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
This Guidance Note published by the authority of the Council of the Institution is one of the series published from time to time as a reminder of the standards of courtesy and responsibility which members are required to observe at all times. Guidance Notes Nos. l and 2 dealing with Informative Publicity and the General responsibility of members when called upon to check or appraise the work of another structural engineer, first published in August and September 1973 are repeated from time to time. They appeared in The Structural Engineer, May 1978, pages 154 and 155.
We had expected that the Finniston enquiry and the controversy which surrounds it and
indeed preceded it would become a matter for discussion in this column; Mr. S. B. Tietz takes up the subject when he writes: The evidence by the Institution of Structural Engineers to the Finniston Inquiry is encouraging in its support for technical and individual freedom. Unfortunately some of the bigger Institutions and in particular the Electrical Engineers are favouring various restrictive practices and are going to some lengths to canvass su~aort for such ideas. At a recent meeting they brought Registrars from the USA, Canada and South Africa to explain the way registration worked in these countries. The summaries were of great interest even if a little light on some of the disadvantages of registration.
Designers can conveniently be divided into two camps, those who believe that structures are inherently 'better’if they are designed using the maximum possible rigour and those who do not. The latter believe that the difference between the predictions of the most sophisticated analytical model and the behaviour of a real structure is such that simple methods of design are just as good, if not preferable.
A.W. Beeby and H.P.J. Taylor