The following is the text of the ‘Toast to the Institution’ made by Lord Flowers, FRS, Rector of Imperial College, on the occasion of the 75th Anniversary Banquet at the Guildhall in the City of London on 1O May 1984. President, My Lords, Your Munificence - I mean the Chairman of the University Grants Committee - Ladies and Gentlemen: We all like to celebrate anniversaries, and as many of them as possible, preferably all at once. If my calculations serve me well, I make out that this is the 75th anniversary of the founding of the Concrete Institute, the 62nd anniversary of its first calling itself The Institution of Structural Engineers, the 60th anniversary of the first publication of The Structural Engineer, and the 50th anniversary of the granting of the Royal Charter.
I read Professor MacLeod’s ‘Viewpoint’ with great interest and, while agreeing generally with his views, would like to add one or two comments concerning the causes of cracking in masonry. Mr. William Skinner
This paper describes one of the authors’ developments in ‘engineered’ masonry construction-the fin wall. The structural form of the fin wall is described and its development for use in tall, single-storey buildings detailed. Present uses, advantages, and potential future applications, are outlined, in particular the present and future use of the post-tensioned masonry fin. The theoretical and structural design considerations are discussed and the need for engineering research is highlighted. W.G. Curtin, G. Shaw, J.K. Beck and G.I. Parkinson
Author’s introduction: I think that the Institution is to be congratulated on its choice of subject for discussion in January 1984. (At the same time I apologise for my crack in the last line of the introductory note; I had no idea that the BBC would go overboard with their programmes about George Orwell.)
The consumer protection legislation of the past few years appears to have led to an increase in claims for redress for faulty building design or construction. No doubt, many of them are settled privately, but it appears that there is also an increase in litigation to deal with those cases where the differences cannot be resolved so easily. A.R. Mackay
Design of multistorey framed buildings The correspondence stimulated by the letter from Mr B. Deakin, published in March with some comments from Mr F. H. Needham, was so heavy that we have had to carry over some of the letters from last month. Mr Deakin queried the validity of the method of frame design in which it is assumed that beams are simplay supported when carrying vertical loads while beam-to-column connections resist wind moments; Mr. Needham described the method as anachronistic. Now Mr B. S. Williams, writing ,from Cranleigh in Surrey, endorses Mr Deakin's views: I do not think the use of the ‘traditional design method’ is as rare as Mr Needham would have us believe. I understand that this method is still on the curricula of some structural engineering courses, which must mean there are still young engineers who have been taught that the method is acceptable. Mr Needham does not recommend the adoption of the ‘traditional design method’ which he thinks is anachronistic. Surely, as Constrado’s chief engineer, he should be positive and condemn a method which, he implies, uses assumptions that are incompatible with the actual behaviour of the structure. Verulam