Author: Nethercot, D A;Trahair, N S
N/A
Standard: £10 + VATMembers/Subscribers: Free
Members/Subscribers, log in to access
Nethercot, D A;Trahair, N S
The Structural Engineer, Volume 54, Issue 6, 1976
The subject of responsibility for and the checking of designs continues to draw comment. In earlier columns we asked to hear of their experience from engineers in commercial firms and also from consulting engineers who check submitted designs on behalf of authorities. As a chartered engineer working in the former situation Mr. M. T. Ely writes: I do not wish to enter into the arguments regarding responsibility and liability in the preparation and checking of designs and calculations; suffice to say that as a chartered engineer, working for a commercial firm, I consider myself responsible for my own designs. Heaven forbid the day should come when a checking engineer insists on a change in my design or calculations which I consider to be unnecessary or downright wrong simply to satisfy his own ideas! Verulam
The paper discusses the interpretation of the results of static penetration tests in terms of the geological structure and traditional theory together with the evaluation of the ultimate base and shaft resistances of driven piles from measured cone resistances. S. Thorburn
Published below are the Institution's principal comments to the Health and Safety Commission upon the various recommendations to the Government Advisory Committee on Falsework: Final Report which was published in February last and can be obtained from HMSO, price £2 net (see The Structural Engineer, March 1976, page 86). The text of the extensive detailed comments submitted to the Commission may be obtained upon application to the Secretary at 11 Upper Belgrave Street, London SWlX 8BH; members should enclose a stamped addressed A5 envelope.