Roman concrete

Dec 13, 2023 Last reply: 2 years ago 30 Replies

I wonder how easy this would be to knock up as a hobbyist ...



formatting link



The durability of Roman concrete, which has allowed structures such as the Pantheon in Rome to remain standing for nearly 2,000 years, has long baffled experts.



But scientists now believe they have rediscovered a secret ingredient in the ancient recipe that makes the building material self-healing – quicklime.



Experts at MIT and Harvard have found that adding quicklime to the mix creates a super-hot chemical reaction that leaves calcium deposits peppered throughout the concrete.



Crucially, if cracks begin to appear at a later stage and water seeps through, it causes these calcium deposits to recrystallise into calcium carbonate, filling in the gaps. The reactions take place spontaneously, healing the cracks before they spread further and compromise the integrity of a structure. It explains how the world’s largest unreinforced concrete dome in the Pantheon, which was dedicated in 128AD, is still intact, while many modern concrete structures crumble after a few decades.



Some ancient concrete aqueducts still supply Rome with water, while large parts of Hadrian’s Wall, its core bolstered by ancient concrete, survive.



Pliny the Elder, writing in Naturalis Historia in 79AD, noted that concrete structures in harbours “become a single stone mass, impregnable to the waves, and every day stronger” despite being battered by seawater.



Fullscreen button Hadrian’s Wall - Peter Mulligan/Getty Images Contributor Hadrian’s Wall - Peter Mulligan/Getty Images Contributor © Provided by The Telegraph The new finding could enable modern engineers to build structures that can last millennia. It was made after experts started studying calcium deposits, known as lime clasts, in the ancient concrete. They had previously been disregarded as a product of sloppy mixing practices.



“The idea that the presence of these lime clasts was simply attributed to low quality control always bothered me,” said Admir Masic, a professor of civil and environmental engineering.
“If the Romans put so much effort into making an outstanding construction material, following all of the detailed recipes that had been optimised over the course of many centuries, why would they put so little effort into ensuring the production of a well-mixed final product? There has to be more to this story.”

To prove that the lime clasts were responsible for the durability, the team produced samples of hot-mixed concrete that incorporated both ancient and modern formulations, deliberately cracked them and then ran water through the cracks.



Within two weeks the cracks had completely healed and the water could no longer flow. An identical chunk of concrete made without quicklime never healed, and the water kept flowing through the sample.



The team is working to bring Roman concrete back as a commercial product.



“It’s exciting to think about how these more durable concrete formulations could expand not only the service life of these materials, but also how it could improve the durability of 3D-printed concrete formulations,” said Prof Masic.

The research was published in Science Advances.


This is nothing new. The use of volcanic ash in concrete by the Romans has been known for a long time. The ash comes under the general name of a pozzolan. Other pozzolans are available.

See also

formatting link
formatting link

<snip>

Quicklime is not a pozzolan. The proposition is that the Romans used quicklime to give something over and above the effects of pozzolanic reactions. Clearer in the original paper[1] which includes the results of their modern mixing.

As for the OP's question, I've no hands-on experience but hot mixing with quicklime is still done by hand to make mortar for heritage buildings. But needs care.

[1]
formatting link

It has been pointed out that the cathederals we see now are the remainders of those that were built, the rest collapsed over the years. The builders that built them were specialists, and very skilled. One church that I know (C of I, at the moment ) had its outside wall, as a monument, been repaired years ago and promptly collapsed, upon which is was noticed that the construction was a lot more complicated than was noticed before, At the moment the nearby round tower in being `repaired' God Help US.

There are periods in UK history where religious building and castles were actively destroyed. They didn't necessarily fall down by themselves.

Afterwards the material was robbed out and often can be seen in half the houses of a nearby village.

So basically what they're saying is that Roman concrete was a quicklime-pozzolan-aggregate mix?

At the very least that needs "it is likely some" before "Roman".

One reason Roman concrete has lasted is that they didn't use steel reinforcement that rusts eventually.

The victorians rebuilt parts of the white tower at the tower of London using some utter s*it materials which are now having to be rebuilt.

Stonehenge was rebuilt back in the 1930's ? and the well-meaning idiots used concrete there too (maybe that's why the public are kept back in case awkward questions are asked).

Do they get hard frosts in southern europe and north africa ?

It's common for the Sahara Desert to have a temperature change of 40+C in a 24 hour period with the night time temperatures dropping below 0C.

<snip>

I've been wondering about this. I'm aware that there are many structures that have not stood the test of time[1], and it wouldn't surprise me if there were many Roman structures that disappeared from view shortly after build.

I'm also conscious that most of the issues with modern concrete is associated with rebar, which allows tension in concrete structures. The Roman's would have to rely on compression in concrete structures with no allowable tension.

[1] I'm aware of whole terraces of houses and indeed the 'second' Bath Royal Crescent that fell down and/or were demolished.

They did use iron clamps between stone blocks (ISTR either wrapped in pitch-soaked rags, or held in place with a bit to prevent rust and the swelling/cracking associated with it.)

These clamps were then later stolen, leaving holes...

formatting link

Thomas Prufer

What???? Why would anyone use concrete at stone henge?

Concrete was used repeatedly to set the stones and to fill cracks in "restorations" from 1901 through to the 1960s at least.

Any references to prove that?

I went there. I never saw any concrete anywhere.

>

I boggled at that too, simpler times I guess

Presumably it's underground?

formatting link

Well I hardly regard the chinese whispers of the New Marxist reporting a post doctoral students witterings as authoritative. I do know some were re-erected. But if concrete were used it has to be underground

Under the restoration paragraph...

formatting link

That is hardly 'rebuilding' which implies masonry work. That was re-erecting using concrete to stabilise the stones, which is fair enough really.

I think I was one of the last people to actually access the circle before they made it off limits to visitors. I have color slides of the winter solstice sunrise from inside the circle.

It was f****ng cold.

Join the Discussion

Have something to add? Share your thoughts — no account required.

Didn't find your answer?

Ask the community — no account required