CEMENT , or STEEL...?

The question refers basically to architectural dilemmas, and –mostly – to overhung structures as ceilings, roofs, bridges ,etc.

Let me try to look at this problem from the view of , generally - endurance , and particularly – resistance to human-induced failures.

In former blogs I wrote often about IFD (Information Flux Damage) and its potential impact on various engineering designs. Although knowledge of this phenomenon is still weak and limited, but some constructive conclusions can be already drawn and – hopefully – applied , especially there , where general public, en masse, is concerned.

Steel is light, strong, smooth , and , in relation to reinforced concrete , takes much less space. It can be also easily controlled , anytime,with ultrasonic, Roentgen or tensometers. With additives it is also elegantly non-rusting.

Concrete is heavy, porous, requires plenty of manual work (reinforcements) and rust is difficult to control , inside. It also takes much mores space than steel structures, inhibiting views at least.

But, from the point of IFD , it has one major advantage: internal cellular structure.

As IFD seems to use mechanism of reversed entropy to organize , otherwise chaotic statistical molecular faults along ordered rupture surfaces, it is much more probable to propagate in cristal structures (as steel) than in amorphic or cellular matter.

Moreover, present architectural solutions tend to put too much trust in well-calculated steel elements, what means that often the whole structure or large part thereof is supported or hangs on one , albeit well-oversized steel beam, almost sending an invitation for IFD. When, reinforced concrete always has several wire rods working for tensile stress, with bulk of cellular cement-matter working under compressive loads.

Therefore – subject to still incomplete knowledge of IFD – I would recommend : cement…