Issue 8

The following note has been prepared by Mr. T. N. W. Akroyd, MScTech, LLB(Hons), CEng, FIStructE. MICE (Vice-President), who appeared as an expert witness for the London Borough of Merton when the claim was heard for damages and consequential loss arising from subsidence damage at the block of flats in South West London. In the event, as readers may recall, the parties settled the case out of Court. Mr. Akroyd's review emphasises again the responsibilities of the chartered structural engineer. They have always been onerous; recent cases have neither added to nor subtracted from them.

The main features of the design and construction of a copper refinery tankhouse are described. A brief account is given of design and construction considerations in overcoming problems associated with a 65 m clear span roof arch subjected to a corrosive, acidic environment, situated in northern Ontario, Canada. V. R. Dunham and R. M. Chalasani

The term 'permissible stress' used in CP 1 14 describes a number that is defined by that Code and that, when used in formulae specified therein, defines a limit to the recommended service load for the element under consideration. It does not purport to correspond to the actual stress expected to occur in the element when subjected to the deduced value of service load, and any detailed consideration of the means by which this number was selected should show that it cannot be expected to do so in a material as complex as reinforced concrete. A.J. Tanner

Mr. D. R. R. Dick (Past President): In 1940, when the Ministry of Works requisitioned Queen Anne's Mansions for the Admiralty, I was the structural engineer heading up the team resgonsible for maintenance in Central London. The maintenance surveyor asked me to go along there and give some guidance as to their structural soundness. I was therefore responsible for the figures that you quoted concerning floor loads and strengths-but I did not do them in kilonewtons!

In dealing with the development of science and technology, historians are interested in identifying original idea5 or concepts and their subsequent diffusion and elaboration as well as in biographical information on famous scientists and engineers. From Samuel Smiles to L T. C. Rolt the biographical tradition has been a popular and powerful influence on the history of technology. This approach has tended to produce history on the heroic scale with little emphasis on the development and interchange of ideas or the continuity of technological change. On the other hand, an economic historian might well view certain aspects of the Industrial Revolution without more than a mention of those engineers responsible for particular technological developments. For example, one could view the history of the steam engine in terms of the number of units produced, their geographical distribution and resulting influence on the expansion of the factory system. This paper, however, is concerned with the ideas and leading engineers behind the development of the modern suspension bridge. E.L. Kemp

A compliment and a complaint Mr. J. N. Barber has this to say about the journal and about certain observations in the Annual Report (April 1979): As an outsider who is nevertheless fortunate enough to see The Structural Engineer regularly, may I assure you that the present format and content of your journal is far superior to the fare served up in other places. Verulam