrete stands a better chance, so long as it's not overloaded.

      It's a moot point, because nobody builds anything to last for millennia. The Romans' work has done so by coincidence, but the useful life of buildings and other structures is measured primarily in decades, occasionally in centuries, but never in millennia. So rebar it is.

      --
      I support the Slashcott and will not be reading or commenting from 2/10/14 to 2/17/14. Beta is steaming pile of dog shit
    16. Re:The romans build concrete buildings by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Just a piece of concrete-nerd pedantry: The Romans didn't use fly ash - that comes from coal-fired electricity generation, which I'm reasonably sure they hadn't invented yet. It was volcanic ash, "pozzolana". Similar chemistry, but made in a volcano instead of a coal boiler.

  3. Amylopectin by Verdatum · · Score: 4, Informative

    I didn't know the critical ingredient was a mystery. Alton Brown from Good Eats explained the molecule quite well in the rice episode, and my immediate thought was "oh that must be why it was used in mortar for the Great Wall and such."

    1. Re:Amylopectin by EggyToast · · Score: 5, Informative

      Thing is, lime mortar hasn't really been used for about 150 years, so there's no research into it for modern building applications. Since OPC is better in every regard, including strength, repairing old lime mortar hasn't really been of concern until recently, when there's been more of a push to accurately repair historical buildings and structures. However, you're not exactly right with the Great Wall -- it was built 2200 years ago, whereas TFA notes that this particular process was done 1500 years ago.

      Still, I imagine this was also prevalent in Pre-Columbian architecture too, only with corn. Boil the corn, then use the leftover water.

    2. Re:Amylopectin by rritterson · · Score: 5, Informative

      From reading the physorg summary linked in the article linked in the summary on Slashdot (why we have to link to tertiary sources, I don't know) it seems that it isn't the polymer branching of the molecule that lends the mortar strength- the amylopectin doesn't even directly add strength as far as I can tell. Instead, it's that the amylopectin breaks up the crystallization of the lime in the mortar, creating micro crystals instead. I can imagine a big crystal being quite brittle with all of the possible shear planes.

      So, it wasn't as obvious to me why the amylopectin made it stronger.

      --
      -Ryan
      AUWYHSTOT (Acronyms are Useless When You Have to Spell Them Out Too)
    3. Re:Amylopectin by serbanp · · Score: 2, Informative

      However, you're not exactly right with the Great Wall -- it was built 2200 years ago, whereas TFA notes that this particular process was done 1500 years ago. .

      ugh, the Great Wall was nominally finished during the Ming dynasty, in the 1400s. Unlike the oldest sections, built with rammed soil and stone, the more modern parts did use bricks and mortar.

  4. Sounds like by 0100010001010011 · · Score: 4, Funny

    Ancient Chinese Secret

  5. sounds like a job for the MythBusters! by Joe+The+Dragon · · Score: 4, Interesting

    sounds like a job for the MythBusters!

    1. Re:sounds like a job for the MythBusters! by Tumbleweed · · Score: 3, Funny

      better than duct tape

      SYNTAX ERROR

  6. The Great Wall of America by tacarat · · Score: 3, Insightful

    So is this a good time to invest in California calrose growers?

    --
    "Common sense will be the death of us all"
  7. Re:Where will the rice come from? by Yvan256 · · Score: 2, Funny

    Exactly! Rice doesn't grow on trees, you know!

  8. Re:Where will the rice come from? by somersault · · Score: 2, Informative

    China probably does.. I mean sure it has a billion people, but apparently it produces 25% of the world's rice.

    --
    which is totally what she said
  9. Re:Where will the rice come from? by cowboy76Spain · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Yeah, it is not like it grows in trees...

    One main advantage is that it is easier to replenish than minerals. You can grow a field of rice, collect it and then grow it again next year. If you get a mineral (v.g. carbon) from a mine, the next year your only chance to get more carbon is to dig further. Also it helps capturing CO2 from air instead of adding into it.

    DISCLAIMER1: I know rice is a plant but not a tree.

    DISCLAIMER2: I am not saying that this mortar has no disavantages (old buildings may have survived a long time, but they used walls several times thicker than we have now; perhaps using it with moderns bricks is not useful. Anyway, an interesting idea.

    --
    Why can't /. have a rich-text editor? Editing your own HTML is so XXth century.
  10. Re:Where will the rice come from? by Jeng · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Yes, we do have enough rice.

    We have enough food production that no one should go hungry.

    People go hungry due to politics and poor distribution, not overall quantity of food.

    --
    Don't know something? Look it up. Still don't know? Then ask.
  11. Re:US Homes by elrous0 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    You should see what we build our trailer parks out of.

    --
    SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
  12. Re:Where will the rice come from? by jgagnon · · Score: 2, Funny

    Someone might be able to make a genetically modified version that grows on walls. That would be cool.

    --
    Remember to maintain your supply of /facepalm oil to prevent chafing.
  13. Once you see the rice in action ... by DeadDecoy · · Score: 5, Funny

    you'll shit bricks.

