Abstract
Reinforced concrete has been impugned as slow to build, subject to quality defects, and generally less viable than steel. The author examines the evidence, finding that the well publicized argument against reinforced concrete is certainly exaggerated and actually wrong in several important areas. Precast concrete frames are strictly comparable to steel in cost and speed, and they offer positive advantages in certain situations. Properly engineered in situ frames can be built fast, and they are certainly cheaper in sheer investment. They offer much wider flexibility to the architect and designer. Nevertheless, there is a need to standardize and improve techniques of design, construction, and quality control. It is suggested that the interested parties – from reinforcement makers to suppliers of concrete – need to formulate and act upon a concerted strategy which should encompass better training, better technical information, and determined promotion such as that enjoyed by structural steel.
MST/720
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.