http://www.physorg.com/news3985.html
Okay, so it"s 40% lighter, and 500 times more resistant to cracking. But what about strength? From the looks of it, this stuff is SO flexible that it would be absolutely useless in structural applications. I see only references to roadway tests in the article. If a beam or a girder made out of this stuff behaves like the picture in the article shows, then it is more ductile than steel! Brittle failure in concrete is a concern in structures, and this material supposedly will alleviate that concern. But you can"t build something out of spaghetti noodles. Sure, you won"t have brittle failure. But you won"t be able to hold any loads, either!
/sign
What she said.
What she said.
I think the point of the picture is to show that a load that would normally cause concrete to fracture now causes a more ductile response .. agreed it would helpful to show the load strength and a comparison chart, but I suppose you can find this elsewhere.
I understand the comments that have been made by the others so far, but from the looks of it, I think that there would be a difference if you consider the thickness that you would be building structures. I think the picture and the information that is shown is to exagerate the ablity for the concrete to flex without breaking or cracking. I am sure that it would not be exactly the same as bending steel, because it seems as if the concrete reforms the original shape, but if you lay a flat piece of steel on its side, it bends pretty easy. If you stand that same piece of steel upright, well I think we would all agree that the strength would be improved, as well as if you were to stand that thin piece of flexible concrete on its side, I am sure that the strengths would increase, but you would still have the flexible capabilities to withstand vilolent forces in nature. I would think that if you would try to get any type of compressive strength or flexural strengths out of the same thickness shown in the picture with "normal" concrete, I would assume that you wouldn't expect to see any at all when it is laying flat.
I do have a couple of questions for the designers. The first is the economical stand point for construction. How much? And how many companies would be able to mix this concrete from day to day? Is there a special plant that mixes it? Or can you mix it in any plant? How many admixtures and silos would a contractor have to have to support this? Are the materials used to make this mix readily available? Are there any special constraints for finishing after placement? Skid resistance etc.?
Would the designer be inclined to try it out on a White-Topping? (Ultra-Thin Concrete Overlay).
I do have a couple of questions for the designers. The first is the economical stand point for construction. How much? And how many companies would be able to mix this concrete from day to day? Is there a special plant that mixes it? Or can you mix it in any plant? How many admixtures and silos would a contractor have to have to support this? Are the materials used to make this mix readily available? Are there any special constraints for finishing after placement? Skid resistance etc.?
Would the designer be inclined to try it out on a White-Topping? (Ultra-Thin Concrete Overlay).
I assume this is not reinforced with rebar or someother material.. besides the fibers, so if it was reiforced maybe it could be used structurally.
For engineerchick 
YEAH! Stupid scientists. Can't even put metal in the microwave! All you with your "THEORIES", so called, on evolution, and faked moon landings... [joking - take it easy... just going with the national flow here...]
I'm sure the primary application for this will be roads, but girders & beams aren't made of concrete. We use concrete to hold the girders and beams together in a large structure or for the flooring and walls. Using it as a foundation or structural cement would seem more than reasonable, especially in seismic zones where minor shaking of the structure (and the current brittle nature of concrete) can render a building useless. And at 40% lighter, the total load on the foundation and the structure itself is reduced, so even if it's 10% weaker, you still have a lighter building held together with material that will flex under load (instead of splinter). Sounds good to me...
I saw a few months ago an 'inflatable concrete' for use in making field hospitals - I wonder (if at 40% lighter) this would work for them?
YEAH! Stupid scientists. Can't even put metal in the microwave! All you with your "THEORIES", so called, on evolution, and faked moon landings... [joking - take it easy... just going with the national flow here...]
I'm sure the primary application for this will be roads, but girders & beams aren't made of concrete. We use concrete to hold the girders and beams together in a large structure or for the flooring and walls. Using it as a foundation or structural cement would seem more than reasonable, especially in seismic zones where minor shaking of the structure (and the current brittle nature of concrete) can render a building useless. And at 40% lighter, the total load on the foundation and the structure itself is reduced, so even if it's 10% weaker, you still have a lighter building held together with material that will flex under load (instead of splinter). Sounds good to me...
I saw a few months ago an 'inflatable concrete' for use in making field hospitals - I wonder (if at 40% lighter) this would work for them?
fiberglass composite is stiff, but the stiff comes from the sandwich (wood/foam/coremat/honeycomb). fiberglass itself is not so stiff.
engineergirl, you're just not right. I don't have any more detailed knowledge of that material than this article, but you only reference the picture and you certainly can not tell from that picture how much load is being applied (except that it's probably a lot, based on the equipment used.)
In really, really rough broad terms a material has a bulk modulus (resistance to bending) and a toughness (deflection before it breaks). A ceramic dinner plate has a fairly high modulus but a very low toughness (hard to bend, but then it cracks) A cheap aluminum plate has a very low modulus and a high toughness (easy to bend but it doesn't crack immediately) A good steel plate could have a pretty high modulus AND a high toughness - depending on what you put in it. Usually the highest mod steel we have has a low toughness and vice versa - but that doesn't mean that 10 years later we won't have one that beats both of the older ones.
Most steel has a higher modulus than concrete, and steel is tough enough that they sometimes ship it in a coil. So it's certainly not impossible to be very good in both traits.
