Tag
Author
Date published
Price

Contents page

The Structural Engineer

This paper describes a method for direct design of singly reinforced rectangular concrete members, to simultaneously satisfy the ultimate limit state of bending and the serviceability state of deflection. J.M. Golding

The Structural Engineer

Most human endeavour entails some degree of risk. Such risk may be commercial, can relate to meeting or failing to meet a programme or performance criteria, or may concern safety considerations, i.e. risks to life or health. S.B. Tietz

The Structural Engineer

The use of 'stainless steels' to withstand corrosive environments is well established in many constructional applications involving loadbearing components. It would appear, however, that structural engineers are frequently not well informed about the nature and properties of these materials. The generic term, stainless steel, is actually used to describe a wide range of alloys, based on iron with controlled proportions of chromium and usually other elements such as nickel and molybdenum. Their properties vary considerably with composition and it is unfortunate that the epithet 'stainless' has sometimes been interpreted too literally. It should be recognised that the corrosion resistance of these alloys is dependent on the integrity of an invisibly thin surface film of oxide and, in circumstances that cause this protective layer to be undermined, various forms of localised attack may develop. C.L. Page and R.D. Anchor

The Structural Engineer

The use of raft foundations in the UK has led to a general adoption of the type, similar to the example shown in Fig 1. These usually incorporate stiffened 'edge' beams with a total foundation depth of approximately 600mm. This is an ideal solution for highly compressible, frost susceptible soils but, in more favourable soil conditions, a more economic solution might be found. J. O'Rourke and A. Robinson

The Structural Engineer

Design for wind loading Readers may remember our earlier correspondence arising from the discussion which took place at the Institution following the damage observed to have been done (and not done!) to buildings as a result of the storm of 14 October 1987. During that discussion, it had been commented that, despite the widespread occurrence then of wind speeds corresponding to a return period of 200 years, little or no primary damage had been suffered by ‘engineered structures’. In our issue of 15 March, Mr L. Metter pointed out that many of those structures had been designed using the 1952 Code, using loading less onerous than that introduced into CP3: Chap. V: Part 2: Wind loading in 1972, and from this he drew the conclusion that the wind loading called for in the later Code was ‘both onerous and incorrect’. To this, John Mayne of the Building Research Station responded on 21 June, cautioning against such a conclusion being drawn because of the uncertain division of the global safety factor between loading and the many other uncertainties for which it allowed. We ourselves and a later correspondent (Adrian Warburton on 16 August) remained unconvinced about the lessons to be drawn, and we are pleased that Barry Haseltine now draws our attention to a further assessment in a new report from BRE: Verulam