To improve today’s concrete, do as the Romans did

[Matt Giwer]

http://newscenter.berkeley.edu/2013/06/04/roman-concrete/

To improve today�s concrete, do as the Romans did

By Sarah Yang, Media Relations | June 4, 2013
BERKELEY �

In a quest to make concrete more durable and sustainable, an
international team of geologists and engineers has found inspiration in
the ancient Romans, whose massive concrete structures have withstood the
elements for more than 2,000 years.

Using the Advanced Light Source at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory
(Berkeley Lab), a research team from the University of California,
Berkeley, examined the fine-scale structure of Roman concrete. It
described for the first time how the extraordinarily stable compound �
calcium-aluminum-silicate-hydrate (C-A-S-H) � binds the material used to
build some of the most enduring structures in Western civilization.

The discovery could help improve the durability of modern concrete,
which within 50 years often shows signs of degradation, particularly in
ocean environments.

The manufacturing of Roman concrete also leaves a smaller carbon
footprint than does its modern counterpart. The process for creating
Portland cement, a key ingredient in modern concrete, requires fossil
fuels to burn calcium carbonate (limestone) and clays at about 1,450
degrees Celsius (2,642 degrees Fahrenheit). Seven percent of global
carbon dioxide emissions every year comes from this activity. The
production of lime for Roman concrete, however, is much cleaner,
requiring temperatures that are two-thirds of that required for making
Portland cement.

The researchers� findings are published in two papers, one that appears
online today (Tuesday, June 4) in the Journal of the American Ceramic
Society, and the other scheduled to appear in the October issue of the
journal American Mineralogist.

�Roman concrete has remained coherent and well-consolidated for 2,000
years in aggressive maritime environments,� said Marie Jackson, lead
author of both papers. �It is one of the most durable construction
materials on the planet, and that was no accident. Shipping was the
lifeline of political, economic and military stability for the Roman
Empire, so constructing harbors that would last was critical.�

The research team was led by Paulo Monteiro, a UC Berkeley professor of
civil and environmental engineering and a faculty scientist at Berkeley
Lab, and Jackson, a UC Berkeley research engineer in civil and
environmental engineering. They characterized samples of Roman concrete
taken from a breakwater in Pozzuoli Bay, near Naples, Italy.

Building the Empire

Concrete was the Roman Empire�s construction material of choice. It was
used in monuments such as the Pantheon in Rome as well as in wharves,
breakwaters and other harbor structures. Of particular interest to the
research team was how Roman�s underwater concrete endured the
unforgiving saltwater environment.

The recipe for Roman concrete was described around 30 B.C. by Marcus
Vitruvius Pollio, an engineer for Octavian, who became Emperor Augustus.
The not-so-secret ingredient is volcanic ash, which Romans combined with
lime to form mortar. They packed this mortar and rock chunks into wooden
molds immersed in seawater. Rather than battle the marine elements,
Romans harnessed saltwater and made it an integral part of the concrete.

The researchers also described a very rare hydrothermal mineral called
aluminum tobermorite (Al-tobermorite) that formed in the concrete. �Our
study provided the first experimental determination of the mechanical
properties of the mineral,� said Jackson.

So why did the use of Roman concrete decrease? �As the Roman Empire
declined, and shipping declined, the need for the seawater concrete
declined,� said Jackson. �You could also argue that the original
structures were built so well that, once they were in place, they didn�t
need to be replaced.�

An earth-friendly alternative

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.�

The research began with initial funding from King Abdullah University of
Science and Technology in Saudi Arabia (KAUST), which launched a
research partnership with UC Berkeley in 2008. Monteiro noted that Saudi
Arabia has �mountains of volcanic ash� that could potentially be used in
concrete.

In addition to KAUST, funding from the Loeb Classical Library
Foundation, Harvard University and the Department of Energy�s Office of
Science helped support this research. Samples were provided by Marie
Jackson and the Roman Maritime Concrete Study (ROMACONS), sponsored by
CTG Italcementi, a research center based in Bergamo, Italy. The
researchers also used the Berlin Electron Storage Ring Society for
Synchrotron Radiation, or BESSY, for their analyses.

--
Hodie Kalendis Maiis MMXIII est
-- The Ferric Webcaesar
Wed, May 01, 2013 5:47:27 PM

[JTEM]

Matt Giwer <jul...@tampabaynever.rr.com> wrote:

> http://newscenter.berkeley.edu/2013/06/04/roman-concrete/
>
> To improve today’s concrete, do as the Romans did

>
> By Sarah Yang, Media Relations | June 4, 2013

> BERKELEY —

>
> In a quest to make concrete more durable and sustainable, an
> international team of geologists and engineers has found inspiration in
> the ancient Romans, whose massive concrete structures have withstood the
> elements for more than 2,000 years.

