The problem with reinforced concrete
I used to be structural engineer, and while things may have changed in the past 8 years since I left, I doubt it.<p>The problem with structural engineering is incentives. It is one of the reasons that I left. Most structural engineering companies are filled with conservative, boring engineers that prefer to look up pre-designed segments and don&#x27;t make full use of the steel design handbook or building codes.<p>For example, in Canada if you have a non-load bearing brick outer face (most brick buildings in Canada) you&#x27;re allowed to reduce the wind load by 10%. I was the only person I knew that knew this because I actually read the steel, concrete, and wood design handbooks front to back while I made notes. Furthermore almost nobody has read the building code &quot;just because&quot; they might hop to a section here or there when they need it, but they&#x27;re generally not going to just sit down and read the thing.<p>So when I would design buildings I would be able to take advantage of a lot more things than most people. This lead to my buildings being cheaper &#x2F; easier to build, which of course lead to our engineering fees <i>looking</i> like a larger portion of the job.<p>The problem with reinforced concrete is the same. Engineers have no financial incentive to make alterations to their designs to make the buildings last longer. It is almost trivial to make sure steel wont rust (or to double or triple a buildings life) but it makes construction costs go up 0.01% and makes engineerings fees go up 0.1% so nobody does it. Regulators are to blame too. There are amazing concretes (Ultra High Performance Concretes) we should be using in our buildings that completely lack even needing steel because they are so ductile and strong (MPa 200 for the one I was familiar with, Ductal by Lafarge), but it&#x27;s impossible to use in construction in Canada because the code is so rigid.