Not exactly a breaking news per-se for us laymans/public, but the following could be an interesting scoop if you are involved in the construction profession/sector.
Here's a short analysis Tweet on the Kerch Strait Bridge that suffered a massive explosion, of which several sections of the bridge collapsed yesterday as a result. I'm neither a civil/structure engineer nor an architect, therefore anyone who has better knowledge and technicalities on this subject can add more information or rectify anything if found inaccurate.
Source:
Unroll:
What do you guys think of this?
Indeed looks like Russians knew the bridge would be attacked and if not, it's still too high risk to devote resource towards. The corrosion question looks like it's design life is shorter than 50 years. You really don't really use this design unless you plan on heavy frequent maintenance or really well galvanised steel components and connections but even then, yeah no.
It seems like it was designed knowing that it's a high risk thing and would either be destroyed, attacked, needs replacement well before service limits. It's like, would you put the best and most expensive knowing there's a high risk it's attacked and/or destroyed or invaded. Maybe they considered those things. They could have thought it more appropriate to replace this temporary thing with a 100 year design once things are stable? and for the time being they went with budget solution which works fine in terms of function and ultimate limits but due to entire structure being exposed steel and a relatively budget approach, it appears "strategically" designed for temporary use if under control and if not, then not much wasted.