Name of File 4726-62-08.pdf cached at 16/12/2017 13:02:46 - with 3 pages. pdfPath: E:\k9.istructe.org\CMS\webtest\files\95\955d327b-a59d-42b9-b31c-316d253b1382.pdf. thumbPath: E:\k9.istructe.org\CMS\webtest\files\pdfthumbs\955d327b-a59d-42b9-b31c-316d253b1382_1.png. objDoc: 1 - True. objPreview.Log: . strFileName: 955d327b-a59d-42b9-b31c-316d253b1382_1.png

Members/subscribers must be logged in to view this article

Verulam

Structural masonry In April, we sought our readers’ views on what Mr T. J. Dishman described as an anomaly in BS 5628: Part 1: 1978, Code of Practice for the use of masonry (unreinforced). He noted that the design moment of resistance of a vertically spanning wall according to clause 36.4 was higher when using a low strength block manufactured with ‘special control’ than when using a higher strength block manufactured with ‘normal control’. Mr A. N. Beal of Leeds has followed up this point and has now drawn our attention to what he regards as a curious feature of clause 36.8. He writes: I can only point out that Mr Dishman has added another interesting example to the list of ‘anomalies’ in limit state Codes which is getting worryingly long and which seems to stem directly from errors and confusion at the heart of limit state theory. Verulam