Name of File 3742-55-09.pdf cached at 18/12/2017 03:24:36 - with 3 pages. pdfPath: E:\k9.istructe.org\CMS\webtest\files\e0\e0ae6ffc-74a8-4bb2-8606-1634f8142129.pdf. thumbPath: E:\k9.istructe.org\CMS\webtest\files\pdfthumbs\e0ae6ffc-74a8-4bb2-8606-1634f8142129_1.png. objDoc: 1 - True. objPreview.Log: . strFileName: e0ae6ffc-74a8-4bb2-8606-1634f8142129_1.png

Members/subscribers must be logged in to view this article

Verulam

Last month this column passed on some interesting data and comment from Mr. F. D. Beresford ; he suggested that the assumed increase in strength of concrete over the years might be somewhat dubious and recommended the adoption of the 28 day value for design. Mr. Gordon Rose who initiated the discussion (February 77) returns to the subject, if not in the same vein, certainly with the same object. He writes: I would indeed prefer to respond to Mr. Murphy on the subject of longterm ageing rather than pursue the matter of cube/core; except to say that one could write a book mentioning all those who claim that 8 m is there to cover their particular deficiencies. (Come to think of it, I have written a book on it!). Verulam