I've often argued that ancient Rome is the model for
the modern world, in particular for third-world
development.

Capitalism is excellent at giving people what they
want, assuming they have the money to pay for it,
but it's lousy at supplying infrastructure. Roads,
bridges, sewers, schools... housing... hospitals...
all these things cost a great deal of money, and there's
ZERO profit in building them for impoverished
third-world nations.

So what does rome have to do with any of this?

Roman methods & materials weren't technology dependent,
they were labor intensive and they lasted! They were
the perfect solution for the developing world.

Bulldozers do the work of 1,000 men, which means they're
the absolute LAST thing you'd ever want when one of your
hugest problems is unemployment!

Anyhow, use roman materials, use Roman methods and you
can build the needed infrastructure on the cheap, provide
the needed jobs and open the door to economic development.

...before someone builds a factory in your village
there needs to be a road to reach your village... power
sources... water supply... educational facilities to
produce a literate work force...

Mind you: Not all Roman materials were superior to
their modern counterparts. It's true that many Roman
roads, sewer systems and even bridges have survived,
but Roman iron production, for example, was far inferior
to modern iron making. As late as WWII, a major iron
supply of Mussolini's Italy was Roman slag -- the left
overs (byproduct) of roman Iron production. Modern
people easily surpass Roman iron production, even when
using Roman methods!

It's probably a result of slave labor. The slaves met
their quotas and didn't give a damn how efficient they
were. Plus, most were entirely unschooled, they had no
idea what kind of temperatures they were looking for,
or how they might judge it.

The secret to the future lay in the past, I've often
argued, and not just in the ancient past...


-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com

[SolomonW]

On Tue, 4 Jun 2013 19:55:30 -0700 (PDT), JTEM wrote:

> Anyhow, use roman materials, use Roman methods and you
> can build the needed infrastructure on the cheap, provide
> the needed jobs and open the door to economic development.

It is a similar cost structure in third world countries as in richer
countries, what you are doing is pricing roads out of reach of the
population.

[JTEM]

Not at all. Under modern construction techniques
in the United States, the labor accounts for
approximately 20% of the cost. But labor in the
developing world is exceptionally cheap -- often
in the pennies per hour -- so it would actually
be good economics to choose labor intensive solutions.
One would have to simply to maintain the same 20%
level of budgeting, but why stop there?

They have excess labor but little money and little
by way of materials and technology. The conventional
answer is to build carbon-copies of western infrastructure
using western methods... western materials... western
tools... western engineers...

You're maximizing the amount of money leaving the country
(money that was probably borrowed in the first place),
even as you're minimizing benefit to the country.

Approximately 1/2 of the nation of Togo earns less than
$1.25 a day. For the price of a new bulldozer you can
hire HUNDREDS, plus without equipment like trucks and
bulldozers you don't need any special training.

Shovels? Picks? You make them locally. Again, this is
something you can do using Roman technology. There's no
need to import a thing, no need to send the money out of
the country.

The economic growth should pay for the whole project over
a few years, and it doesn't even have to. All it needs to
do is cover any increase in initial costs over conventional
construction methods, assuming there is one (which I do not).

And, of course, once the roads, bridges, schools, sewers,
housing (etc) is built, the infrastructure is in place for
further growth.

The best part: Doing this way, Africa grows organically.
Instead of foreigners stepping in and building carbon
copies of western cities, Africa grows at it's own pace,
it's shape determined by it's people.



-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com

[SolomonW]

On Wed, 5 Jun 2013 11:48:25 -0700 (PDT), JTEM wrote:

> SolomonW <Solom...@citi.com> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 4 Jun 2013 19:55:30 -0700 (PDT), JTEM wrote:
>>> Anyhow, use roman materials, use Roman methods and you
>>> can build the needed infrastructure on the cheap, provide
>>> the needed jobs and open the door to economic development.
>>
>> It is a similar cost structure in third world countries as in richer
>> countries, what you are doing is pricing roads out of reach of the
>> population.
>
> Not at all. Under modern construction techniques
> in the United States, the labor accounts for
> approximately 20% of the cost.

Much labor costs is hidden, for example, a tractor will have much labor
too, but because it is done elsewhere it does not go over the labor
charges. Hold this thought as it will be important below.

Let me make a few observations.

