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."

34 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 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.

    2. 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
    3. 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...
    4. 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
    5. 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....

  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 jgagnon · · Score: 3, Funny

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

      --
      Remember to maintain your supply of /facepalm oil to prevent chafing.
    2. 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.

    3. 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?

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

      Works for Eskimos...

      --
      Blank until /. makes another boneheaded UI decision.
    5. 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
    6. 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.
    7. 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.
    8. 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.

    9. 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.

    10. 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.

    11. 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.

    12. 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)
  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 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.
  8. 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...

  9. 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.

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

    Jack Daniels and broken dreams?

  11. 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 ./

  12. 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