Eiffel Tower riddled with rust and in need of repair, leaked reports say
theguardian.com
theguardian.com
https://www.corrosionpedia.com/definition/1657/sacrificial-a...
The Corrosion Doctors are also on it... :-)
It takes 60 tons of paint and needs to be done by hand. The solution for Cathodic protection would have to be, it seems, by covering it in Zinc before the repaint.
Like just for basic journalism: "We think" is different than, "We know". If it's so bad, wouldn't one be able to casually see some sort of rust/damage from a visit? That would then comfort the leaked documents.
https://mymodernmet.com/eiffel-tower-copyright-law/
(You could possibly photograph Tokyo tower which is a near clone of Eiffel tower & slightly taller too)
This is what it looks like when you make a stream of the lightshow. As far as I know, they never copyrighted it, and it is a super cool way to celebrate various events. For example, on Remembrance Day it shows poppies and other related images. On Canada Day, lots of Canadian images from across the country.
> A second report in 2014 by Expiris, an expert paint company, found the tower had cracks and rusting and only 10% of the newer paint on the tower was adhering to the structure. “Even if the general state of the anti-corrosion protection seems good to the eye, this can be misleading,”
That said, the tower was originally intended to be temporary, for twenty year. And con artist Victor Lustig sold the tower to scrap metal merchants—twice.
https://www.thevintagenews.com/2016/09/20/priority-french-wr...
"I have breakfast here to save one innocent from tasting Salazar's foul cuisine".
As much as there's a tendency for shoddy repairs by some there's also a tendency to be biased towards alarmism by some others.
Stripping four layers of led based paint is some job, no wonder people are reluctant to do it.
Sounds like repainting but addressing areas of corrosion individually might be the best way of going about it
That’s all they do. Repaint it.
Kind of give you an idea of how important maintenance is.
I’m still not certain why all those Roman bridges are still around though.
You end up seeing the survivors. Luckily they are also not made of something requiring maintenance like metal.
If I recall correctly they had pretty strict standards for the roads themselves [citation needed], I would suspect much the same existed for bridges. Having said that, I think it stands to reason that chemical processes and variances in materials locally sourced would be something worthy of scrutiny. Porting tons of materials in those days would be suboptimal to say the least, so concrete compositions could suffer, alongside with a litany of other material compromises. Add in process errors and I think it becomes a far more compelling hypothesis than "they just slapped shit together but somehow invented keystones, leveraging both structural and gravitational forces"
Knowing what we do know, I think, tends more towards material optimization. We can more confidently design structures and do it with greater respect to cost - something I don't know that earlier civilizations paid a lot of mind to, especially when looking at the multi-decadal constructions of cathedrals for instance or more on point the coliseum.
That's precisely why we fuck it up, because we know tolerances and such much better, and we can do things with much finer granularity. So we aim to build right at that precise edge of "just barely above what's minimally required for it to work." And when small fuck ups happen, that edge gets lost, and suddenly it is all falling down.
In Roman times? No precise tools and techniques were available, things had far less granularity. So when they decided they wanted to build things "good enough", there was no precise edge. They would often ballpark for a construction project to be much stronger than minimally needed (by modern measurements), precisely because that "minimally needed" wasn't nearly as simple to achieve or even calculate.
Think about medieval brick castles. Some are still standing, while some houses built only about 100 years ago are pretty much disintegrating. Is it because we don't know how to build castles anymore? Not at all, it's just we try to build on the edge of the calculated expected lifespan of a house, balancing pricing at the same time. It was extremely difficult to do something like this with the knowledge available back then, so if they wanted something actually stable, they would often go for an overkill.
They stood up very well.
Think about that … even against modern artillery, they still held. And with little damage.
A crappy bridge was sacrilegious.
However, a decade ago they repainted it using more expensive paint, which should last two decades.
The most prominent example I know of is the New River Gorge Bridge in West Virginia.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nLkl0r0C1ro (Section starts at 36m in)
Maybe they're already repairing it?
Edit: added /s
So that's another thing that's going to be added on the long list of points political opponents are using to say that the current city hall management is doing a poor job at taking care of the city.
"Linux kernel riddled with Rust and in need of repair, leaked reports say"