The need for continued rehabilitation of our concrete infrastructure has lead to the adaptation of modern “state-of-the-art” analytical methods for the characterization of concrete and other cementitious materials. Some of these techniques have not, until relatively recently, been commonly associated with the evaluation of concrete but are very useful both as tools for quality assurance and in the determination of the extent of existing damage. The technique of interest here is the coordinated electron-optical microscopic evaluation of concrete.

Concrete is the most widely used building material in the world. Contrary to popular belief, concrete is not inert but chemically very complex and dynamic. While it is true that, pound for pound, concrete and its raw materials (cement, aggregate and water} are the most inexpensive building materials available for construction, it is also true that it responds to its environment in numerous and sometimes very subtle ways. These responses may sometimes result in a loss of durability and tremendous amounts of time and money being expended while searching for the cause(s) of the problem and providing a cost-effect solution A quick survey of any large metropolitan area and the on-going construction repairs to highways and bridge decks there will quickly confirm this.

The thriving E.A. Fischione Instruments company began in the mid 60’s, while Eugene Fischione was employed as a research machinist by US Steel in its Fundamental Research Laboratory in Monroeville, PA (Pittsburgh suburb). The Bain Lab was in its heyday with a large staff of energetic and creative scientists with money to spend on equipment. The highly competent “Gene” Fischione was much in demand to make the special devices that everybody wanted and the old refrain “the line forms on the left, dear” describes the situation rather well. With three new TEMs in the lab and a 1 million volt version on the way, many of Gene’s projects involved EM devices and specimen preparation equipment. Frequently, visitors to the Bail Lab saw the custom-made devices and craved them on sight as they recognized the close connection between good specimen preparation the remarkable productivity of the lab.

In the past 10 or so years lens-less microscopies have proliferated tremendously, because they promise (and in many cases already deliver) substantial gains in performance when compared to other approaches to imaging. One of the perceived advantages is the superlative resolution which most of these techniques are (at least theoretically) capable of delivering. Another is that one can map any physical property for which there is a sufficiently sensitive detection system. Microscopists are no longer limited to imaging only regions of the sample which can be made to modulate light absorption or emission. All the simple nomograms showing what part of the spectrum to use if one wishes to see amoebae, bacteria or molecules will now have to be revised because of the advent of Scanned Probe Microscopes.

According to one of the dictionaries on my desk, a microscope is “an instrument containing one or more lenses for magnifying near objects”. The other says a microscope is “an optical instrument having a magnifying lens or a combination of lenses for inspecting objects too small to be seen, or to be seen distinctly in detail, by the naked eye”. So is it appropriate to call a lens-less machine a “microscope”? Should one disregard the “scholars, specialists and editors who worked to meet the essential needs of the reader, speaker, and writer who want to know, the meaning of a word”? Perhaps it would be better not to offend these distinguished and devoted linguists and instead call the new machines “Scanned Probe Instruments”, abbreviated SPI. SPI would obviously to be pronounced “spy”-reminding us that with SPIs we can indeed spy on the most intimate details of materials and, perhaps, of living things as well.

The need for continued rehabilitation of our concrete infrastructure has lead to the adaptation of modern “state-of-the-art” analytical methods for the characterization of concrete and other cementitious materials. Some of these techniques have not, until relatively recently, been commonly associated with the evaluation of concrete but are very useful both as tools for quality assurance and in the determination of the extent of existing damage. The technique of interest here is the coordinated electron-optical microscopic evaluation of concrete.

Concrete is the most widely used building material in the world. Contrary to popular belief, concrete is not inert but chemically very complex and dynamic. While it is true that, pound far pound, concrete and its raw materials (cement, aggregate and water) are the most inexpensive building materials available for construction, it is also true that it responds to its environment in numerous and sometimes very subtle ways. These responses may sometimes result in a loss of durability and tremendous amounts of time and money being expended while searching far the cause(s) of the problem and providing a cost-effect solution. A quick survey of any large metropolitan area and the on-going construction repairs to highways and bridge decks there will quickly confirm this.