Ancient Secrets of Super-Cement May Lead to a Shield Against Bunker Busters

Can I build my House with this stuff? I want something to pass onto future generations. Think of the green energy wonders!

So why not build high rise complexes like the new Spirit of America building replacing the World Trade Center with this stuff? Then more than likely it would take more than a jumbo jet to bring it down.

Or better yet build our bridges out of the stuff so they don't fall down like in Minnesota way ahead of their rated useful life.

Or better yet use it in California to replace earthquake prone over passes and certainly Hoover dam when it's replaced eventually.

Cheap country we live in. It never does anything right because greedy companies suck our government dry.

For example, in Germany they build autobahns with cement neary 3 feet thick. Here, it's a paltry 14" or so. So they wear out in decades instead of centuries. If we build them like that our trucks that use them so much wouldn't beat them to pieces in just a few short years.

Of course, I would like them to build my bombshelter with it. This country is going to need a LOT of those soon. It's going to he.....

lets not forget Florida, New Orleans, and any area that is prone to hurricanes; build houses that can withstand the strong winds.

A lot of the autobahn construction was done in the preWWII era, and they had plans to use them as emergency airfields, amongst other things.

Perhaps, if we had Hitler in America.

But, cool cement. I'm guessing that it's a lot harder process, or we would still be doing it.

a lot of smart and generous people in america...
but there are also a lot of stupid and greedy bunch.
use our intellectual and natural resources wisely.

ford2go, I would think it's more a case that we forgot how to make it, and we haven't got to the point of being able to mass produce it yet.

I'd love to build my dream house out of this stuff, 80% of the place is going to be underground, so I won't need to worry about it crumbling in on me at night. =P

I took a look at the new bunker buster bombs, and I don't think these polymers are the way to go. The government will just figure out how to defeat those as well--the best thing to do is to not build anything you have to hide in a bunker deep underground. If the bunker buster fails, they can still use the MOAB, and suck all of the oxygen out of the area in which you are hiding or seal you inside by melting everything outside.

"For example, in Germany they build autobahns with cement neary 3 feet thick. Here, it's a paltry 14" or so. So they wear out in decades instead of centuries. If we build them like that our trucks that use them so much wouldn't beat them to pieces in just a few short years."

To be fair, the Autobahn is 7500 miles and the US Highway SYstems is 160,000 miles. It is more than 20 times the size, so take the ridiculous amount of money it would cost to buiild the autobahn today and multiply it by 20x!

US Rt 20 is 3365 miles by itself!

having the highways go bad gives construction companies alot of work also. just something to consider.

"A lot of the autobahn construction was done in the preWWII era, and they had plans to use them as emergency airfields, amongst other things.

Perhaps, if we had Hitler in America.

But, cool cement. I'm guessing that it's a lot harder process, or we would still be doing it."

We may not have highways to land planes on, but how many regional airports have runways big enough to support at least the smaller aircraft? Then add to that all the hub and large commercial airports that have runways large enough to land a C-5, we have no need to shut down our highways to land military aircraft during a time of crisis.

How much harder could it be? The ancient people of multiple cultures could make it with out modern machines, but it is beyond our modern tech to make it now? Think for a second.

rosen38010/26/09 at 9:37 am
"For example, in Germany they build autobahns with cement neary 3 feet thick. Here, it's a paltry 14" or so. So they wear out in decades instead of centuries. If we build them like that our trucks that use them so much wouldn't beat them to pieces in just a few short years."

To be fair, the Autobahn is 7500 miles and the US Highway SYstems is 160,000 miles. It is more than 20 times the size, so take the ridiculous amount of money it would cost to buiild the autobahn today and multiply it by 20x!

To be fair Germany is a lot smaller than the U.S. but they still maintain a better highway system.

And for those of you whom didn't know we took the idea for a highway system from the Germans after WWII.

The idea of using super-cement is really stupid. If it is that strong and renders out conventional weapons useless. Well then I guess we will just have to go all thermo-nuclear on Ya. You only increase the damage that will be inflicted on yourself in the long run. I think I might even have a better plan for all of you third world nations...Don't build arch villain style underground bunkers that house illegal materials that are against international law...Just a thought..Might save your country some money and radiation exposure.

So gunnite, concrete and epoxy, is a bit more than 9 times the strength of concrete, and waterproof. Also costs 6 times as much to make, and you gotta pump it, adding to the cost. I'd imagine that what they are talking is layering with mica, a resin and hardener, and some metal like silicon, in between layers of something like gunnite. We come up with all kinds of custom mixes that are mostly proprietary and not talked about too much, and sure as a full metal jacket, each type has weaknesses too. It seems to me that putting a bunker underground decreases its impact resistance, material wise, as it is already stressed. Guess we will wait to find out, huddled around the military channel and waiting to talk to those coming home that we trust to tell us what's really going on.

Concrete only deals with compression forces, it won't hold up well under tension. Steel, on the other hand, has a higher tensile strength, which is why steel-reinforced concrete is so widely used in construction (it holds up to both types of forces). There has to be a downside to this "super-cement" or we would've already seen it being used. . .if it was really that superior to previous technology, in the amount of time it took for this information to get to the media the military would've already had structures built with it. If I had to guess, I'd say it probably doesn't have any capacity for tensional stress and probably has issues with cracking when reinforced with steel.

The downside is cost, pure and simple. Also, modern concrete sets faster, again leading to ease in use and costs.

Most road in the US are not concrete to begin with - but asphalat. Even where there are still those old concrete roads, as they break down they are being covered by asphalt.

Why? When asphalt breaks down so quickly? Cost. Scrape, drop, press, paint. It is such a cheap and swift process that governments are better off retopping their roads every 20 years or so.

As for bunkers, you can always just seal them off and let the people suffocate or starve buried under the ground. We only blow them up to be poliet.

Wow... lot of paranoia.... :D

Just a few clarifications:

The Pros:
1. Portland cement is responsible for about 5% of the world's CO2 production (3rd highest source). Geopolymers produce almost none in their manufacture.
2. Fly ash and slag are used to produce geopolymers. Fly ash is one of the largest volume landfilled materials in the world, and possibly environmentally damaging in the manner we typically landfill it.
3. Because the bulk materials are lower cost, once economies of scale are established, geopolymers may actually prove to be cheaper than Portland Cement. If carbon offset costs are included, it is certainly cheaper. The activators are the primary expense.
4. Geopolymers actually provide greater structural properties in both tension and compression than Portland cement, AND have higher corrosion resistance to most chemicals.

The Cons:
1. Fly ash properties vary from source to source. Creating consistent properties from batch to batch remains elusive. Researchers are engaged in developing protocols for ensuring consistency. A company in Australia claims to have established protocols that enable it to get consistent properties from several varying fly ash sources, and is actively marketing the use of geopolymers. Dr. Erez Allouche of Louisiana Tech University is doing similar research in the USA.
2. No current source for bulk production.

I hope to one day build my dream house with geopolymer in ICF walls and for the slab. I intend to pour a field trial ICF "retaining wall" this spring for the first large scale field pour of geopolymer in the USA.

One other clarification:

Set time is adjustable. Sometimes fast setting is preferred, sometimes slow setting depending on the application. Portland cement has no advantage over geopolymer cement in regards to set-time capability, other than the current lack of expertise in how to achieve a consistent set-time with geopolymers.