Name of File 4164-60-09.pdf cached at 12/12/2017 18:04:13 - with 2 pages. pdfPath: E:\k9.istructe.org\CMS\webtest\files\81\8187f7b6-cc6e-40e5-8140-2d2c929d9ddc.pdf. thumbPath: E:\k9.istructe.org\CMS\webtest\files\pdfthumbs\8187f7b6-cc6e-40e5-8140-2d2c929d9ddc_1.png. objDoc: 1 - True. objPreview.Log: . strFileName: 8187f7b6-cc6e-40e5-8140-2d2c929d9ddc_1.png

Members/subscribers must be logged in to view this article

Verulam

CP3: Chapter V: Part 2: 1972 A letter from Mr D. J, Ascough covered a number of points that have been aired in previous issues. In June 1982 this column set out three of the examples he presented to show that it is possible to build an unsafe building and comply with traditional Codes of Practice. His fourth example was set out thus: Although by no means as serious as the previous examples, the discrepancies in CP 3: ChV: 1972 deserve wider publicity. Depending on whether they are obtained from Table 10 or are taken as the aggregate of Cpe from Table 7, the wind forces used for the design of a frame can vary by 20 % without extrapolation, and more if Table 7 values are extrapolated. This is an unsatisfactory state of affairs! Are designs based on Table 7 unsafe, or those on Table 10 ultraconservative? Verulam