N/A
Standard: £10 + VATMembers/Subscribers: Free
Members/Subscribers, log in to access
The Structural Engineer, Volume 58, Issue 5, 1980
Everyone is entitled to be, and generally is, incensed when misquoted; Mr Beal is admirably restrained in drawing attention to our carelessness. He writes: An error seems to have crept into my letter on limit-state design as it appeared in print (February 1980). Towards the end of the third paragraph, it reads, ‘Assuming no one wishes to build a structure composed solely of either dead load or secondary dead load’ . . ., which might seem a slightly odd statement. It should have read, ‘Assuming no one wishes to build a structure composed solely of either live load or secondary dead load, . . .’ Verulam
In its comment to the Department of Industry on the recommendations of Engineering our future-the report of the Deportmental Inquiry under the Chairmanship of Sir Monty Finniston-the Council of the Institution, in concert with the Institutions of Civil and Municipal Engineers, said that to establish a new Engineering Authority, as proposed, to monitor education and training and to register professional engineers in the United Kingdom was wholly misconceived and dangerous. Control of such matters should be left in the hands of the engineering profession.
A Code of Practice for bridges (BS 5400) is currently being written, and those parts of the Code that relate to concrete bridges have been published. The purpose of this paper is to give the background to the Code clauses that are concerned with crack control in concrete bridges. Particular emphasis is given to certain clauses that do not appear in the current building Code because they are concerned with structural forms or stress situations that occur in bridges but not in buildings, e.g. reinforcement not perpendicular to cracks, and deep voided slabs. Where appropriate, the Code clauses and their implications are compared with present bridge design practice. L.A. Clark and G. Elliott