Furthermore, you certainly can bend a steel beam like that picture shows. I wouldn't USE that beam afterward, and I certainly wouldn't design for that kind of load, but it certainly could be tested to that point. They may well have been destructively testing that piece of concrete...
Just from eyeballing that picture, I'd say a fair number of steel beams undergo a significant fraction of that deflection as part of their design - many of them shipping "prebent" so that they are flat after load is applied.
The most obvious example of this is to see an container semi-trailer that doesn't have a container on it (it's basically like a flatbed semitrailer without the bed) Usually the length in the middle is a beam that will have a very noticeable upward bulge.
There aren't very many applications that come to mind where a this kind of toughness would actually make the material less desireable (other than cost and things already designed for something else) The only application that comes to mind is bulletproof armor ceramic inserts, because they disperse a lot of energy BY cracking. (Not to say that this kind of ceramic is the same as concrete - which is a composite - but I'm referring to increased toughness alone)
In really, really rough broad terms a material has a bulk modulus (resistance to bending) and a toughness (deflection before it breaks). A ceramic dinner plate has a fairly high modulus but a very low toughness (hard to bend, but then it cracks) A cheap aluminum plate has a very low modulus and a high toughness (easy to bend but it doesn't crack immediately) A good steel plate could have a pretty high modulus AND a high toughness - depending on what you put in it. Usually the highest mod steel we have has a low toughness and vice versa - but that doesn't mean that 10 years later we won't have one that beats both of the older ones.
Most steel has a higher modulus than concrete, and steel is tough enough that they sometimes ship it in a coil. So it's certainly not impossible to be very good in both traits.
Furthermore, you certainly can bend a steel beam like that picture shows. I wouldn't USE that beam afterward, and I certainly wouldn't design for that kind of load, but it certainly could be tested to that point. They may well have been destructively testing that piece of concrete...
Just from eyeballing that picture, I'd say a fair number of steel beams undergo a significant fraction of that deflection as part of their design - many of them shipping "prebent" so that they are flat after load is applied.
The most obvious example of this is to see an container semi-trailer that doesn't have a container on it (it's basically like a flatbed semitrailer without the bed) Usually the length in the middle is a beam that will have a very noticeable upward bulge.
There aren't very many applications that come to mind where a this kind of toughness would actually make the material less desireable (other than cost and things already designed for something else) The only application that comes to mind is bulletproof armor ceramic inserts, because they disperse a lot of energy BY cracking. (Not to say that this kind of ceramic is the same as concrete - which is a composite - but I'm referring to increased toughness alone)
Alternative reinforcement with similar properties has been around for a while from companies like <a href="http://www.polytorx.com/">PolyTorx</a>.
from what it looks like its not real easy to bend if they needed a hydrolic press to bend it
I just happened to read the article this morning... interesting concept. After having been closely involved in the planning & construction of several buildings (the latest 44 condo project of concrete and cinderblock constuction and not one wood 2x4 in the entire structure) I read a couple of the posts. Here is my take.... Flexible yes, strength, durability, light weight... for a bridge material coupled with other traditional methods and materials this could really be a useful product in colder climates and natural disaster prone areas. The uses I see for everyday people there could be a number, roadways, sidewalks and possibly layering driveways with a hardened traditional concrete below with a cover of this newer product above or to shield the basements of homes. Possibilities are only limited by the mind. As for those who say what good is it you can't make anything out of noodles... well this doesn't have to be a universal replacement for all traditional concrete. It will have applications where it outshines regular concrete and where it will fail compared to regular concrete. Compare it to the glue on post it notepads. You don't try to glue a chair with that stuff it just doesn't work... every situation is different. I think I would be an investor in this product. One last thought... Length, depth, width all play a part in flexability. Obviously a 4 ft cube of this new material would not have the same properties as the photo they showed above... I think that some posters need to go back to school and study loads, and applications before they post. I too would like to know the cost and availability of the product, along with the more technical fine print.
r6mtn: good point. I hadn't thought of it that way. 
Sgt_Jake: not sure I understand what you're saying. Girders and beams aren't made out of concrete? Then why are there sections in the code on how to make beams and deep beams out of concrete? (ACI 318-02 chapter 10, Flexure and Axial Loads) Why is beam design such a significant portion of Concrete Design courses? I do agree with you about foundation applications, though. Again, hadn't thought of it that way.
I read about those inflatable hospitals, too. Those things are COOL!
XIG engineer: Thanks for clarifying all that.
Sgt_Jake: not sure I understand what you're saying. Girders and beams aren't made out of concrete? Then why are there sections in the code on how to make beams and deep beams out of concrete? (ACI 318-02 chapter 10, Flexure and Axial Loads) Why is beam design such a significant portion of Concrete Design courses? I do agree with you about foundation applications, though. Again, hadn't thought of it that way.
I read about those inflatable hospitals, too. Those things are COOL! XIG engineer: Thanks for clarifying all that.
Believe me this is cutting edge stuff. Industry might get to use this in 10 years on a beginning level. As far as load carrying, that's not the primary concern. Tensile strength in traditional concrete is about 10% of the compressive strength so cracking under tensile loads (ie thermal stresses, etc.) has always been a problem. Hence rebar which has wonderful tensile strength.
