N/A
Standard: £10 + VATMembers/Subscribers: Free
Members/Subscribers, log in to access
The Structural Engineer, Volume 60, Issue 8, 1982
CP 110 For the design of flexural members, it is normally necessary to make use of the charts contained in Part 2 of this Code. For those engineers who prefer to use their own calculations rather than charts provided, here is a method suggested by Mr N. Thurgood: To design a beam or slab to CP 110 one has to refer to one of the 42 charts of Part 2 or use the formulae in clause 3.3.5.3, usually using a chart to find the lever arm, z. Verulam
Mr S. B. Tietz (F): The authors are to be congratulated on a most interesting paper, and their suggestion regarding categorisation of cracks deserves wide support. I agree that a great deal of remedial work has been carried out on buildings that never needed them, and this must ultimately reflect in house prices, the cost of insurance, and misplaced resources. We have been quoted some figures for the annual cost of such repairs. Some much higher figures-over ten times the figure quoted-have been put forward for claims outstanding. This is not quite the same as sums actually paid out, as some of the claims may never materialise in full, but nevertheless it would suggest that the scale of the problem could be greater. Also, mortgages are increasingly hard to find for cracked property even if an engineer has been courageous, or occasionally foolish enough, to state that the cracks are not significant. This is doubly unfortunate, as many such cracks are not even connected to foundation damage. An engineer’s opinion will carry more weight if insurers and owners are ready to accept from measurable evidence that certain damage is not unduly significant.
Mr V. Mosca (Pauling & Co. Ltd.): I should like to ask the authors how one sets design life, i.e. how does one convince the client that his class 3 building will not necessarily collapse after 10 years?