The Structural Engineer > Archive > Volume 58 (1980) > Issues > Issue 5 > Discussion on Aspects of Alterations and Rehabilitation by R.L. Mills, G. Spyer, D.W. Insall, R.M. S
Name of File 3996-58-05.pdf cached at 17/12/2017 14:08:05 - with 10 pages. pdfPath: E:\k9.istructe.org\CMS\webtest\files\d5\d53d9c43-c8af-455a-a72e-f46619725ea1.pdf. thumbPath: E:\k9.istructe.org\CMS\webtest\files\pdfthumbs\d53d9c43-c8af-455a-a72e-f46619725ea1_1.png. objDoc: 1 - True. objPreview.Log: . strFileName: d53d9c43-c8af-455a-a72e-f46619725ea1_1.png

Members/subscribers must be logged in to view this article

Discussion on Aspects of Alterations and Rehabilitation by R.L. Mills, G. Spyer, D.W. Insall, R.M. Silber

Mr. S. B. Tietz (F): I should like to deal with a few random problems that I have encountered on rehabilitation jobs. The purpose of old buildings usually changes when they are modified, and the structures have to be adapted to the new use and, sometimes, to changes of volumes. Often the building elevations are also schedules. Materials tailored to one use may not happily adapt to changing loads, spans, and the requirements of building regulations. Furthermore, materials may have deteriorated with age or may be so hidden that deterioration is difficult to establish. Large numbers of regulations under planning, public health, or other statutory requirements, have to be complied with, or circumvented in a manner meeting the approval of enforcement officers. The problems would be less intractable if design engineers could be the arbiters of what is structurally sensible and what is structurally less sensible. More often one has to find the lowest common denominator of acceptability.