4 ms·
Relevant thread: https://twitter.com/cleptok/status/1611622181665923075 https://twitter.com/cleptok/status/1611622181665923075 Ok. Let's do a short thread on R
by af78 4y ago
Relevant thread: https://twitter.com/cleptok/status/1611622181665923075 https://twitter.com/cleptok/status/1611622181665923075
Ok. Let's do a short thread on Roman cement for the 3 people out there that might be interested.
You often hear that the Romans had some sort of superior and arcane knowledge on superior cement mixes that has been now lost. And still today we cannot replicate it. This is complete nonsense.
Modern day cement (and any other building material, really) is far, far superior than anything from the past. There is simply no comparison. Above everything we understand the chemical composition, interaction and quality control for consistent results.
Romans were making mortars based on volcanic ashes. There was no set recipe. Every builder had their own. Volcanic ash from Pozzuoli, crushed brick, slaked like, animal fat, hair etc. Some basic rules existed (as recorded by Vitruvius on the 10 books on Architecture).
Millions of structures were constructed these way. With the exception of a handful, most of these do not exist anymore. But why the ones that exist are still standing strong?
Usually via a simple Darwinian process. Most of these times those builders got it wrong. But in a few cases, out of luck, they got the chemistry just right. This would result in a ok-ish material, with decent properties.
Not only that. Unreinforced (without steel) concrete will not suffer any serious deterioration, with few exceptions. (Pantheon in Rome) Also the very coarse pozzolan they were using, will chemically react very very slowly producing low initial strengths Vs any modern material.
In the long term (centuries) though, it will continue gaining strength. Totally useless for the original purpose of the builders, but quite good for the few surviving buildings.
So what the latest MIT research told us? That lime in very small quantities will be "self-healing'. And this somehow is something that the Romans knew and used to create a superior cement.
This is simply not true. It is well known that lime expands (the pompous "self-healing" tag), so in very small and precise quantities it will counteract the shrinkage and cracking behaviour of cement binders. But you have to be pretty lucky to get it just right.
So not intentional. Just survivor bias in the remaining Roman cement structures. Beyond this, lime is a definite no-no for any concrete with steel in it -it corrodes it. The reason we use concrete today is precisely the embedded steel. It allows to build all modern structures.
And steel is the reason modern concrete deteriorates. It corrodes, expands and cracks the surrounding concrete. An unreinforced concrete (like the ones Romans used) with modern materials and understanding would last forever. But you wouldn't build anything worthwhile.
Final. Remember. Cement = the glue, the binder that holds everything together, activated by water. Concrete= the actual building material with binder, water, sand and stones. Mortar= only binder, sand and water (maybe small stones)
- amai 4y agoAnd the real deal is modern https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Textile-reinforced_concrete https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Textile-reinforced_concrete. Especially the combination of carbon fiber and concrete is a very promising solution, which is researched in Germany: https://de.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbonbeton https://de.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbonbeton This stuff is superior to anything the romans did in every aspect.
- imtringued 4y agoHonestly, I think a much bigger factor than random chance is the designed lifespan of these buildings. Some of them took decades or even centuries to build. So they must not only last throughout the construction process, they must also last long enough to make the construction process be worth it. Spending a few decades on experimentally determining an optimal cement mixture is also worth it. The by far biggest problem is that the vast majority of buildings get demolished and replaced by something else so making them long lasting is not very useful.
- MayeulC 4y agoThat reads as somewhat misguided and dismissive. You don't have to understand the chemistry to improve recipes by trial and error, over multiple generations, and learn from the still-standing structures. And there is still value in studying today those that survived in order to improve ours. The way lime healed cracks is new to me at least, but it's taken as a given here. > you wouldn't build anything worthwhile You just need more cement, it could be replaced with fibers. We still use unreinforced concrete in some cases.
- af78 4y agoThe thread seems to have been written by a Greek, a bit of Roman-bashing is par for the course :)
- nazka 4y ago> You often hear that the Romans had some sort of superior and arcane knowledge on superior cement mixes that has been now lost. And still today we cannot replicate it. This is complete nonsense. That’s what I heard. And that we found it recently but it wasn’t useable economically because it required an extremely long time to dry instead of modern ciment and it’s ability to dry (and so raise a building) a lot faster.