4.5 Review

Assessment of material characteristics of ancient concretes, Grande Aula, Markets of Trajan, Rome

期刊

JOURNAL OF ARCHAEOLOGICAL SCIENCE
卷 36, 期 11, 页码 2481-2492

出版社

ACADEMIC PRESS LTD- ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.jas.2009.07.011

关键词

Ancient Rome; Concrete; Pozzolanic mortar; Stratlingite; Tensile strength; Point load tests

资金

  1. Istituto Nazionale di Vulcanologia e Geofisica in Rome

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The Grande Aula, or Great Hall, of the Markets of Trajan (AD 96 to 115) is an intact example of the domed, concrete architecture of imperial Rome. Petrographic, x-ray diffraction, chemical, and SEM analyses demonstrate that wall mortars contain Pozzolane Rosse volcanic ash aggregate (harenae fossiciae) and stratlingite, a complex calcium aluminate cement hydrate (C-2 ASH(8)) that gives modern cements good durability and compressive strength. Specific gravity tests and a new petrographic method for assessing bulk densities indicate unit weights of about 1750 kg/m(3) for the wall mortars and 1430-1640 kg/m(3) for the pumice bearing, vaulted ceiling mortars. Innovative point load source tests record the tensile strengths (f(t)) of the aggregate and interfacial elements of the conglomeratic concrete fabric. These suggest f(t) of about 2.7 MPa for brick, 1.2 MPa for Tufo Lionato tuff, and 0.9 MPa for Tufo Giallo della Via Tiberina tuff coarse aggregate (caementa), based on a tentative, approximate correlation with splitting (Brazilian) tests. The pozzolanic mortar and interfacial zones have lower f(t) in the range of 0.8 MPa to 0.5 MPa. The relatively low mortar strength and its somewhat tenuous adhesion to the coarse aggregate suggests that the caementa may have arrested the propagation of tensile microcracks that formed in the mortar, thereby increasing the composite tensile strength of the concrete. Roman builders selected the complex aggregate mixes to optimize the performance of the wall and vault concretes. (c) 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据