Scientists create bendable concrete to better withstand natural disasters

Shawn Knight

Posts: 15,627   +198
Staff member
What just happened? Scientists from Swinburne University of Technology in Melbourne, Australia, have developed a new type of concrete from waste materials that can bend under load, potentially making it an ideal construction material in earthquake-prone regions.

The potential wonder material incorporates waste products like fly ash, a by-product of burning coal. It’s also said to require 36 percent less energy to create and emits up to 76 percent less carbon dioxide compared to conventional bendable concrete made of cement.

Furthermore, the use of short polymeric fibers in the concrete allows it to sustain multiple hair-sized cracks when put under immense pressure. Swinburne researcher Dr. Behzad Nematollahi said lab tests have shown that this novel concrete is about 400 times more bendable than normal concrete while exhibiting similar strength.

Studying – and potentially improving – concrete could pay serious dividends. According to Dr. Nematollahi, concrete is the second most used material by humans after water. This isn’t the first effort to create bendable concrete although other tries have been cost-prohibitive.

Scientists say that builds made from the material will be much more likely to withstand damage doled out by natural disasters such as earthquakes, hurricanes and projectiles they might toss around.

Research on the new type of concrete was published in the journal Construction and Building Materials.

Permalink to story.

 
If it requires a by-product created from burning charcoal... how is that better for the environment? Burning charcoal isn't great for the environment at all. Maybe there's a process I'm missing here.
 
More flexible and better for the environment.

The same two goals I asked my missus to try and pursue.

Not so sure about this being better for environment: the secret ingredient is PLASTIC. And how much Co2 does concrete actually release over time? Its mostly made of inorganic materials.
 
"Normal Concrete"? I thought "normal concrete" used in these situations have fibers/rods of some sort in them to help (unlike what's shown in the video)?
 
Last edited:
I'm a little skeptical, how bendable it will remain, if exposed to dry under sun for 10 - 20 years.

Walls crack not just under pressure, it is the combination of age + pressure. And those tests include nothing related to aging of the material.

After that, comes the important humidity factor, also age-dependent, which is again skipped from the tests.

Ultimately, the tests require wide range of aging + pressure + humidity combinations, to properly evaluate the new material's potential.
 
Last edited:
"Normal Concrete"? I thought "normal concrete" used in these situations have fibers/rods of some sort in them to help (unlike what's shown in the video)?

There's rebar in structural concrete. Of course, making the concrete more flexible itself would help transfer energy.

Then again, so would base isolation which prevents a lot of the energy from even reaching the building in the first place. The problem is, construction standards are low in the US and no one wants to pay extra for something they don't need. It's incredibly short sighted, especially in earthquake prone areas.

I'd recommend reading this article on the topic: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/06/03/us/earthquake-preparedness-usa-japan.html

Long story short, America being cheap is costing money and lives in the long term. But yeah, that's the prevailing pattern in the US so it's not surprising.
 
If it requires a by-product created from burning charcoal... how is that better for the environment? Burning charcoal isn't great for the environment at all. Maybe there's a process I'm missing here.
Fly ash, as it says, actually comes from the burn off of coal, not charcoal. Fly ash is a "toxic byproduct" of coal. There's nothing about it that is good for the environment in essence. Furthermore, it doesn't matter how much or how little carbon dioxide it produces bcuz science has already proven that there is ABSOLUTELY NO cause&effect between co2 in regards to greenhouse gases and our planets climate or it's detriment. Scientists just like using it because it's a term that they think holds credence, yet they will never state anything about it's correlation to anything.
 
If it requires a by-product created from burning charcoal... how is that better for the environment? Burning charcoal isn't great for the environment at all. Maybe there's a process I'm missing here.

Coal, not charcoal. As for being "better for the environment", it's probably a matter of actually finding a use for a material that otherwise will be sitting in a toxic dump site, & (hopefully) by having the material incorporated into the concrete it won't leak as much into the environment as it would in its "pure" form at the dump site.
 
Useless, absolutely useless. It registers the degree of deflection but since it won't return to it's origional shape it will have to be removed and replaced. Take that plus the environmental impact and this so called "expert" needs to go back to the drawing board and try again .......
 
Useless, absolutely useless. It registers the degree of deflection but since it won't return to it's origional shape it will have to be removed and replaced. Take that plus the environmental impact and this so called "expert" needs to go back to the drawing board and try again .......
Yea I was thinking on the similar line, would buildings become warped over time? However, as Soaptrail mentioned, it might not be a bad material for making roads.
 
Yea I was thinking on the similar line, would buildings become warped over time? However, as Soaptrail mentioned, it might not be a bad material for making roads.
It could be good for roads, but there is an advantage to asphalt: it is 99% recyclable, and the other 1% comes from used tires. Concrete is not so easy to recycle, and costs more.
 
If it requires a by-product created from burning charcoal... how is that better for the environment? Burning charcoal isn't great for the environment at all. Maybe there's a process I'm missing here.

While creating the concrete will be slightly more damaging to the environment, you'd save in the long run by virtue of creating less over time due to less repairs/rebuilds.
 
Useless, absolutely useless. It registers the degree of deflection but since it won't return to it's origional shape it will have to be removed and replaced. Take that plus the environmental impact and this so called "expert" needs to go back to the drawing board and try again .......
It would matter if you were in the building when an earthquake either pancaked a building or bent a building.
 
I'm wondering what the harmonic frequency is, and how big an issue that would be.
As I see it, that will be highly dependent on the structure that contains the material. The material's resonant frequencies will change with different applied loads. The thickness of the material should also be a factor.
 
Fly ash, as it says, actually comes from the burn off of coal, not charcoal. Fly ash is a "toxic byproduct" of coal. There's nothing about it that is good for the environment in essence. Furthermore, it doesn't matter how much or how little carbon dioxide it produces bcuz science has already proven that there is ABSOLUTELY NO cause&effect between co2 in regards to greenhouse gases and our planets climate or it's detriment. Scientists just like using it because it's a term that they think holds credence, yet they will never state anything about it's correlation to anything.


there is plenty of studies that disagree with your statement on co2. co2 is shown to be a green house gas. while it's not the sole cause of global warming, we know for a fact it's a major player. water vapor itself is a green house gas too.

have you looked at ocean temperature increases over the past 20years? most of it in the last 10? our environment is a big network of inter-related dynamics. so no, there is no single cause, but that doesn't mean there is no consequence.
 
If it requires a by-product created from burning charcoal... how is that better for the environment? Burning charcoal isn't great for the environment at all. Maybe there's a process I'm missing here.
It uses an ALREADY EXISTING waste product from coal fired power stations, a bunch of which already exist.

It also doesn't use cement which has to be made in high temperature kilns with a commensurate energy and waste cost.
 
It uses an ALREADY EXISTING waste product from coal fired power stations, a bunch of which already exist.

It also doesn't use cement which has to be made in high temperature kilns with a commensurate energy and waste cost.

See, the article doesn't seem to mention that the power plant part. I was missing information.
 
Did Samsung hear of this??? It could be their next foldable "heavy duty" smart phone.....
 
Back