Rules of Conduct as Revised October 1972. Guidance note No. 3 Procedure When Conducting Consultation
Date published

N/A

First published: N/A

Price

Standard: £9 + VAT
Members/Subscribers: Free

Buy Now

Added to basket

Back to Previous

Rules of Conduct as Revised October 1972. Guidance note No. 3 Procedure When Conducting Consultation

The Structural Engineer
Rules of Conduct as Revised October 1972. Guidance note No. 3 Procedure When Conducting Consultation
Date published

N/A

First published

N/A

Price

Standard: £9 + VAT
Members/Subscribers: Free

Buy Now

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.

Additional information

Format:
PDF
Publisher:
The Institution of Structural Engineers

Tags

Opinion Issue 8

Related Resources & Events

The Structural Engineer
Correspondence on A Limit State Design Method for the Tension Region of Bolted Beam-Column Connectio

Correspondence on A Limit State Design Method for the Tension Region of Bolted Beam-Column Connectio

The authors' examination of end plate connections, with particular reference to thin column flanges, provides reassuring evidence of the ductility of such connections, albeit with some loss of strength. The criteria adopted for assessing the yield moment in the tests seem unduly conservative when one considers the well-formed plateaux of the moment-rotation curves. For double beam connections in a multi-storey frame, it would not be unreasonable to anticipate hinge rotations of the order of 30 x 10-3 radian and on this basis J1 almost qualifies as a full-strength connection instead of the half-strength assessment applied by the authors. J.O. Surtees, J.H. Howlett and R.C. Hairsine

Price - £9
The Structural Engineer
Verulam

Verulam

Finniston 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. Verulam

Price - £9
The Structural Engineer
The Use of Simplified Methods in CP110 - is Rigour Necessary?

The Use of Simplified Methods in CP110 - is Rigour Necessary?

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

Price - £9