Engineers are very experienced in determining local cost structures. The
method they use of cost-benefit analysis can quickly determine what is the
cheapest method to use. Then they rarely get involved in the actual labor
methods itself, even in the Western World. This is done by workers managed
by tradesmen and localized business people. Similarly, in much of the third
world labor it is run by local farmers and business people who are aware of
the cost structures in place.


The other issue is that machinery costs can be very different in the USA
then in Togo. I know a company that exports broken and worthless photocopy
equipment to Vietnam from Australia that is not worth fixing in Australia.
These they ship to Vietnam where the local tradesman fixes them for use
them in Vietnam. They do a good trade.

[JTEM]

SolomonW <Solom...@citi.com> wrote:

> Much labor costs is hidden, for example, a tractor will have much labor
> too, but because it is done elsewhere it does not go over the labor
> charges. Hold this thought as it will be important below.

No. Labor costs are so much cheaper that
you you have to INCREASE the number of
laborers, significantly, just to keep the
percentage-cost the same.

> Let me make a few observations.

Um. Okay?

> Engineers are very experienced in determining local cost structures. The
> method they use of cost-benefit analysis can quickly determine what is the
> cheapest method to use.

Exactly. They're worried about a budget, not maximizing
the benefits to the society.

It's not about the cost, it's about recouping your
costs. It makes far more sense to spend $10 billion
instead of $2 billion if it means tens of billions
more for the economy.

The western trained engineer focuses on his job: completing
a project on budget, a budget which was mostly likely
low-balled just so his firm could win the contract. That's
exactly the kind of stupidity I was talking about!

The goal of development isn't to complete a project in
the most reasonable time at the cheapest price, it's to
benefit a developing nation. And there's a hell of a
lot of more benefit -- and long term financial gain --
from discarding modern methods.

Labor intensive methods bring immediate benefit. They
employ the maximum number of people, reducing unemployment
the most, increasing economic activity.

What you defend OUTSOURCES as much as the spending, as
much as the economic benefits as possible. OTHER COUNTRIES
receive the economic benefits!

> The other issue is that machinery costs can be very different in the USA
> then in Togo. I know a company that exports broken and worthless photocopy
> equipment to Vietnam from Australia that is not worth fixing in Australia.
> These they ship to Vietnam where the local tradesman fixes them for use
> them in Vietnam. They do a good trade.

So?

There is no manpower alternative to a photocopier. A
photocopier isn't reducing badly needed jobs.

You're comparing apples & oranges.

[DE Wolf]

On 6/6/2013 5:42 PM, JTEM wrote:

As I agree with the rest of what you said, I will not include it here.

> There is no manpower alternative to a photocopier. A
> photocopier isn't reducing badly needed jobs.

Actually there is. He/she is called a scribe.

How do you think governments of old duplicated documents? :) Scribes in
scriptoria of course, or if you want a little later in time, either
woodblock style manual printing presses or the manual moveable type style.

A photocopier just makes it a lot easier and guarantees a exact copy of
the original. :)

Bard Wolf



--
**************************************
I do not fear computers. I fear the
lack of them.
- Isaac Asimov
**************************************
There is no shame in walking away from
a fight; but if they won't let you
walk away...have fun.
- S. Hersha
**************************************
You can have Freedom or Peace,
Don't EVER count on having both.
**************************************
http://www.cpress.littlenifties.com/
The home of Snide Sayings :)
**************************************

[VtSkier]

Actually economists know about this argument about muscle power vs.
machine power. Look at the rules for WPA and CCC projects during the
Great Depression in the US. As is being argued above, the premise of
these projects was to get as many people as possible working AND to
benefit the society as a whole.

[JTEM]

VtSkier <VtSk...@somewhere.net> wrote:

> Actually economists know about this argument about muscle power vs.
> machine power. Look at the rules for WPA and CCC projects during the
> Great Depression in the US. As is being argued above, the premise of
> these projects was to get as many people as possible working AND to
> benefit the society as a whole.

They worked.

It's often ignored because of the huge impact the war
spending had, but the work programs of the depression
worked. They improved things. Unemployment saw a
significant drop. Maybe it was small compared to the
boost from military spending, but it was a full five
points or more!

The wrong lessons were gleemed from the 1930s. Everyone
thinks the key is spending, as if it doesn't matter WHAT
you spend on, or HOW.

The military spending didn't just buy war materials back
then, it created infrastructure. It built factories, it
built roads & bridges to reach them, railroad lines to
carry raw materials & finished equipment, telephone lines
and power grids...

And military spending back then was still about volume,
it was still labor intensive. We built about 10,000
B25 Mitchell bombers alone, with tens of thousands of
assorted aircraft every year. U.S. aircraft production
peaked at about 90,000 planes in 1944, with production
ramping down as wars end drew nearer and nearer...

