Geopolymer concrete like the Romans

by
in science on (#2VJQ)
story imageHackaday is reporting on an interesting advance in the science of producing geopolymer concrete:
For all the things Romans got wrong (lead pipes anyone?) did you know we're still using a less advanced concrete than they did? Consider some of the massive structures in Rome that have passed the test of time, lasting for more than 2000 years. The typical concrete that we use in construction starts to degrade after only 50 years.

Researchers at Berkeley think they've finally figured it out with thanks to a sample that was removed from the Pozzuoli Bay near Naples, Italy. This could vastly improve the durability of modern concrete, and even reduce the carbon footprint from making it. The downside is a longer curing time, and resource allocation - it wouldn't be possible to completely replace modern cement due to the limited supply of fly ash (an industrial waste product produced by burning coal). Their research can be found in a few articles, however they are both behind pay walls.

Lucky for us, and the open source community at large, someone from MIT has also been working on perfecting the formula - and he's shared his results thus far.

Re: Wrong and wrong again... The Romans cement was NOT more advanced (Score: 2, Interesting)

by tanuki64@pipedot.org on 2014-12-06 12:38 (#2VNK)

If I gave the impression that I want to belittle the Roman accomplishments... nope definitely not my intention. And of course, nothing wrong with trial an error. But on the other hand one should not make the mistake to ascribe the Roman some 'magical' understanding of what they were doing. Do you really think the Romans had laboratories where they experimented with different mixtures? Had huge fields with pieces of walls all with different cement to see which wall piece looked best after 500 years? All meticulously documented in lab-journals? I think not. So yes, trial and error....and plenty of luck. This does not make what they did with their cement less impressive.
Post Comment
Subject
Comment
Captcha
6, 62 or 95: which of these is the largest?