News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Volcanic sand has been credited with the longevity of Rom... by WalterBright on Sunday December 21, 2014 @03:44PM (#8780884)
Roman concrete has been known about for a long time. Why doesn't anyone use it?
Re:Volcanic sand has been credited with the longevity of Rom... by wiredfool on Sunday December 21, 2014 @04:12PM (#8780986)
(Note, not a CE any more, but I did Civil Engineering @ Cornell with Professors that were big into concrete, where many of the people who wrote the paper are from.)

First of all, I bet that the strength of the concrete builds pretty slowly. They're mentioning a 180 day test, where most modern concrete is considered 'fully cured' at 28 days, and generally you're looking at a few days to a week before it's got enough strength to continue construction. (Note that concrete will continue to cure indefinitely as long as it's kept moist and at a good temperature. E.g., I looked at some concrete from a floating bridge that was 40 years old and it was 3x stronger than it was supposed to be based on the original specs. There's some scatter in those, but 40 years in a cool poist environment didn't hurt.) Also note that there are a lot of interesting additives to concrete that can change the behaviour of modern concrete, to make it easier to place, faster to set, slower to set, pumpable, high strength, high stiffness, or whatever.

Second, Concrete tends to be a pretty local thing. You don't tend to ship the raw materials long distances, since they're heavy and low value. In places where there is volcanic ash, it can be used. But then you get to places like the whole US east of the Rockies, and there's none of that.

Third, we lost the recipe for Roman Cement for the better part of 2 millennia, and only recently rediscovered it, well after the discovery of Portland Cement and it's spread through the world.

Re:Volcanic sand has been credited with the longevity of Rom... by saalweachter on Sunday December 21, 2014 @05:34PM (#8781211)
Case in point, Rosendale cement[1] is another natural cement. It was popular in the 19th century because it does not require additives to produce (the limestone already contains the desirable traces) and can set underwater. Being produced along the Hudson River, one of the biggest shipping routes of the day, probably didn't hurt. However, it requires significantly longer to set and was discarded in favor of the faster setting Portland cement.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosendale_cement

(Bonus factoid: while Rosendale cement is named or the location of the limestone deposits mined to produce it, Portland cement is named for the resemblance of the finished product to Portland stone, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portland_stone)

Re:Volcanic sand has been credited with the longevity of Rom... by lazyjones on Sunday December 21, 2014 @04:20PM (#8781011)
Concrete as used by the Romans has good vertical / compressive strength, but lacks the tensile strength you get with steel-reinforced concrete (which has shorter lifespan due to corrosion and similar effects). So you'd have to build thicker walls and use something else for floors.
Re:Volcanic sand has been credited with the longevity of Rom... by WalterBright on Sunday December 21, 2014 @08:33PM (#8781582)
Why can't steel reinforcing be added to Roman concrete?