I personally hope that self-healing concrete will be put into use in construction as soon as possible, because as the author says, it’s an absolutely wonderful idea, since it can both save money and sustain buildings. In addition, self-healing concrete should be used for roads and bridges, because I think they could also benefit from a self-sustained, longer lasting material. Especially in the U.S., where road construction generally takes longer and the vast expanses of land must be thoroughly connected to urban places, this could be very beneficial, as it would reduce the amount and frequency of road maintenance necessities.
Broak, the author of “Self-Healing Concrete,” agrees with this, and estimates that the U.S. government could save a significantly large amount of money from the budget for bridge maintenance if all new bridges were built with self-healing concrete, even though self-healing concrete is three times more expensive than traditional concrete. Broak says that Grove Street Bridge, which was built with traditional concrete, will average around $350,000 a year in maintenance, user, and environmental costs called “life-cycle cost. The bridge’s life expectancy is about 60 years; that’s a lot of money. However, the same bridge built with self-healing concrete would have a 50% lower life cycle cost, which would mean saving around $11 million. Since there are so many concrete buildings across America, many of them go without timely needed maintenance; this could cause serious man made-disasters. So, not only could self-healing concrete cut costs and save time, but it could also improve safety, not to mention efficiency