4.5 Article

Aqua Traiana, a Roman Infrastructure Embedded in the Present: The Mineralogical Perspective

期刊

MINERALS
卷 11, 期 7, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/min11070703

关键词

Roman mortars; aqueduct; microanalysis; red pozzolan; Sabatini Volcanic District

资金

  1. Sapienza University of Rome-Progetto Ateneo 2019 Medeghini

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The analysis of construction materials from the Aqua Traiana internal ducts confirms the Romans' expertise in selecting and utilizing building materials, with evidence of the possible use of local tuffs and red pozzolan. The study also shows similarities in technological choices and coeval production of all building materials.
Construction materials from the internal ducts of Aqua Traiana, a still operative Roman aqueduct built in 109 AD to supply water to Rome, were characterized by optical microscopy (OM), scanning electron microscopy (SEM-EDS), X-ray powder diffraction (XRPD) and electron microprobe analysis (EMPA). Petrographic analysis and XRPD revealed that mortar aggregates are compatible with Vitruvius' harena fossicia and allowed the distinction of the original mortars from those of the 17th-century papal restoration. The first showed an amorphous binder while the latter have a typical lime binder. By SEM-EDS and EMPA, the microstructure of mortar aggregates was analyzed and the composition of specific minerals quantified. Microanalysis testifies the Romans' great expertise in the selection of pozzolanic building materials, giving evidence of the possible use of local tuffs from the Sabatini Volcanic District. It also confirms the exploitation of red pozzolan from the Roman Magmatic Province, specifically from the Alban Hills district. OM also proves a high compatibility with local supplies for bricks and cocciopesto. Of these, the first were fired at moderately low temperature, while the latter show an amorphous binder as in the original Trajan mortars. All building materials thus stand for similar technological choices and a coeval production.

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