Slashdot Mirror
Ancient Roman Concrete Is About To Revolutionize Modern Architecture
schwit1 sends this news from Businesweek:
"After 2,000 years, a long-lost secret behind the creation of one of the world's most durable man-made creations ever — Roman concrete — has finally been discovered by an international team of scientists, and it may have a significant impact on how we build cities of the future. Researchers have analyzed 11 harbors in the Mediterranean basin where, in many cases, 2,000-year-old (and sometimes older) headwaters constructed out of Roman concrete stand perfectly intact despite constant pounding by the sea. The most common blend of modern concrete, known as Portland cement, a formulation in use for nearly 200 years, can't come close to matching that track record. In seawater, it has a service life of less than 50 years. After that, it begins to erode. The secret to Roman concrete lies in its unique mineral formulation and production technique. As the researchers explain in a press release outlining their findings, 'The Romans made concrete by mixing lime and volcanic rock. For underwater structures, lime and volcanic ash were mixed to form mortar, and this mortar and volcanic tuff were packed into wooden forms. The seawater instantly triggered a hot chemical reaction. The lime was hydrated — incorporating water molecules into its structure — and reacted with the ash to cement the whole mixture together.'"
Can this discovery of old stuff be patented today, or is the fact that the romans did it so long ago constitute prior art? Or will the argument go like "We don't have a treaty with the Roman Empire regarding Intelectual Property Rights, an nobody did this in our country yet, so sure, go ahead an patent it"...?
Question for religious people: where do unrepentant masochists go when they die?
I find it odd that there are claims this is new information. Didn't Vitruvius describe it in his De Architectura, written about 15 BC?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_architectura
Perhaps the story is confusing the known composition with some mechanism that the new study discovered.
All right, but apart from the sanitation, medicine, education, wine, public order, irrigation, roads, the fresh water system and public health, what have the Romans ever done for us?
From http://newscenter.berkeley.edu/2013/06/04/roman-concrete/ While Roman concrete is durable, Monteiro said it is unlikely to replace modern concrete because it is not ideal for construction where faster hardening is needed. But the researchers are now finding ways to apply their discoveries about Roman concrete to the development of more earth-friendly and durable modern concrete. They are investigating whether volcanic ash would be a good, large-volume substitute in countries without easy access to fly ash, an industrial waste product from the burning of coal that is commonly used to produce modern, green concrete. “There is not enough fly ash in this world to replace half of the Portland cement being used,” said Monteiro. “Many countries don’t have fly ash, so the idea is to find alternative, local materials that will work, including the kind of volcanic ash that Romans used. Using these alternatives could replace 40 percent of the world’s demand for Portland cement.”
Question is - why is it necessary for concrete to be reinforced? Obviously, the Romans didn't have steel or iron rebar. They formed and poured their structures without any rebar, and they've lasted a couple thousand years. It seems more than obvious that our architects and engineers can learn a few things from the Romans.
IANASE (structural engineer), but from my understanding one key difference that reinforced concrete confers is that it allows the concrete to be prestressed to perform better under tension. Concrete (Roman or modern) is just fine under compression, so it can support a prodigious amount of weight loading down on it. However, once you try to span an area then the concrete in the middle of the span is normally under tension. As you can imagine, this often leads to cracking and outright failure. Furthermore, it's why the Romans had such a predilection to using arches and domes, which keep the concrete predominantly under compression rather than tension.
Think about it this way: our highway bridges couldn't be built the way they are if we were using unreinforced Roman concrete; however, if the concrete is prestressed then the tensile forces are balanced by the compressive forces. This also allows us to do many other interesting things with architecture that weren't feasible before.
I have wondered about whether something like carbon fiber could be used in the future to produce prestressed concrete that wasn't as prone to corrosion as the steel rebar-based approach. Something like that might be the best of both worlds. Okay, so I just Googled and it looks like at least one carbon-fiber approach is already patented.
Just as an aside, the Romans were quite ingenious when it came to implementing their architectural application of concrete. I read that when Hadrian ordered the construction of the current version of the Pantheon, the Roman engineers were faced with difficulty designing a dome that would not collapse under its own weight (again, tensile forces and concrete are not friends). The Romans overcame this by reducing the density of the concrete in the dome by using pumice in the aggregate and reducing the thickness of the concrete as the dome progressed. The dome of the Pantheon remains the largest unreinforced concrete dome in the world—not because we can't replicate the techniques, but because reinforced concrete performs so much better under tension.
I'm sure that Roman concrete greatly varied in quality. Every batch was an experiment using local materials.The crap that didln't last for 25 year is long gone. All we have left to look at today are the results of successful experiments. And it is a wise thing to learn from it. But to consider everything the ancients built as evidence of their genius disregards the winnowing of time. Good stuff lasts, bad stuff falls apart and is discarded.
Yes this article is garbage IMO. Pozzolans are the basis of concrete. That's what concrete powder is, an artificially produced pozzolan. Fly Ash is also a Pozzolan, we've been using in PCC for decades. Volcanic ash is also a Pozzolan, and in a sense it is "green" to use volcanic ash instead of modern cement powder because you don't have the input energy to make the cement powder. But Volcanic fly ash is NOT an unlimited supply and mining and transporting it may use just as much energy as cement powder.
Second, Modern Portland Cement does NOT deteriorate after 50 years. Properly placed concrete has no known lifespan. (if concrete only lasted 50 years there would be a LOT of buildings failing every year) What does fail, as has been noted, is the reinforcing steel used to give the concrete tensile strength (concrete has no tensile strength) and wear and tear. There are ways around the rusting rebar that are being used, galvanized rebar, epoxy coated and stainless steel are just a few of the techniques being used to increase the lifespan of the rebar to give equal lifespan to the steel and concrete.
Finally, we can make concrete better than the Romans, we just have to use the equivalent amount of Pozzolans they were using. When the Europeans (after the dark age) tried to duplicate the Roman mix they found it far to wet to be usable, the missing knowledge was that one of the mix ingredients was all that volcanic ash which meant the amount of pozzolan in the mix was far higher and in fact comprised a significant percentage of the mix. In fact the measurements made recently have shown that modern concrete isn't using near the equivalent amount of cement powder. Stronger concrete can easily be produced by increasing the amount of cement powder, the problem is the cost that adds. We don't use concrete of that strength generally because of two reasons, cost and failure mode. Standard reinforced portland cement concrete fails in a manner that provides warning of imminent collapse, high strength reinforced concrete does not provide that warning, it fails explosively.
So in summary that is the WORST cement article I've ever read, but what can you expect from Businessweek I guess. It reads like a scam article to get someone to invest money in an idea that isn't revolutionary. Caveat Emptor.