This would make thermal problems basically go away so huge pours could be done continuously rather than split up into sections making cold joints. The problem of course would be deflection. You would just have to design for large deflection which would be a big problem in some structures. This stuff would be perfect for road overlays though. No cracking when the underlying foundation settles so you could probably have a pavement last 10 times as long as normal with only a thin overlay.
This would make thermal problems basically go away so huge pours could be done continuously rather than split up into sections making cold joints. The problem of course would be deflection. You would just have to design for large deflection which would be a big problem in some structures. This stuff would be perfect for road overlays though. No cracking when the underlying foundation settles so you could probably have a pavement last 10 times as long as normal with only a thin overlay.
but what I do know...
How cool to be involved in that kind of project! You must feel very privileged. I am a very recent graduate, working with a really great CE firm and heading back to graduate school soon, so I haven't had all that many opportunites yet, to be a part of a large-scale project like yours. I do realize that my lack of real-world experience is a disadvantage (although, it's to be expected, since I just got out of school, don't you think?), and I hope that someday I can be as experienced and knowledgeable about this stuff as you appear to be.
I shouldn't have put that post up so quickly (judging from the number of "you're wrong!!" posts on here)
, but I was simply expressing the first thoughts that came to mind after I read the article. There have been some awesome rebuttals that have reminded me of some things that didn't jump to mind during my initial post, and I appreciate that!
Hope to learn more, as more people post stuff!
How cool to be involved in that kind of project! You must feel very privileged.
I am a very recent graduate, working with a really great CE firm and heading back to graduate school soon, so I haven't had all that many opportunites yet, to be a part of a large-scale project like yours. I do realize that my lack of real-world experience is a disadvantage (although, it's to be expected, since I just got out of school, don't you think?), and I hope that someday I can be as experienced and knowledgeable about this stuff as you appear to be. I shouldn't have put that post up so quickly (judging from the number of "you're wrong!!" posts on here)
, but I was simply expressing the first thoughts that came to mind after I read the article. There have been some awesome rebuttals that have reminded me of some things that didn't jump to mind during my initial post, and I appreciate that! Hope to learn more, as more people post stuff!
The test they are showing is a flexural strength test. Normally they cast beams about 6x6x24 or so and the things are so weak in tension you can barely put 2000 lbs on it before it cracks. Drives lab technicians nuts because the tests have such a large uncertainty at that level of load. So, yea the pic is a demonstration of the elasticity, not an actual testing condition. No one tests for flexural strength with that cross section. I'd love to see the compressive strength on these.
what if you make some sort of brick out of this material and give it to a martial artist for a karate chop?
engineerchick....
A woman who can handle the school and posters on an internet chat forum...
You'll do well in the future...
If I had a place for you on my team I would make that bet.
In WWII we made landing strips in days on Islands (60th Seebees) out of nothing more than crushed coral and primitive machinery...(oversimplified) but we did with what we had.
I wish that this technology had been there.
Good luck to everyone.
A woman who can handle the school and posters on an internet chat forum...
You'll do well in the future...
If I had a place for you on my team I would make that bet.
In WWII we made landing strips in days on Islands (60th Seebees) out of nothing more than crushed coral and primitive machinery...(oversimplified) but we did with what we had.
I wish that this technology had been there.
Good luck to everyone.
but what i do know:
Thank you. I appreciate the gracious compliment.
My grandpa was a Seebee in WWII as well, although I'm not sure which unit. I remember him telling me similar stories. Building runways and bridges with whatever they could get their hands on. Very cool stuff. Thanks for doing that for us. I do hope that people appreciate (and tell you that they appreciate it) what you did for the US in WWII.
Thank you. I appreciate the gracious compliment.
My grandpa was a Seebee in WWII as well, although I'm not sure which unit. I remember him telling me similar stories. Building runways and bridges with whatever they could get their hands on. Very cool stuff. Thanks for doing that for us. I do hope that people appreciate (and tell you that they appreciate it) what you did for the US in WWII.
Amazingly a physics web site refers to "global warming" as if it were scientific fact.
Gimme a break.
Gimme a break.
Very interesting comments by all. I would also imagine different applications or uses would require different mixtures and ratios of the fiberous materials to increase or decrease flexibility even more. I can see a great benefit in the use of this material in earth quake regions. As most of you are aware the inflexibility of standard brick and mortar, or concrete actually increase the damage sustained by buildings, and the injury to people I might add.
you also don't know how hard that thing is pushing...could be far greater than any normal load to begin with
It seems like this stuff would make excellent roads, though. Less likelyhood of cracking due to uneven weight stresses, etc.
I am intrigued by what possible applications this might mean for Ferro-Cement boat building...
You owe me and the Plexicorp company royalties for transparent Aluminum 
D. Birchall was the head of a research team at ICI in the 1980's that made concrete with similar flexibility by using an inexpensive polymer mixed with Portland Cement under a vacuum. As I remember it, it didn't catch on because no manufacturer could be convinced to create a system to produce it in anything beyond the small scale that could be mixed in the lab...
Always nice to see engineers arguing. I think the name of the test they were showing is called the 4-point bend test, and yes it is usually performed on a beam with 6x6 square cross section to determine the modulus of rupture (or stress at which the concrete will crack). The scientists used a very flat cross section here for a dramatic effect.
