packnrat wrote:
one more reason to build with steel not a dried mud product.
and why our tax moneys for the "roads" should be spent on the ROADS. not "other" projects.
as this is not the first, (sad not the last) as it is just another in a very long line of failed dried mud bridges to fail.
dried mud can not be fixed, or repaired. only a temp patch can be done. and that will fail in a couple short years, due to icing alone.
steel can be rebuilt, in place even, even made stronger if needed.
Well, we could debate the merits of this until we're blue in the face. It might start looking a little like the "diesel vs. gas" thread on the other side of this forum.
We actually are debating this here in FL regarding one particular construction segment where there's a push taking place to move from traditional concrete structure to a steel structure. In this case, the type of concrete structure in question has a long proven track record of integrity and low maintenance. The comparable steel structure has no track record in FL for this type of project. And we know that it will require constant maintenance in this application.
The point to keep in mind for any concrete or steel structure is to perform proper maintenance and inspections. With concrete, its more "inspection" heavy and steel is more "maintenance" heavy. People often look past the maintenance requirements on steel structures...which is why many times concrete is the preferred choice.
