"The only things relevant are: has corrosion thinned the steel below the load bearing spec, and can below spec areas be repaired/replaced. To the contrary, the building as is, represents millions of dollars invested in clearance, foundations, superstructure, etc. It makes sense to use it if technically/financially feasible."
It's hard to imagine that steel not being well below the "load bearing spec"; structural steel offers little resistance to corrosion in high moisture or wet applications, the presence of salt air is particularly deadly. The below design details list is for highway bridge construction where salt is only a seasonal concern. Design Details. For uncoated steel in bridges and other highway structures, the following items should receive careful consideration: (1) Eliminate bridge joints where possible. (2) Expansion joints must be able to control water that is on the deck. Consider the use of a trough under the deck joint to divert water away from vulnerable elements. (3) Paint all superstructure steel within a distance of 1 1/2 times the depth of girder from bridge joints. (4) Minimize the number of bridge deck scuppers. (5) Eliminate details that serve as water and debris "traps". (6) "Hermetically seal" box members when possible, or provide weep holes to allow proper drainage and circulation of air. (7) Consider protecting pier caps and abutment walls to minimize staining. (8) Seal overlapping surfaces exposed to water (to prevent capillary penetration action). C-8 was designed to be encapsulated in concrete with general weatherproofing; with 20 years exposure the chance that that structure won't fall under its own weight seems extremely remote. That said, why wouldn't The Fish go full steam ahead? --- In AsburyPark@yahoogroups.com, "wernerapnj" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > --- In AsburyPark@yahoogroups.com, Greg S <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I can not believe that there is an Engineer or Insurance > > professional that would let that superstructure be built on. > > It has been in the salt air for 20(?) years. > > The only things relevent are: has corrosion thinned the steel below > the load bearing spec, and can below spec areas be repaired/replaced. > > > The floors are crumbling and collapsing every day. > > There are no floors, only the corrogated sheets that the floors would > have been poured on. They have mostly rusted away and will be > replaced. Then the floors will be poured. > > > I am sure there is going to be a request to change the plan, > > we should say no. > > What change are you anticipating to say no to? There are two options, > complete it as designed. Or, raze it and build to the new controls. > > > It doesn't take a lot of vision to understand that the > > "structure" is of no value (beside scrap). > > To the contrary, the building as is, represents millions of dollars > invested in clearance, foundations, superstructure, etc. It makes > sense to use it if technically/financially feasable. > > Werner ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> Get fast access to your favorite Yahoo! Groups. Make Yahoo! your home page http://us.click.yahoo.com/dpRU5A/wUILAA/yQLSAA/Y2tolB/TM --------------------------------------------------------------------~-> Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/AsburyPark/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