I don't see this stuff ever putting a dent in the use of conventional reinforced concrete. Like FRP, I don't think the economics to produce this stuff will really be favorable for widespread bridge use. I wouldn't be surprised if they tried it out in one or two bridge columns in a high seismic zone and installed some strain gauges to see how it performs the next time an earthquake hits. For conventional concrete bridge columns in seismic zones they put lots of ties at the base so that a hinge can form (which is a force releiving mechanism), but the damage is still costly to repair.
I disagree with XIG that steel beams (at least for bridges) have precamber that is anywhere close to what is shown on the picture. Design codes put limits on the flexibility of the final product when trucks drive over it (although camber has nothing to do with live load, my point is that if you have a lot of camber for dead load, you will have significant live load deflection). The purpose is ride comfort (the limits on deflection are more stringent for bridges with pedestrian traffic).
As for the Japanese bridge, I have a hard time believing the hole deck depth is only 2 inches (5 cm). If anyone knows a site that has a picture of the bridge, please post it. An overloaded truck tire will punch through a deck that thin, superflexible or not. My guess is that it is an overlay on top of either a thin conventional concrete deck or the bridge is orthotropic. West Virginia puts a 2" latex modified overlay on most of their bridge decks.
I don't see this stuff ever putting a dent in the use of conventional reinforced concrete. Like FRP, I don't think the economics to produce this stuff will really be favorable for widespread bridge use. I wouldn't be surprised if they tried it out in one or two bridge columns in a high seismic zone and installed some strain gauges to see how it performs the next time an earthquake hits. For conventional concrete bridge columns in seismic zones they put lots of ties at the base so that a hinge can form (which is a force releiving mechanism), but the damage is still costly to repair.
I disagree with XIG that steel beams (at least for bridges) have precamber that is anywhere close to what is shown on the picture. Design codes put limits on the flexibility of the final product when trucks drive over it (although camber has nothing to do with live load, my point is that if you have a lot of camber for dead load, you will have significant live load deflection). The purpose is ride comfort (the limits on deflection are more stringent for bridges with pedestrian traffic).
As for the Japanese bridge, I have a hard time believing the hole deck depth is only 2 inches (5 cm). If anyone knows a site that has a picture of the bridge, please post it. An overloaded truck tire will punch through a deck that thin, superflexible or not. My guess is that it is an overlay on top of either a thin conventional concrete deck or the bridge is orthotropic. West Virginia puts a 2" latex modified overlay on most of their bridge decks.
Neat to see a old-time Seabee in on the discussion!
This stuff looks like it has great promise in roadway construction. My initial thought, however, was, "I wonder what it's like to pour that stuff?" Having placed a lot of fiber-reinforced concrete in places like Guam and Greece, I can tell you that it ain't easy to work with. In Iraq, it was really bad: we had the top layer drying out before the rest of it was set up enough to spray water on it. Seemed like the fibers really soaked up a lot of water. It'll be interesting to see if they have that problem with this stuff.
This stuff looks like it has great promise in roadway construction. My initial thought, however, was, "I wonder what it's like to pour that stuff?" Having placed a lot of fiber-reinforced concrete in places like Guam and Greece, I can tell you that it ain't easy to work with. In Iraq, it was really bad: we had the top layer drying out before the rest of it was set up enough to spray water on it. Seemed like the fibers really soaked up a lot of water. It'll be interesting to see if they have that problem with this stuff.
I followed the link to the article from Slashdot because I wanted to know what the fibers are made of, how big they are, and how they interact with the concrete at the microscopic level. I learned none of this. So maybe I better check the comments. Still no joy! The closest I came was the reference to the Helix commercial site, where I learn that they use coated helical steel fibers. Still no insight on size or physical interaction with the concrete. Can anyone provide a pointer for the technical details?
If one wants porus concrete so the rain can drain off, why doesn't one just cast the concrete with wholes in it? Where is it written in stone (or concrete) that a parking lot has to be one perfectly continuous covering of nonporous material?
LOOK ART ME IM SMARTY AND KNOW ALOT OABOTU THE ART OF FYSICS BERCAUSE I GO TO UNIVERSITY RIGHT?> LOOK AT ME, I KNOW THATSD E=MCSQUARED.
Seriously guys...Who cares? Like really, do you give a shit that concrete can flex. Are you like "OH MY GAWD GUYZ LOOK AT THE CONCRETE IT IS BENDING AROUND THE CORNER TEE HEE HEE *BONER*"
I think the purpose of the composite is for horizontal purposes. Building decking, roadways (especially on bridges), residential and commercial slabs make this an ideal application. Any way we can reduce weight, transportation and installation costs helps the economy. Hopefully it won't be 20 years for the contractors & mixing companies to get on board.
I agree that its probably not the entire road thickness. If it were ACC, it would be a "top lift". But, if it can withstand truck loading over the long term, then it is certainly worth looking into. The interstate highway system requires billions of dollars every year in maintenance; anything that can lengthen the time span between maintenance cycles is a good idea in my book. Last summer we finished a 3-year project to re-hab a 10-12 mile section of I-80 through Truckee and towards Nevada; this pavement has been in place for 40+ years now and cost about $370 million to replace. Thats also just the tip of the iceberg, so to speak.