The housing I live in was originally built for officers
during WWII, or right before.

Of course, things were a lot different back then. America
pretty much produced everything it needed or wanted. Even
in the 1950s pretty much everything in a department store
would have been made in America -- radios, toasters, TVs,
clothes (etc). So, when you put people to work they ran
out and spent, which in turn put other people to work...
who in turn put other people to work... so on and so forth.

Today, your TV was made in Korea or Taiwan. Your clothes
came from some sweatshop. Your sneakers made in Cambodia.
And, well, and just about everything else comes from China.
There's a minimum "Bounce" from such programs...

Of course, the third world doesn't have to worry about this
as much, if for no other reason than they're too poor. And
even if the bounce is minimized, it's still more of a bounce
then what they'd see using modern, western designs, methods
and materials.

So, despite my position that the elite have slaughtered the
Goose which lays the golden eggs here, labor-intensive
solutions would most definitely aid the third world, and not
just economically.

Do they really want to just built European (American) carbon
copies of homes, buildings... whole cities? Let Africa grow
organically. Let it be shaped by African hands, African
culture and African aesthetics... materials... needs and
desires.

That's worth something, too.

-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com

[SolomonW]

On Thu, 6 Jun 2013 17:42:07 -0700 (PDT), JTEM wrote:

> SolomonW <Solom...@citi.com> wrote:
>
>> Much labor costs is hidden, for example, a tractor will have much labor
>> too, but because it is done elsewhere it does not go over the labor
>> charges. Hold this thought as it will be important below.
>
> No. Labor costs are so much cheaper that
> you you have to INCREASE the number of
> laborers, significantly, just to keep the
> percentage-cost the same.

That is true, but so what? A tractor has significant labor charges. There
would be drivers, mechanics, spare parts people, etc.

>
>> Let me make a few observations.
>
> Um. Okay?
>
>> Engineers are very experienced in determining local cost structures. The
>> method they use of cost-benefit analysis can quickly determine what is the
>> cheapest method to use.
>
> Exactly. They're worried about a budget, not maximizing
> the benefits to the society.

??

Any significant project has a budget, even charities have budgets.

>
> It's not about the cost, it's about recouping your
> costs.

???

This does not make sense if you increase the costs, it is harder to recoup

your costs.

> It makes far more sense to spend $10 billion
> instead of $2 billion if it means tens of billions
> more for the economy.
>

You would still make tens of billions plus the eight billion you save, if
you can make the project affordable, it may open up bigger markets so
giving your society more benefit.

Plus it means your project is affordable.

> The western trained engineer focuses on his job:

Few engineers in third-world countries are western trained.

> completing
> a project on budget, a budget which was mostly likely
> low-balled just so his firm could win the contract. That's
> exactly the kind of stupidity I was talking about!
>

Well, if you wanted to those firms contracted would gladly increase their
prices.

> The goal of development isn't to complete a project in
> the most reasonable time at the cheapest price, it's to
> benefit a developing nation.

These projects are not charities, generally the purpose is to make money
for someone. If they cannot make money, there is no project, no benefit to
society, in fact, there is nothing.

> And there's a hell of a
> lot of more benefit -- and long term financial gain --
> from discarding modern methods.

Well, you can live like they do in mediaeval or ancient times, most of us
want to move forward.

>
> Labor intensive methods bring immediate benefit. They
> employ the maximum number of people, reducing unemployment
> the most, increasing economic activity.

Sooner or later enough people will kill a project and leave nothing.

>
> What you defend OUTSOURCES as much as the spending, as
> much as the economic benefits as possible.

I never said anything about outsourcing little of the labor is outsourced
in third world countries.

> OTHER COUNTRIES
> receive the economic benefits!

The idea is that all should benefit not just the local elite as you seem to
prefer.

>
>> The other issue is that machinery costs can be very different in the USA
>> then in Togo. I know a company that exports broken and worthless photocopy
>> equipment to Vietnam from Australia that is not worth fixing in Australia.
>> These they ship to Vietnam where the local tradesman fixes them for use
>> them in Vietnam. They do a good trade.
>
> So?
>
> There is no manpower alternative to a photocopier. A
> photocopier isn't reducing badly needed jobs.

Years ago if a person wanted a copy of a letter, they used to type it
again. Before that they used to have scribes who copied books and
documents.

>
> You're comparing apples & oranges.

Doing a search on tractors, I found several companies that export second
hand tractors, I am sure the same trade exists in tractors.

