The Structural Engineer > Archive > Volume 48 (1970) > Issues > Issue 8 > Discussion on Dimensional Co-ordination for Metric Structures by P.B. Edwards
Name of File 3223-48-08.pdf cached at 26/04/2019 11:08:55 - with 4 pages. pdfPath: E:\\CMS\webtest\files\f1\f1323b34-083b-48bd-8feb-a0ddaf308fe9.pdf. thumbPath: E:\\CMS\webtest\files\pdfthumbs\f1323b34-083b-48bd-8feb-a0ddaf308fe9_1.png. objDoc: 1 - True. objPreview.Log: . strFileName: f1323b34-083b-48bd-8feb-a0ddaf308fe9_1.png

Members/subscribers must be logged in to view this article

Discussion on Dimensional Co-ordination for Metric Structures by P.B. Edwards

Mr. V. L. Cox: ‘A thing that worries me about materials or manufactured components and not the heavy items which seem to be required for your particular designs, is that if you look at the joints, you get down to a work size of 590 mm plus or minus two millimetres. This you have developed through your designing and through the requirements of the architect. If you look at the booklet that you have now, you will see that sheet sizes are, in fact, 600 mm wide. The whole idea of dimensional co- ordination is that you can use standard products and immediately you prove that 600 mm is not a necessary size. In fact it is too big and it has, therefore, to be cut and that involves additional expense. This does not relate to precast concrete and similar components, but it does relate to a large number of light panels. So we have had an argument for dimensional co-ordination and you have successfully proved that it is nonsense as far as the manufacture of sheets is concerned. This, I do not believe to be true, but it does present a series of rather worrying possibilities for the manufacture of sheets and for the manufacture of a number of lightweight cladding components. I am not putting a question because I do not think there is a question. It is just a statement of fact.’