Japan seems very confident in its application if they're going to use it across an entire bridge deck. I'm curious to know the cost in application vs. traditional concrete, does it require a concrete base (PCC) or can it be placed on a flexible surface (ACC)? How well does it hold up to temperature variations?
Japan seems very confident in its application if they're going to use it across an entire bridge deck. I'm curious to know the cost in application vs. traditional concrete, does it require a concrete base (PCC) or can it be placed on a flexible surface (ACC)? How well does it hold up to temperature variations?
I did research on fiber-reinforced cement about 30 years ago.
I was even able to fabricate one small slab with a flexibility profile like fiberglass, just as shown in the article's picture.
With my primative equipment I was never able to reproduce the results; I just made that one tantalizing slab.
As far as manufacturing goes, you would have to make the fiber matrix first, attaching the ends to the sides of the mold. Then the cement slurry could be poured into the mold, and the excess water sucked out before it set. (low water-cement ratio results in improved strength; this is old news.)
Lastly, you give the slab a long setting time; don't allow it to dry out for a couple of weeks. (again this is an old technique for improving strength.)
The key is the manufacture of the three-dimensional fibre matrix.
Of course, this is only my opinion.
I was even able to fabricate one small slab with a flexibility profile like fiberglass, just as shown in the article's picture.
With my primative equipment I was never able to reproduce the results; I just made that one tantalizing slab.
As far as manufacturing goes, you would have to make the fiber matrix first, attaching the ends to the sides of the mold. Then the cement slurry could be poured into the mold, and the excess water sucked out before it set. (low water-cement ratio results in improved strength; this is old news.)
Lastly, you give the slab a long setting time; don't allow it to dry out for a couple of weeks. (again this is an old technique for improving strength.)
The key is the manufacture of the three-dimensional fibre matrix.
Of course, this is only my opinion.
QUOTE (engineerchick+May 6 2005, 04:16 PM)
but what I do know...
How cool to be involved in that kind of project! You must feel very privileged. I am a very recent graduate, working with a really great CE firm and heading back to graduate school soon, so I haven't had all that many opportunites yet, to be a part of a large-scale project like yours. I do realize that my lack of real-world experience is a disadvantage (although, it's to be expected, since I just got out of school, don't you think?), and I hope that someday I can be as experienced and knowledgeable about this stuff as you appear to be.
I shouldn't have put that post up so quickly (judging from the number of "you're wrong!!" posts on here) , but I was simply expressing the first thoughts that came to mind after I read the article. There have been some awesome rebuttals that have reminded me of some things that didn't jump to mind during my initial post, and I appreciate that!
Hope to learn more, as more people post stuff!
Engineerchick I love you
How cool to be involved in that kind of project! You must feel very privileged.
I am a very recent graduate, working with a really great CE firm and heading back to graduate school soon, so I haven't had all that many opportunites yet, to be a part of a large-scale project like yours. I do realize that my lack of real-world experience is a disadvantage (although, it's to be expected, since I just got out of school, don't you think?), and I hope that someday I can be as experienced and knowledgeable about this stuff as you appear to be. I shouldn't have put that post up so quickly (judging from the number of "you're wrong!!" posts on here)
, but I was simply expressing the first thoughts that came to mind after I read the article. There have been some awesome rebuttals that have reminded me of some things that didn't jump to mind during my initial post, and I appreciate that! Hope to learn more, as more people post stuff!
Engineerchick I love you
Great stuff! But would it be harder to demolish? And if harder to demolish, shouldn't that also be considered part of its cost?
As a 35+ year concrete industry veteran, it's interesting to see the comments of aspiring concrete engineers. The test you are seeing is a takeoff on ASTM C-78 Simple beam/ 3rd point loading. 6'X6"X20" specimens are usually expected to attain flexural strength (not compressive ) of 650 psi @ 28 days for paving useage. Back up some to Roman days when they used ox blood for air entrainment and volcanic ash for cementious material. Then work your way forward to some of todays Rapid setting latex modified overlays that are poured at night, then opened to traffic the next morning. You need some context for your points of reference into whats what in the concrete universe.
what happens when u try and demolish a building made of this stuff? Wouldn't the wreaking ball just bounce off it?
I read several articles about this super concrete back in early-mid 80's ,and one article let slip that it was discovered accidently by a lab tech who was working nights and spilled his supper into the mix and was about to throw it away but decided "what the heck"and poured this mix into form for curing and this unique cement was born.Forget about "future progress",just get it all right the first time and pour the stuff to last thru the ages.The only reason it is not being produced is that it is just too good ,too lasting for our throw-away society and it would eventually cause a lot of people to find different professions when houses no longer rotted,blew away or burned;roads never wore out an very little maintainance was ever needed if your home was a dome home made of this stuff[no rebar needed]and coverde with six feet of dirt[the kid next door can play his radio off the dial and you want hear it!
[FONT=Times] 
OK Here I go, .....Super reinforced cement(not concrete) is mixed at a ratio of 3/1.... 4/1 ....sand/cement. Allowing this to dry to fast will make it brittle. Water is incorporated into the matrix of the cement/sand mixture and if let to dry slowly becomes hard as time goes along...ie(in 10 years it will be much stronger than day 1. By combining these two materials we achieve what is considered one of the strongest materials yet developed by man. The cement takes on some of the fexible attributes of the steel and the steel will not rust(when cured right). Free form structures can be built and are able to carry emmense loads, but free form isn't usually square boxes like we live in today, but geometrical shapes which carry much heavier loads....ie... an arch. Building straight walls is ok, but where this material really shines is when one incorporates bends and curves into it. We all know that a curved wall is much much stronger than a straight wall. This material is also much much cheaper to build structures with.... but the limits to it's cost effectiveness are realized when examining labor involved... it is labor intensive, but unskilled labor is all one needs, yet still intensive.
