Author: Markland, E
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
In this paper, it is assumed that the shear stiffness of a panel can be taken as distributed uniformly along the strut. "Secant" type formula (I), (2), (3) and (4)
provide the crippling load of a strut with light shear bracing for the simpler case of equal eccentricities of end load; formulae (I), (4), (5) and (6) deal with the more general case of different end eccentricities and a uniform transverse loading. These formulae differ from those for a strut with heavy shear bracing only in an extra term incorporating the shear stiffness. Expressions for shear stiffness of the usual forms of light shear bracing, such as lattice bracing, with and without posts, and batten bracing with equal and unequal chords, are given by formulae (7) to (12).
In presenting the paper, the author said that in arbitrations relating to building contracts the issues might be wholly legal, wholly technical, or partly legal and partly technical. With regard to the first, he was doubtful whether the dispute ought to be referred to arbitration at all. It could probably be settled much better in the Courts. If it were referred to arbitration the arbitrator should be a lawyer. It was equally certain that when the matters in dispute were wholly technical, the arbitrator should be a technical man, and it was of the utmost importance that he should be appointed as soon as possible after the dispute arose. This was specially important when any kind of structural failure or defect was involved, for the arbitrator could
then form his own opinion, from actual inspection, and examination of the facts, and would often be able to reach his decision without further evidence.