The Structural Engineer > Archive > Volume 68 (1990) > Issues > Issue 4 > Correspondence on British Standards in Theory and Practice by D.W. Brown, Professor F. K. Kong, Dr.
Name of File 5290-68-04.pdf cached at 12/12/2017 08:43:01 - with 1 pages. pdfPath: E:\k9.istructe.org\CMS\webtest\files\86\862080c2-6011-4785-b0af-322ff5d04b2b.pdf. thumbPath: E:\k9.istructe.org\CMS\webtest\files\pdfthumbs\862080c2-6011-4785-b0af-322ff5d04b2b_1.png. objDoc: 1 - True. objPreview.Log: . strFileName: 862080c2-6011-4785-b0af-322ff5d04b2b_1.png

Members/subscribers must be logged in to view this article

Correspondence on British Standards in Theory and Practice by D.W. Brown, Professor F. K. Kong, Dr. D.R. Plum and Dr. G.B. Watersworth

Mr A. C. G. Hayward (F) (Cass Hayward & Partners) The authors argue the pros and cons of permissible stress or limit state Codes and note that designs compare closely. This, of course, was a deliberate policy when the limit state Codes were written, the values of partial factor being fixed so that the overall safety of common structures under the then prevalent loading remained the same. Thus, the changed philosophy of the new Codes would at least start from a common base of experience. When the loading is changed (e.g. resulting from the recent increase in highway bridge loading discussed by the authors), differences in designs under the Codes may become evident.