wrote:

On Sat, 14 Jan 2012 15:34:09 -0600,
wrote:

In article , (Roland Perry)
wrote:

In message , at
12:36:40 on Fri, 13 Jan 2012, remarked:

Huntingdon viaduct already relies on extensive supplementary steelwork to
support it.

But why does it *need* the support? Is the underlying issue one of
salt corrosion.

I don't think so. I think it's to do with the quality of the original
concrete construction.

I don't think that it's just the concrete, it's a broader design
concept than that;

http://londonist.com/2012/01/will-so...th-flyover.php

E&OE etc.


Errors and Omissions Excepted??

There are plenty of potential errors in that article, but no
omissions. Rarely have I seen someone make such a complex explanation
of a very simple problem. Probably due to his lack of knowledge of
this particular structure, the author seems to have wanted to cover
all the possible problems in all possible concrete bridge structures.
Perhaps he did omit two possibilities - cosmic rays and UFO impact.
And then there's terrorist attack, so let's make that three. ;-)