    1. Re:Once you see the rice in action ... by darthdavid · · Score: 3, Funny

      More like cinder-blocks...

  14. Re:US Homes by ElectricTurtle · · Score: 2, Insightful

    While bricks are awesome aesthetically (IMO), they are really only a good idea in very stable areas. If you are near fault lines like the West Coast of the US and are at risk for earthquakes, stay away from brick buildings. When the earth moves, you want to move with it. Smaller wooden structures are very good at that.

    --
    I support the Slashcott and will not be reading or commenting from 2/10/14 to 2/17/14. Beta is steaming pile of dog shit
  15. Re:I hope this doesn't take by stoolpigeon · · Score: 2, Interesting

    You need to try sticky rice with mango - my mouth started watering as soon as I saw the title for this story just thinking about it. Sticky rice is for a lot more than sushi.

    --
    It's hard to believe that's how Micronians are made. Why don't we see it right now by having you both kiss one another?
  16. Will someone please... by AngryNick · · Score: 2, Insightful

    ...provide this information to BP?

    1. Re:Will someone please... by swanzilla · · Score: 4, Funny

      ...provide this information to BP?

      Dear BP,

      Scientists have concluded that sticky rice/lime mortar is the most appropriate for restoration of ancient and historic buildings.

      How is that oil spill thing going?

      Best regards,

      some guy on ./

  17. Re:I hope this doesn't take by Tarlus · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Strange as it sounds, sticky rice with apples and peanut butter (and perhaps some cinnamon) is quite delicious as well. I'll be putting the mango on my to-try list, though...

    --
    /* No Comment */
  18. Re:Where will the rice come from? by EggyToast · · Score: 2, Interesting

    We could, but it doesn't matter -- we don't use lime mortar anymore. We use portland cement.

  19. Darn right! by Ungrounded+Lightning · · Score: 2, Insightful

    How MUCH sticky rice per how much lime, etc. Or how much purified additive? (Though adding cooked(?) rice, as the Chinese did, would probably end up inexpensive and may also add more strength as it collapses and forms voids, making a concrete foam structure.)

    I was about to make a post complaining about the lack of useful information. But you beat me to it AND phrased it brilliantly. Kudos.

    --
    Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
  20. Re:I hope this doesn't take by Threni · · Score: 5, Informative

    You're wrong, I'm afraid. Although the rice used in Sushi is sticky, it's not what is generally called sticky/glutinous rice. Sticky rice is used in various Asian, especially Thai dishes, either with savoury food like pork, or as a dessert with fruit such as with mango or durian, and salty coconut milk.

  21. Re:US Homes by eggy78 · · Score: 5, Funny

    Jack Daniels and broken dreams?

  22. Re:US Homes by cowscows · · Score: 2, Informative

    It is extremely rare these days to build a building with load-bearing brick walls. To go up more than a couple stories, the walls end up being ridiculously thick, and as a result ridiculously heavy. So you end up not just paying for lots more brick, but also for a much more serious foundation. Your labor costs also go way up, because bricklaying is time consuming, and harder to do well than you might think.

    Most brick buildings are just a veneer, whether they're over concrete, steel, or wood. Wood is actually one of the hardest to do, because the wood tends to shrink over time while the brick tends to expand due to heat and moisture. The brick is tied back to the wood pretty regularly, so these changes can cause serious cracking if you don't design for it.

    --

    One time I threw a brick at a duck.

  23. Re:Where will the rice come from? by camperdave · · Score: 2, Informative

    People go hungry due to politics and poor distribution, not overall quantity of food.

    Actually, we have the capacity to deal with poor distribution as well, so it all boils down to politics. Someone is deciding that people should starve to death.

    --
    When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
  24. Re:I hope this doesn't take by CCarrot · · Score: 2, Funny

    Sticky rice is for sushi and sushi alone.

    Ahh, no my friend, the best application for sticky rice is being steamed together with yummy chinese sausages and chicken, all wrapped up in a banana leaf...mmmm...sticky rice...

    Speaking of possible industrial uses for Dim Sum foods, I propose shrimp dumplings as a universal lubricant. At least the darn things always are whenever they see me coming at them with a pair of chopsticks...

    cc

    --
    "I love animals! Some are cute, others are tasty, what's not to like?" - Betsy Schroeder, Jeopardy contestant
  25. Re:I hope this doesn't take by icebrain · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Drizzle a little coconut milk over the top. Had this at a local Thai place, and now I want to make it myself. Just have to figure out how they got the mango to be a bit less sour...

