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. DEANE said he was sure they all felt very much indebted to Mr. Leverton for his extremely interesting paper and for the very excellent slides that had been thrown upon the screen. The subject was one in which the structural engineer was very much concerned, and although those present might not agree with all Mr. Leverton had said, they had been given a great deal of food for thought, which it was to be hoped would result in years to come in some developments of the treatment of concrete. There were one or two points to which he (Mr. Deane) would like to refer to specifically before formally moving the resolution for a vote of thanks. The first of these was the suggestion about the employment of the architect to adorn the engineer's structure. As he had said before, this was not a question of engineer versus architect or architect versus engineer, but it was the artist in engineer or architect who determined the beauty of the structure. Engineers were not supposed to be artists, but they sometimes got off their pedestal, and descended, if he might so express it, to become producers of the beautiful. Mr. Leverton had shown in the slides some very interesting examples of colonnades where it had been necessary to brace interior arches by metal rods, but the appearance of an interior arch supported on the outside by a single column which had no buttress to it was a most unsatisfactory thing. The Author in his paper said,
"The piers under the central tower of a church, for instance, they occupy the most valuable art of the space, therefore must not be an inch larger than necessary. The tower is not seen from the inside, so there is no question of satisfying the eye." He (Mr. Deane) ventured to think that although there was no question of satisfying the eye, one must not forget the imagination which led one to suppose there would be some considerable weight resting on to those columns. He did not agree with the remarks in regard to the reproduction of half-timber structures, such as Staple Inn, which had been shown on the slides-for this was slavish copying of what had been forced on their predecessors by circumstances. Possibly what Mr. Leverton meant was what he had rather emphasised later on, that the use of the corbel presented valuable ideas for the evelopment of structures in reinforced concrete. He had very much pleasure in moving a vote of thanks to Mr. Leverton for the very excellent and interesting paper that had been given.
Sir,-After reading Mr. Lloyd’s valuable paper and noting the extreme care with which the tests are conducted, it is a little disappointing to find that in common with other investigators he gets some freak results such as 10 of series 3, Table No. 6. The relatively high values of 11 and 12 of Series No. 4, Table No. 5, seem to go with relatively high weights of the blocks, but the low value of 7 Series 1 Table No. 5 also goes with a relatively high weight, so that it does not appear that an explanation can be sought in the density of the blocks.
There are, obviously, two ways of treating the material wholse appearance we are to discuss. The first, usual, and wrong way, is to case it with brick, stolne, or terra cotta. An unsatisfactory example of casing, or rather, marking, is Sir Reginald Blomfield’s design for Lambeth Bridge. “The gods nod sometimes.” Professor Beresford Pite denounced it in the “ Times, ” and crossing pens with Sir Reginald, completely disarmed him.