First published: N/A
Standard: £9 + VAT
An IStructE account gives you access to a world of knowledge. Create a profile to receive details of our unique range of resources, events and training.
Added to basket
Mr. M. N. RIDLEY, M.Inst.C.E. (Member of Council), proposing a vote of thanks to the author, welcomed the paper, particularly because it indicated the extent to which continuity in reinforced concrete work was being adopted. He had noticed that engineers were inclined to make pin joints in their bridges. They would put a pin joint in the centre of the arch and pin joints in the abutments, and he believed that in one or two cases there were as many as five. He had always maintained, however, that. a bridge of ordinary span was far safer and better, and sometimes more economically designed, if all pin joints were excluded. It was true that calculation was then more difficult, but he held that when that had been done one had the best type of work. Where there were very big spans, of course, one must consider pin joints or the equivalent, especially for expansion and contraction; but for shorter spans, at any rate up to 100 ft. and sometimes more, in reinforced concrete and steel work pin joints were quite unnecessary.
On some bridge sites it may be advisable to adopt two or even more different types of piles. Conditions may demand the adoption of a combination of two forms of piling to obtain the best results.
The constructional side of large electricity generating stations is a subject which has perhaps not received the consideration it deserves. This appears somewhat surprising when it is realised that the cost of the building works only of a large modern power station, excluding coal and ash handling facilities, condensing water
system, and external subsidiaries, may be a proportion of the order of some 20 per cent. to 25 per cent. of the total cost of the station completely equipped with plant.
Arthur Creswell Dean