Correspondence on Plate Separation and Anchorage of Reinforced Concrete Beams Strengthened Epoxy-Bon

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

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.

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