Comments on: MIT Researchers Discover Why Concrete Breaks Down

By: kashif rashif abbasi

kashif rashif abbasi — Mon, 07 Sep 2009 14:27:34 +0000

this is landmark achievement by researchers.i would

add it further by further curbing global warming .

csh particle can be neutralize by adding gravel and sand process in bricks kiln and closing it mouth.then adding in concrete.moreover collecting the smoke from all industries and adding in concrete alongwith lime then that would also reduce global warming.

ur sincerely

kashif

By: Emilio Nehme

Emilio Nehme — Wed, 12 Aug 2009 12:16:11 +0000

Scientifically we can’t judge on this article if we didn’t see any results and trends, like what is the becoming compressive strength,expansion test during a certain period of time with different % of silica fume mixed with the concrete. Also what is the future of the silica fume after being solidified inside the concrete, is there any study done concerning the permeability of the silica and its content such as heavy metals when they are facing acidic environment like acid rain or in Alkali environment.

By: Emilio Nehme

Emilio Nehme — Wed, 12 Aug 2009 12:16:00 +0000

By: Rubber Sidewalks Give the Bounce to Concrete : CleanTechnica

Rubber Sidewalks Give the Bounce to Concrete : CleanTechnica — Sun, 19 Jul 2009 21:53:05 +0000

[…] is estimated to account for about 5% of all carbon dioxide emissions from human activity, with concrete accounting for about 8% overall. Though rubber surfaces do involve some greenhouse gas in the manufacturing process, […]

By: MarvinG

MarvinG — Fri, 19 Jun 2009 02:32:21 +0000

“Seems the 16000 year number comes from mathematical modelling.”

Bull hooey! My pappy’s great-great-great-great-great-great-grande-great-grate-gyrate-great-grand-father had that study passed down to him from his great-great-great-great-great-great-grande-great-grate-gyrate-great-grand-father!

I finally saw degradation in the sample so I reported it as it was my and my family’s sworn duty to the tribe, the elders, and the shaman.

By: MarvinG

MarvinG — Fri, 19 Jun 2009 02:32:00 +0000

“Seems the 16000 year number comes from mathematical modelling.”

I finally saw degradation in the sample so I reported it as it was my and my family’s sworn duty to the tribe, the elders, and the shaman.

By: MarvinG

MarvinG — Fri, 19 Jun 2009 02:32:00 +0000

“Seems the 16000 year number comes from mathematical modelling.”

I finally saw degradation in the sample so I reported it as it was my and my family’s sworn duty to the tribe, the elders, and the shaman.

By: MarvinG

MarvinG — Fri, 19 Jun 2009 02:32:00 +0000

“Seems the 16000 year number comes from mathematical modelling.”

I finally saw degradation in the sample so I reported it as it was my and my family’s sworn duty to the tribe, the elders, and the shaman.

By: Charles Sacre, P.E.

Charles Sacre, P.E. — Thu, 18 Jun 2009 12:22:53 +0000

The information is not adequate, and does not highlight the breakthrough of the MIT researcher. It needs clarifications.

By: Charles Sacre, P.E.

Charles Sacre, P.E. — Thu, 18 Jun 2009 12:22:00 +0000

The information is not adequate, and does not highlight the breakthrough of the MIT researcher. It needs clarifications.

By: Hasse

Hasse — Thu, 18 Jun 2009 00:58:27 +0000

The original item from MIT.

http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2009/creep-0615.html

Seems the 16000 year number comes from mathematical modelling.

By: Hasse

Hasse — Thu, 18 Jun 2009 00:58:00 +0000

The original item from MIT.

http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2009/creep-0615.html

Seems the 16000 year number comes from mathematical modelling.

By: carl

carl — Wed, 17 Jun 2009 21:18:30 +0000

another nitpick: the 5-8% figure is usually attributed to the production of cement, not concrete itself. So really, an improved method for producing cement is needed.

By: carl

carl — Wed, 17 Jun 2009 21:18:00 +0000

another nitpick: the 5-8% figure is usually attributed to the production of cement, not concrete itself. So really, an improved method for producing cement is needed.

By: carl

carl — Wed, 17 Jun 2009 21:18:00 +0000

another nitpick: the 5-8% figure is usually attributed to the production of cement, not concrete itself. So really, an improved method for producing cement is needed.

By: Will K

Will K — Wed, 17 Jun 2009 19:56:59 +0000

Articles like this don’t do anything for CleanTechnica’s credibility. Silica fume isn’t new, nor is knowledge of its performance.

By: Will K

Will K — Wed, 17 Jun 2009 19:56:00 +0000

Articles like this don’t do anything for CleanTechnica’s credibility. Silica fume isn’t new, nor is knowledge of its performance.

By: Will K

Will K — Wed, 17 Jun 2009 19:56:00 +0000

Articles like this don’t do anything for CleanTechnica’s credibility. Silica fume isn’t new, nor is knowledge of its performance.

By: Will K

Will K — Wed, 17 Jun 2009 19:56:00 +0000

Articles like this don’t do anything for CleanTechnica’s credibility. Silica fume isn’t new, nor is knowledge of its performance.

By: Jon PE

Jon PE — Wed, 17 Jun 2009 18:18:37 +0000

Silica fume has been used in concrete production for years. FHWA’s High performance concrete program featured it to improve concrete durability, and virtually all high strength concrete uses the material. Silica fume is the by-product of producing silcon metal of ferrosilicon alloys in smelters. Costs in the neighborhood of $400 per ton compared to $100 a ton of ordiary portland cement. FHWA and the Silica Fume Association have published an excellent reference manual. I’m afraid the researcher is a little behind the times!