Name of File 5129-66-08.pdf cached at 20/03/2019 10:00:13 - with 2 pages. pdfPath: E:\\CMS\webtest\files\87\8748950f-f283-4fd0-8220-fec7e9822b30.pdf. thumbPath: E:\\CMS\webtest\files\pdfthumbs\8748950f-f283-4fd0-8220-fec7e9822b30_1.png. objDoc: 1 - True. objPreview.Log: . strFileName: 8748950f-f283-4fd0-8220-fec7e9822b30_1.png

Members/subscribers must be logged in to view this article


Storm damage In our June column, John Mayne, of the Building Research Station, argued against the validity of Mr L. Metter ’s thesis, contained in our March column, that the survival of structures designed to the I952 wind Code had shown the I972 Code to be ‘both onerous and incorrect’. Dr. Mayne quoted the ‘regular crop of damage to cladding and fixings occurring with every wind stronger than the most moderate’ as vindicating the pressures given in the 1972 Code. Mr Adrian Warburton now describes his experience in assessing the reasons for failure due to the storm of last October: After a night of lost sleep, and without communication until midday of Friday 16 October, it was with some trepidation that I returned to work. However, in the following (busy) weeks my surveys of damaged structures were interesting but, frankly, disappointing. While I was sympathetic with owners, problems were invariably the result of mechanical damage or of some glaring construction weakness, caused by either faulty workmanship or lack of maintenance. Verulam