Issue 10

Interest in the architecture and engineering of new industrial buildings continues to grow. Underlying the design of Cummins' latest diesel engine factory was a vigorous search for a natural and clear architectural expression of its many functions. This involved the orchestration of a large multidisciplinary design team. Generous flexibility of layout, rigorous planning for structurehervices integration, consistent structural detailing, and concern for progressive collapse, all sffected the design, which is described here from the structural engineer's point of view. P.B. Higson and R. Hough

Mr B. F. Edbrooke (Department of Transport): The authors have given us an excellent presentation on the design and construction of an outstanding piece of engineering. The design is both imaginative in concept-reflecting the pseudo-classical outline of the older bridge alongside-and elegant in its setting at this historic site across the River Thames at Runnymede. I should like to make some reference to the bridge in the context of the road. The bridge is one of the many pieces of the jigsaw which, when fitted together, will comprise the London Orbital Road M25, totalling some 120 miles in length and costing approximately £600M. Subject to the satisfactory completion of the statutory procedures, the south-west quadrant from the new access to Heathrow to Reigate should be completed in 1984. carriageway for M25 and a two-lane

‘The papers I marked ranged from reasonable to lousy. Written discussions were poor and in the design part of the questions there was too much analytical arithmetic, not enough engineering. This wastes the time of the candidate who thereafter makes a poor showing in all other sections of the chosen question. . . ’. This extract from the post-examination report of one of the examiners for the Institution Part 3 (Membership) examination in April 1981 summarises the general reaction of all of his examiner-colleagues-and echos the plaints of examiners past.

The first part of this paper indicates the principal differences between BS 5628: Part 1: 1978: The structural use of masonry and CP 111: 1970: Structural recommendations for loadbearing walls, and outlines the reasons behind the changes. They are essentially a combination of experience of the performance of buildings in service and new research data. The second part describes the assessment made during the final stage of drafting to ensure that the document was operationally satisfactory and that it provided suitably safe designs by comparison with existing practice. B.A. Haseltine and J.F.A. Moore

Quality of steel There has been some correspondence in this column concerning the variability of the strength of structural and rein forcing steel. Mr G. T. Collett takes the opportunity to point out another type of variation in quality: Regarding the quality of structural steel, I feel duty bound to warn other members of our recent experience. Remedial work to a school in Corby involved the installation of a pair of steel beams and stanchions to support a sagging reinforced concrete roof. The beam section specified was 610 x 305 x 149 kg UB and the span approximately 10.5 m. Verulam