The Structural Engineer > Archive > Volume 65 (1987) > Issues > Issue 2 > The Case for Voting 'Yes'
Name of File 4967-65-02.pdf cached at 16/12/2017 20:51:51 - with 2 pages. pdfPath: E:\k9.istructe.org\CMS\webtest\files\0f\0f4c097a-5fed-4240-a80a-b1f806993068.pdf. thumbPath: E:\k9.istructe.org\CMS\webtest\files\pdfthumbs\0f4c097a-5fed-4240-a80a-b1f806993068_1.png. objDoc: 1 - True. objPreview.Log: . strFileName: 0f4c097a-5fed-4240-a80a-b1f806993068_1.png

Members/subscribers must be logged in to view this article

The Case for Voting 'Yes'

Since 1972, our profession has been divided over Codes of Practice between those who favour ‘limit state’ Codes based on partial safety factors, such as CP110, and those who prefer permissible stress Codes such as CP114. Today the argument about the merits of the two methods is no nearer resolution; CPl14 is still preferred by many engineers and is widely used, whereas the new partial factor Codes for masonry and steel (BS5628 and BS5950) are raising as much controversy in those fields as CPllO did in the field of concrete. It is not only structural engineers who question the philosophy of partial factors-civil and municipal engineers have strongly supported moves to retain permissible stress Codes, and their interests must not be forgotten.