Above Ground Vs in Ground Pool Engineering Question

t_c on 08/12/2016 - 22:04

So I just noticed that you can get a 50,000 litre above ground pool that is held back by nothing more than 0.5mm layer of vinyl and some cheap Chinese steel.
http://www.ebay.com.au/itm/232065907314

However an ingound pool on the other hand is around 6 inches thick of high strength reinforced concrete.

And the irony is the inground pool has the earth behind it to provide even more support.

The disparity is so huge between the two, how is this possible. Have in grounds been so way over engineered in the past and no one has bothered to redo the sums and its just a case of that's how its always been done?

Home & Garden

Comments

  • captobvious on 08/12/2016 - 22:52

    that above ground pool is a use and dispose pool, its not the bestway to go (pardon the pun)

    An inground pool would be a permanent feature and would add value to your property.

  • mskeggs on 09/12/2016 - 07:51
    +1

    An in ground pool can add value in some areas. I don't think they add more value than they cost.
    Considering the amount of money my parents paid to put in a pool when we were kids, and the amount of use it got, especially after we left school, I think the better financial decision would be an aboveground pool (admittedly, of better quality than the linked one above) surrounded by a deck, that could be easily removed at a later date.

    In terms of engineering, the in ground pool needs to last decades, the soft side one you linked, maybe 2 years?

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join