The 1st International Oleg Kerensky Memorial Conference - on tension structures - has been arranged as a tribute to the late Dr Kerensky. It is intended to hold a memorial Conference every two years.
Structural Codes of Practice and their supporting standards have been used by structural engineers in the design and specification of structures for many years. The Codes have evolved and become more comprehensive over the years in response to developments in technology. Important stages in the evolution of UK Codes were reached when the original premissible stress Codes-CP 114, CP 115, CP 116, BS 153, and BS 449-were issued and more recently with the issue of the successor limit state Codes, CP 110 and BS 5950. The evolution of UK Codes towards a limit state basis reflects a worldwide trend. It has been accompanied by much debate in the UK among structural engineers, many of whom have expressed concern about the ease of use of the new documents for everyday structural design.
Dr. T. M. Roberts (M) (University College, Cardiff): The authors are to be congratulated for continuing to provide detailed experimental data on the structural performance of reinforced concrete beams, strengthened by epoxy-bonded steel plates. However, I wish to draw attention to what I believe to be an erroneous conclusion, based on an oversimplistic elastic analysis, that ‘theoretical stresses based on simple elastic theory bear no consistent relationship to the measurement values’.
As a one-time member of Oleg Kerensky’ staff and later one of his Partners (now retired), I was honoured and delighted by the invitation to provide the introduction to this conference. B.P. Wex
To have been invited to pay a tribute to Oleg Kerensky at this, the first Memorial Conference, is an honour indeed. It is an honour which I had no hesitation in accepting, save to the extent that I felt I might not be able to do full justice to it. Oleg Kerensky’s ability as an engineer in the great schemes in which he played a leading role was ever matched by a generous acknowledgement on his part of the roles and skills of others. The breadth of his perception of what was involved for him in service to his profession was matched by a facility to communicate his enthusiasm and sense of high purpose to those working with him and under him. Great forcefulness of character, taking pride in high achievement, was matched by a true humility. Professor M.R. Horne
A conference was held on 12-13 May 1988, at Britannic House in London, to discuss the revised version of the report Soil-structure interaction. The report, by a most distinguished committee, was sponsored by the Institution in collaboration with ICE and IABSE. By coincidence the conference marked the 17th anniversary of the formation of the Informal Study Group set up to review the phenomenon. This group was responsible for the 1978 report, and the work of the second has followed an earlier conference at the same venue in 1984. 120 delegates attended, and there were 65 discussion contributions from the floor.
Storm damage The 5 January issue of Structural News contained a report of a discussion held at the Institution on the damage caused in south-east England by the storm of 16 October last. Reported conclusions were that ‘engineered structures withstood the effects of the storm with little or no primary damage’ and that ‘modern structures designed using the Code’ (CP3: Chap V: Part 2: 1972) ’behaved well when properly constructed’. In our issue of 15 March, Mr L. Metter argued that the latter conclusion was misleading, since the survival of structures designed to the 1952 wind Code showed that the more demanding 1972 Code is ‘both onerous and incorrect’. John Mayne, of the Building Research Station, cautions against necessarily drawing such a conclusion: While Mr Metter is undoubtedly correct when he states that the October storm tested many buildings designed to the 1952 wind loading Code, as well as the 1972 Code, the corollary, in his last paragraph, that this lends ‘further weight to the view generally held by practising engineers that the 1972 Code in respect of wind loading is both onerous and incorrect’ is not valid. His letter betrays a misunderstanding of the way in which codified design procedures contribute to overall levels of structural safety. Verulam