Building, lets say a Dome shape or barrel vault, one only needs to support the armature (wire-skeletal framing) until the cement has set up and cured. Then the bracing may be removed and it will support itself. Many of these structures are then buried totally or partially for passive heating and storage purposes. Now when you bury this structure, if it wasn't strong enough it would collapse, with all those tons of soil on it's top. This is not the case.... the ferro-cement (super re-inforced cement) combined with it's shape prove to be unbelievably strong and load bearing. Take into consideration you must plan 1st before you start building. Think about what it is you want to do with the material and apply a little logic.... you will all be very surprised, if not all together astonished in what you see and don't see.
If anyone has questions about this material and it's capabilities please feel free to contact me .....thermus420@yahoo.com
We will begin implementing these materials into new housing in the Yucatan peninsula (affordable) next year, between Aug. and Oct. We plan on having a work shop so interested people can come and see for themselves it's strength as well as it's construction process.
Lets clarify this..... I am no architect or designer... I am one of many who takes all the information provided by the engineers and architects and designers and tells them if it will work or no. We learn through practical application, not someone elses notes....lol... or a program on a computer. I am one of the Do'ers of the world....not a let someone else do it for me kind of person. True understanding comes from doing, not reading what others have done.
This material can be modified in many ways and in the coming years the ignorance of this material will be stripped away and many will realize it's affordable cost effectiveness, and it's ability to create structures of any size and/or shape, helping to hopefully create some of the most beautiful structures ever known and/or built by man.
IX... knowledge is in the doing.
OK Here I go, .....Super reinforced cement(not concrete) is mixed at a ratio of 3/1.... 4/1 ....sand/cement. Allowing this to dry to fast will make it brittle. Water is incorporated into the matrix of the cement/sand mixture and if let to dry slowly becomes hard as time goes along...ie(in 10 years it will be much stronger than day 1. By combining these two materials we achieve what is considered one of the strongest materials yet developed by man. The cement takes on some of the fexible attributes of the steel and the steel will not rust(when cured right). Free form structures can be built and are able to carry emmense loads, but free form isn't usually square boxes like we live in today, but geometrical shapes which carry much heavier loads....ie... an arch. Building straight walls is ok, but where this material really shines is when one incorporates bends and curves into it. We all know that a curved wall is much much stronger than a straight wall. This material is also much much cheaper to build structures with.... but the limits to it's cost effectiveness are realized when examining labor involved... it is labor intensive, but unskilled labor is all one needs, yet still intensive. Building, lets say a Dome shape or barrel vault, one only needs to support the armature (wire-skeletal framing) until the cement has set up and cured. Then the bracing may be removed and it will support itself. Many of these structures are then buried totally or partially for passive heating and storage purposes. Now when you bury this structure, if it wasn't strong enough it would collapse, with all those tons of soil on it's top. This is not the case.... the ferro-cement (super re-inforced cement) combined with it's shape prove to be unbelievably strong and load bearing. Take into consideration you must plan 1st before you start building. Think about what it is you want to do with the material and apply a little logic.... you will all be very surprised, if not all together astonished in what you see and don't see.
If anyone has questions about this material and it's capabilities please feel free to contact me .....thermus420@yahoo.com
We will begin implementing these materials into new housing in the Yucatan peninsula (affordable) next year, between Aug. and Oct. We plan on having a work shop so interested people can come and see for themselves it's strength as well as it's construction process.
Lets clarify this..... I am no architect or designer... I am one of many who takes all the information provided by the engineers and architects and designers and tells them if it will work or no. We learn through practical application, not someone elses notes....lol... or a program on a computer. I am one of the Do'ers of the world....not a let someone else do it for me kind of person. True understanding comes from doing, not reading what others have done.
This material can be modified in many ways and in the coming years the ignorance of this material will be stripped away and many will realize it's affordable cost effectiveness, and it's ability to create structures of any size and/or shape, helping to hopefully create some of the most beautiful structures ever known and/or built by man.
IX... knowledge is in the doing.
I,ve been spraying this type of flexible concrete as a ground support mechanism in underground mines for years - great stuff in the right application where you need the ability to flex & suppress wall & roof heave.
Flexible concrete is not one product does all. Traditional concrete would still be needed for heavy compression loads. But flexible concrete would be useful for concrete slaps that support the lighter human loads in industrial and home applications. It would be nice to have concrete under flooring that would have more flex like wood. Exterior facade applications would make the facade less likely to crack during earthquakes. Blends with traditional concrete could give both, intermediate properties.
[FONT=Arial][SIZE=14] This stuff is not flexible, it is ductile. It does not stretch. For a closer look at this stuff and the bridge (photos-especially the Japanese page) here are some links.
http://nissei-kensetsu.co.jp/bihara.html
http://www.engineeredcomposites.com/public.../ECC-CONMAT.pdf
http://www.engineeredcomposites.com/Applic...ara_bridge.html
http://sciencentral.com/articles/view.php3...le_id=218392622
http://www.physorg.com/news3985.html
and last but not least
http://ace-mrl.engin.umich.edu/NewFiles/movie(bend).html
look especially at the close up.