[JTEM]

SolomonW <Solom...@citi.com> wrote:


> That is true, but so what? A tractor has significant labor charges. There
> would be drivers, mechanics, spare parts people, etc.

No it doesn't, actually, it's a labor saver. It's
a super-duper major labor savor. Even factoring
in all the jobs producing & transporting it to the
work site, it saves hundreds & hundreds of jobs.
One tractor might do the work of 1,000 men!

> Doing a search on tractors, I found several companies that export second
> hand tractors, I am sure the same trade exists in tractors.

Each one represents another 1,000 unemployed Africans
on a continent where unemployment is rampant.

Who's benefiting from such deals?

HINT: It's the sellers! They're unloading old
equipment that nobody wants!

-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com

[SolomonW]

On Sat, 8 Jun 2013 01:53:56 -0700 (PDT), JTEM wrote:

> SolomonW <Solom...@citi.com> wrote:
>
>
>> That is true, but so what? A tractor has significant labor charges. There
>> would be drivers, mechanics, spare parts people, etc.
>
> No it doesn't, actually, it's a labor saver. It's
> a super-duper major labor savor. Even factoring
> in all the jobs producing & transporting it to the
> work site, it saves hundreds & hundreds of jobs.
> One tractor might do the work of 1,000 men!

It is a labor saver, but you are assuming that all this work would still
happen even if we did not have a tractor, this is not true. Large amounts
of farming land are now being opened up and building projects being done
because of such technology.

>
>> Doing a search on tractors, I found several companies that export second
>> hand tractors, I am sure the same trade exists in tractors.
>
> Each one represents another 1,000 unemployed Africans
> on a continent where unemployment is rampant.
>
> Who's benefiting from such deals?
>
> HINT: It's the sellers! They're unloading old
> equipment that nobody wants!

No one wants really this is stupid! The seller are not forcing the buyer to
buy these product?



>
> -- --
>
> http://jtem.tumblr.com

[JTEM]

SolomonW <Solom...@citi.com> wrote:

> It is a labor saver, but you are assuming that all this work would still
> happen even if we did not have a tractor,

You haven't been paying attention!

I'm talking about building the kinds of infrastructure
that humans have been building since ancient times --
WITHOUT TRACTORS, BULLDOZERS, TRUCKS OR ANY EARTH
MOVING EQUIPMENT!

Roads. Bridges. Sewerage systems. Buildings.

Most of the great railroads of the 19th century were
pretty much hand-built, and that was obviously AFTER
steam power was available.

It's not profitable to build infrastructure. There's
no money in it, not when it's for people who don't have
any money. One reason why Banana Republics were
Banana Republics to begin with is because any and all
development went to serve the business interest of the
foreign investors. The railroads moved product. The
roads led to product. The ports moved the product.
Everyone else, anything else could go rot.

...and it leads to social inequality. After
independence, who has the jobs? The running water?
The roads? Why, golly, it's the people who lived and
work in the narrow Banana Republic corridor! No
one else.


-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com

[SolomonW]

Not at all as Banana Republics have a product (bananas) that the locals do
not need in any volume. It is purely export. What little the locals get is
a bonus to their society.





>
> -- --
>
> http://jtem.tumblr.com

[JTEM]

SolomonW <Solom...@citi.com> wrote:

> Not at all as Banana Republics have a product (bananas) that the locals do
> not need in any volume. It is purely export. What little the locals get is
> a bonus to their society.

Dude, go back an apologize for defending
Banana Republics. They weren't a stable,
viable model -- let alone a base for useful
economic growth.


-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com

[SolomonW]

Ask yourself this are the countries around these banana republics stable
and viable? Maybe it is not the banana that is the problem but the lack of
development in the region.

[JTEM]

SolomonW <Solom...@citi.com> wrote:

> Ask yourself this are the countries around these banana republics stable
> and viable? Maybe it is not the banana that is the problem but the lack of
> development in the region.

It's not *Clicking* for you yet:

This is precisely what I have been addressing!

"Development."

But I haven't been narrow-mindedly focusing on
immediate profits with the minimum long term
benefits.


-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com

[SolomonW]

And your way of making development is to use outdated methods.

[JTEM]

SolomonW <Solom...@citi.com> wrote:

> And your way of making development is to use outdated methods.

At this point I re-direct you to my initial
pot in this thread, the one that spells out
everything you appear to have missed thus
far.


-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com

[SolomonW]

Well we have gone a full circle and achieved nothing, no point continuing

[JTEM]

SolomonW <Solom...@citi.com> wrote:

> Well we have gone a full circle and achieved nothing, no point continuing

Nor in beginning, apparently, as you ended with
missing what I was saying entirely.


-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com