    --
    The meek may inherit the earth, but the strong shall take the stars.
  26. Strong doesn't mean good, and rebar as a flaw by drwho · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Mortar that's too strong is brittle, meaning it can easily crack. Rebar can rust and swell, breaking this brittle cement. The result is catastrophic. I learned this from a couple of masons who I was drinking with at a pub. They joke that because of some really bad decisions made by architects and structural engineers in the 1960s and 1970s, they have good job security. I had known from reading books on restoring historical masonry buildings (thanks Ian Cramb) that strong mortar such as portland cement and other more modern mixes are just too brittle to be used as mortar. Stones and bricks shift ever so slightly as they settle. This can cause cracks, large or small, in the brittle mortar, that wouldn't happen with a weak lime mortar. These cracks are the widened by water freezing and thawing, and sometimes plant life. But what my bar buddies told me is that what makes the problem even worse is the rebar used in concrete buildings until recently would slowly rust and swell, so the masonry would burst from the inside because it was so brittle. These mason fellows would chip out the remaining concrete or cement, clean and coat the rebar (but sometimes replacing it) with a protecting paint, and then re-apply cement or concrete. I've noticed this problem occuring in many places, such as subway stations and bridges in the Boston area. I have no reason to believe the problem is limited to this city.

    Regarding Roman cements and concrete: pozzolana, otherwise known as hydraulic cement, was a mixture containing volcanic ash, specifically from mount Vensuvius. It has the ability to dry and set underwater. This 'secret' is said by many to have been lost for many centuries, but in fact was kept a 'masonic secret' by some masonic guilds for a long time. Yet the exact nature of this secret and its revelation are hazy.

    Yes, blood was used as an ad-mixture to some Roman cements. I can't remember what benefit it added.

    Some places add organic material to concrete, with a variety of results. Done correctly, it increases the strength of concrete. Done badly, it's a recepie for disaster. Using straw is certainly bad, but evidently hemp and possibly other materials can be used. Exactly what works under given conditions is not known to me. It may be another one of the 'masonic' secrets.

    1. Re:Strong doesn't mean good, and rebar as a flaw by rahvin112 · · Score: 5, Informative

      Epoxy coating the re-bar has not been proven effective. What the masons you had a beer with is typical of the trades, they don't understand the big picture because they are focused on their job. No engineers or architects screwed up (other than the very few public examples of failure). Buildings are designed for a certain life, typically that's 50-70 years and after that the building is expected to need capital investment in the infrastructure beyond routine maintenance to extend that life. Buildings could easily be designed to last longer but the longer the life the higher the cost and it's rare for an owner to care. Buildings could easily be designed to take fires, earthquakes, tornado's and hurricanes but the costs of such design make it illogical.

      The masons you mentioned talked about paint, it's not paint it's epoxy and it's a highly unproven technology (unless you are talking to the epoxy association, then it's the end all be all of re-bar protection). There are some in the engineering sector that think Epoxy coating re-bar is going to be one of those big mistakes that comes back and haunts us endlessly in a few decades (epoxy coated steel has been in use since the late 80's). The thing is concrete by itself is highly alkaline, the steel itself is alkaline as well and this prevents corrosion (which needs acidic environments to thrive, remember it's an oxidation process). The problem with epoxy is it negates the alkalinity effect of the concrete. In a perfect world the epoxy would be clean and perfect after the concrete sets but in reality the epoxy is going to have abrasions and cuts from erection, pouring and finishing (not counting what a decade of thermal expansion does to it). These abrasions in the epoxy coat provide a path of corrosion and once it penetrates the abrasion and infects the steel it can move along the steel much quicker because of the epoxy coat protecting the corrosion from alkalinity of the concrete. IMO a much better solution is galvanizing, the zinc coating has an additional alkaline protection and is much more durable during construction than epoxy ever can be. Either that or use high ksi stainless steel.

      Boston is not alone in problems with re-bar corrosion, the issue involves the use of salt, cities and states that use salt in the winter on the roads, the salt provides the corrosion path and negates the alkalinity resulting in corrosion way ahead of schedule. The salt on the road moves through the environment and affects lots of ancillary structures including nearby buildings and tunnels. Black-bar re-bar used in concrete where salt isn't applied, even underwater and in freeze/thaw cycles has been very durable. There is reinforced concrete out there that is still in perfect shape that was poured 50 years ago and it's harder than ever.

      Also, all concrete sets underwater, concrete doesn't dry, it hardens, it is a chemical reaction that involves hydration and the formation of a crystalline structure using the water. Without water there isn't concrete or if you allow the concrete to "dry" before it sets will degrade the concrete severely. This is why they have to keep the concrete moist for several days after pouring. Premature drying has similar symptoms to over-finishing, the surface of the concrete spalls the top surface off after a time rusulting in the loss of about a 1/4 - 1 inch of concrete on the surface spalling off.

      And finally, organic additives to concrete are NEVER a good thing. Organics deteriorate after time, this leaves voids in the concrete where the organics ended up and the decay can create acids and bases that can adversely affect the concrete. Organics are bad, period. Now, Roman use of organics, such as blood may have resulted in more air-entrainment. The little tiny air-bubbles formed after the organics decayed (or as a result of mixing them in) would have provided freeze-thaw protection. Concrete placed in the open weather typically needs ~5% air entrainment to eliminate the effect of water saturation and freeze/thaw cycles. The heavy use of