Lots of cracking. Lots
There is one photo that show permanent deformation. This is because displaced pulverized fines within the mass have shifted. If it were flexible it could return to its original shape.
The fibers are encapsulated pva, like a bungee cord. Were this ever to be the final wears surface it would eventually wear until the fibers wear exposed.
The traffic surface could look a little "furry" overtime. Imagine hitting your brakes on a furry traffic surfaces of low melt temperature plastic.
It looks like they had to glue it down with epoxy. To me it looks like there are too many things going on with this bridge deck for there not to be something that goes wrong. I give it 6 years at most or until the first good quake.
The problem with a ductile material is that if it begins to delaminate, it will unzip from the substrate.
t looks to me like the Japanese overlayed the concrete with asphalt.
A high profile bridge, with a steel deck, a two inch (No! - 5cm) cementitious topping, overlayed with ASPHALT.
Brilliant!
On the other hand, take a look at the San Mateo-Hayward Bridge in the San Francisco Bay Area. 5/8" orthrotropic steel deck and 2" of polymer asphalt. Last time it was paved was 38 years ago, when it was new. Today it looks better that the asphalt on the highway just up the road that was layed down 4 or 5 years ago.
http://nissei-kensetsu.co.jp/bihara.html
http://www.engineeredcomposites.com/public.../ECC-CONMAT.pdf
http://www.engineeredcomposites.com/Applic...ara_bridge.html
http://sciencentral.com/articles/view.php3...le_id=218392622
http://www.physorg.com/news3985.html
and last but not least
http://ace-mrl.engin.umich.edu/NewFiles/movie(bend).html
look especially at the close up.
Lots of cracking. Lots
There is one photo that show permanent deformation. This is because displaced pulverized fines within the mass have shifted. If it were flexible it could return to its original shape.
The fibers are encapsulated pva, like a bungee cord. Were this ever to be the final wears surface it would eventually wear until the fibers wear exposed.
The traffic surface could look a little "furry" overtime. Imagine hitting your brakes on a furry traffic surfaces of low melt temperature plastic.
It looks like they had to glue it down with epoxy. To me it looks like there are too many things going on with this bridge deck for there not to be something that goes wrong. I give it 6 years at most or until the first good quake.
The problem with a ductile material is that if it begins to delaminate, it will unzip from the substrate.
t looks to me like the Japanese overlayed the concrete with asphalt.
A high profile bridge, with a steel deck, a two inch (No! - 5cm) cementitious topping, overlayed with ASPHALT.
Brilliant!
On the other hand, take a look at the San Mateo-Hayward Bridge in the San Francisco Bay Area. 5/8" orthrotropic steel deck and 2" of polymer asphalt. Last time it was paved was 38 years ago, when it was new. Today it looks better that the asphalt on the highway just up the road that was layed down 4 or 5 years ago.
what about cost?
does any one know what the costs are ?
does any one know what the costs are ?
this is ecc concrete. it forms micro cracks. its been patented by lafarge 5 years ago. a 5000 pound bomb dropping on a 30 foot 3 foot thick section does no damage. its in the origianl patent. just look under lafarge at the patent office
so concrete becomes politics
they call it ductal
Li added some Kuryaya PVA chpped strands to his high performance mix. it works well in allowing micro cracks
the stronger stuff is made with Rhodia steel fibers
this stuff usually has compression between 12000 psi and 20,000 and improved tensile
you can make an entier bridge out of the stuff without rebar
the pva does wear out or get weathered.
i dont know where thye get this news, its been in production for over 4 years
its also why Rumsfield wants mini nukes to blow things up. now you can make structures which can easily withstand 15000 pound bombs
and now you know why Iran is a problem
so concrete becomes politics
they call it ductal
Li added some Kuryaya PVA chpped strands to his high performance mix. it works well in allowing micro cracks
the stronger stuff is made with Rhodia steel fibers
this stuff usually has compression between 12000 psi and 20,000 and improved tensile
you can make an entier bridge out of the stuff without rebar
the pva does wear out or get weathered.
i dont know where thye get this news, its been in production for over 4 years
its also why Rumsfield wants mini nukes to blow things up. now you can make structures which can easily withstand 15000 pound bombs
and now you know why Iran is a problem
should read the pva does not weather
I am very interested in this mix and would love to do some experiments myself, does anyone have a start up formula they can share?. Thanks.
Artie
Artie
[SIZE=1][SIZE=1][SIZE=1]
DOnt be ignorant!!! get informed!! plus dont give bad reputation to engineering chicks
DOnt be ignorant!!! get informed!! plus dont give bad reputation to engineering chicks
QUOTE (Sgt_Jake+May 6 2005, 01:57 PM)
For engineerchick
YEAH! Stupid scientists. Can't even put metal in the microwave! All you with your "THEORIES", so called, on evolution, and faked moon landings... [joking - take it easy... just going with the national flow here...]
