The Structural Engineer > Archive > Volume 11 (1933) > Issues > Issue 1 > Correspondence Column Restraint
Name of File 1348-11-01.pdf cached at 20/04/2019 05:56:39 - with 4 pages. pdfPath: E:\\CMS\webtest\files\79\79fe60bb-766d-43c2-b84f-ca993824133a.pdf. thumbPath: E:\\CMS\webtest\files\pdfthumbs\79fe60bb-766d-43c2-b84f-ca993824133a_1.png. objDoc: 1 - True. objPreview.Log: . strFileName: 79fe60bb-766d-43c2-b84f-ca993824133a_1.png

Members/subscribers must be logged in to view this article

Correspondence Column Restraint

SIR,-I have to thank Mr. Gordon Welch for his kindly criticism of my article which appeared in the September issue. His remarks are in accordance with the mathematical implications of the slope deflection of isolated members, but it is interesting to note that in Clause No. 17 of the preliminary draft revision of the Institution report, resisting moment of connections is made the criterion of pillar restraint. My assessment is on more conservative lines, for I do not put it forward for buildings with wooden joist floors, unencasedsteel, corrugated steel or fully glazed sides. In some clauses of the Draft there seems to be an underlying assumption that steel will be encased and floors made fire-resisting ; but, in my opinion, Clause No. 17 needs strengthening in order to reward the design of rigid type buildings and penalise those with wooden floor joists, etc.