Author: Jackson, P
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
Professor A. L. L. Baker (Member) opened the discussion by saying that he agreed entirely with what the authors had said in their presentation but not with what they
had written in the paper. He agreed with the statistical, probabilistic approach. It was obviously the only logical way of dealing with the variations of strengths of materials and the variations and vagaries of loading. There were one or two points in the paper which Professor Baker found slightly misleading. First of all, the matter of basing a design entirely upon a probability of failure-10-7-and a minimum cost, and saying that one could not entirely guarantee a structure against failure, needed some qualification. He thought this was rather a dangerous statement.
(As Dr. Sarkar was unable to be present, Professor Evans was supported in his presentation of the paper by Mr. M. G. A. Khalil.)
Mr. L. F. Gliniecki (Associate-Member) asked whether a beam reinforced with mild steel would develop the same pattern of cracking as a beam reinforced with high tensile
Dr. A. J. Dutt (Senior Engineer, Special Structures, Greater London Council) said the London Museum Radio Tower-the tallest in this country-was one of the nicest buildings, and a centre of tourist attraction, not only from the point of view of functional requirements but also from the architectural point of view. Proper assessment of wind loading was one of the principal structural design considerations for these towers and
Dr. Dutt wanted to raise a few points on that aspect.