I'm sure the primary application for this will be roads, but girders & beams aren't made of concrete. We use concrete to hold the girders and beams together in a large structure or for the flooring and walls. Using it as a foundation or structural cement would seem more than reasonable, especially in seismic zones where minor shaking of the structure (and the current brittle nature of concrete) can render a building useless. And at 40% lighter, the total load on the foundation and the structure itself is reduced, so even if it's 10% weaker, you still have a lighter building held together with material that will flex under load (instead of splinter). Sounds good to me...
I saw a few months ago an 'inflatable concrete' for use in making field hospitals - I wonder (if at 40% lighter) this would work for them?
It would seem that you are incorrect on several issues, so if you are going to annoy others please do so with facts. Concrete and Re-bar are normal fair for the construction of beams and girders especially in bridges, next time you drive under a freeway or bridge LOOK UP, they hide things like that in plain sight.
As far as "Using it as a foundation or structural cement would seem more than reasonable, especially in seismic zones where minor shaking of the structure (and the current brittle nature of concrete) can render a building useless".. the foundation failure in association with seismic activity has little to do with concrete foundation the building is sitting on or the strength of its foundation, it has far more to do with liquefaction that happens during a earthquake, causing the base material that the building foundation is sitting on to become useless, and the building ability to recover from movement out of the its zero plane of stance (sway).
Current forms of concrete can be very flexible, nothing like the one being discussed in this thread, but, none the less are not much of a issue in current construction methods when construction is planned, designed and built for seismic activity.
YEAH! Stupid scientists. Can't even put metal in the microwave! All you with your "THEORIES", so called, on evolution, and faked moon landings... [joking - take it easy... just going with the national flow here...]
I'm sure the primary application for this will be roads, but girders & beams aren't made of concrete. We use concrete to hold the girders and beams together in a large structure or for the flooring and walls. Using it as a foundation or structural cement would seem more than reasonable, especially in seismic zones where minor shaking of the structure (and the current brittle nature of concrete) can render a building useless. And at 40% lighter, the total load on the foundation and the structure itself is reduced, so even if it's 10% weaker, you still have a lighter building held together with material that will flex under load (instead of splinter). Sounds good to me...
I saw a few months ago an 'inflatable concrete' for use in making field hospitals - I wonder (if at 40% lighter) this would work for them?
It would seem that you are incorrect on several issues, so if you are going to annoy others please do so with facts. Concrete and Re-bar are normal fair for the construction of beams and girders especially in bridges, next time you drive under a freeway or bridge LOOK UP, they hide things like that in plain sight.
As far as "Using it as a foundation or structural cement would seem more than reasonable, especially in seismic zones where minor shaking of the structure (and the current brittle nature of concrete) can render a building useless".. the foundation failure in association with seismic activity has little to do with concrete foundation the building is sitting on or the strength of its foundation, it has far more to do with liquefaction that happens during a earthquake, causing the base material that the building foundation is sitting on to become useless, and the building ability to recover from movement out of the its zero plane of stance (sway).
Current forms of concrete can be very flexible, nothing like the one being discussed in this thread, but, none the less are not much of a issue in current construction methods when construction is planned, designed and built for seismic activity.
what the applications regarding formed concrete countertops?
hey i have a question, what is this concrete made up of?
There are both aspects to any loaded concrete beam: compression and tension. Concrete is weak under tension and very strong under compression. Given a bridge-beam, where in the thickness of concrete do you put a lot of rebar?
I guess, that is a nice suggestion, but all that should take into account the considerable deformations which will arise, they are often not allowed in the majority of industrial buildings. Imagine that a column will deviate from design position, say, in 50 inches??? I guess we have to see it in use first. If possible it would be nice to see further materials published in the web, I mean those about the objects where it had been used. But it could be a great solution for any kind of roads and sidewalks covering, for sure.
A week or so back I heard the results of the hydraulic test shaking a house. Aside from the frame issue of garage door walls having insufficient shear strength, the major problem was the sill plates dissociating from the slab. Would this help here?
OK. I'll take the bait. I want a fast build indoor or outdoor road course for motorcycle events similar to the way mottox (in dirt only) or motard (dirt/paved) races are set up.The course could stay long term or, depending on the gate, be torn down and possibly recycled.
This involves money = making money and inevitably making motorcycle racers happy at speed and happy at wealth. The fans get happier because of local access in smaller towns.
Huge amounts of dirt and machinery are negated IF the building of said road course is comprised of only a sound base and thin wear surface.
I have tried to keep my side of this dialogue easy to undestand and with hope, of interest to the principals of the technology.
Personal involement, years of knowledge, fortitude and fortune to get things done in this and other biz have brought me to this forum.
Now, who's got demonstrable answers and might like to get involved?
c'mon people if you built a building without reinforcements it would fall down from the weight alone. the idea is to have a material that is not brittle and the normal reinforcements will handle the load. steel will stretch so if the concrete stretches with it instead of cracking the engineers will figure out the rest.
PhysOrg scientific forums are totally dedicated to science, physics, and technology. Besides topical forums such as nanotechnology, quantum physics, silicon and III-V technology, applied physics, materials, space and others, you can also join our news and publications discussions. We also provide an off-topic forum category. If you need specific help on a scientific problem or have a question related to physics or technology, visit the PhysOrg Forums. Here you’ll find experts from various fields online every day.
To quit out of "lo-fi" mode and return to the regular forums, please click here.