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
The next British Code of Practice for composite structures in buildings, now in preparation, will not include composite columns. A simplified design method for such columns, originally developed for the draft for public comment of this Code, has been revised to take account of subsequent work and the publication of BS 5400: Part 5. This method and other recommendations on composite columns for buildings are now presented in Code form, with explanations, comparisons with other methods, and a worked example.
R.P. Johnson and D.G.E. Smith
Mr. Peter Mason (Past President): The subject of this paper is, of course, fascinating-experiences that we have all had, but that we do not normally attempt to analyse or put into graph form. In Table 3 the author shows relative accelerations for different sets of circumstances. Particularly interesting to me were those for earthquakes-something like 45 m/s to the power 2-and those for a fairground machine, which were also up to 45 m/s to the power 2. Yet the human reaction to these experiences was completely different-the reaction to one being horror and, to the other, pleasure. I wonder what is the mechanistic explanation. Is there a factor in the earthquake motion additional to that of the machine? Is there, indeed, some factor of which we are unaware (or possibly do not recognise) that is additional to the normal accelerations and movements that can be measured in three dimensions? Or do these reactions differ so widely because of the psychological pressures of being in a red danger situation as compared with being in a simulated one-even though (or perhaps because of the fact that) the simulated situation often does contain an element of real danger?
In February, when discussing snow loads, we suggested that it was difficult to believe that a committee had intended the permitted reductions in loading, allowed where large areas were supported, to be applied to snow loading. We also speculated that in commenting thus we might well be inviting yet another correction; and so indeed, up to a point, we were. Mr J. C. Thomson's letter arrived just too late for the February
column. He comments: I was intrigued to read Mr W. G. Ellis’ comments on the ‘large area’ reductions in roof super loading that he has encountered in his checking activities ( Verulam, November 1979).