Why Ancient Roman Concrete Outlasts Our Own (2017)

In a second year class I took the prof posed us the question: why don&#x27;t we do this today? Why is this not part of an ASTM standard?<p>He ended up saying it&#x27;s too tough to get a hold of proper pozzlanic ash, but I suspect its more a &quot;this is the way we&#x27;ve always done it&quot; difficulty. Does anyone know more to the story?

I must be missing something. I’ve never used scihub before, and I can’t find the link to read the paper. All I see on this link is the name of the paper and the authors.

I am becoming partial to the ancient Egyptian concrete, that they might have used to mold the pyramid blocks <i>in situ</i>.<p>It takes just limestone crumble, clay (which was already in their limestone), natron, and water.<p>It is a fair bet the precursors to the Inka who built with the really big blocks had that, or a similar trick. Local observers report the big blocks do not show embedded marine shells at the surface, unlike native limestone. (I have not had opportunity to verify this.)

The foot of the bridge over river Danube constructed by Apollodorus of Damascus at the request of roman emperor Trajan is still visible in the water.

cpach edited the year from &lt;none&gt; to 2017<p>New title: Why Ancient Roman Concrete Outlasts Our Own (2017)