Codes and Commerce

BS 8002 Earth retaining structures There has already been extensive correspondence ( The Structural Engineer, 21 February 1995, Vol. 73, N0.4, l8 April 1995, Vol. 73, No.& 20 June 1995, Vol. 73, No. 12). Robert Hairsine is still not persuaded by Tom Akroyd’s explanations justifying the Code, the drafting committee of which he chaired. The former writes: (l) Prescriptive Codes: Mr Akroyd implies that we should not expect a Code of Practice to give specific instructions. However, BS 8002 is specific on matters such as the value of the mobilisation factor, though these might vary with circumstances such as relative stiffness. Other Codes such as BS 5950, BS5628 and 8110 (and CECP2) generally provide enough instruction to produce a design or to check it without reference to other sources whilst allowing the use of alternative methods. I believe that most engineers expect this and I question the BS 8002 committee’s philosophy which is inconsistent with the other Codes. Verulam

I am not the first President (nor, I suspect, will I be the last) who, when selecting a title for his Address, consults dictionaries and reference books to see whether he understands the meaning of his title. I have chosen one which is deliberately ambiguous, so that I can say a few things about several matters which are fairly loosely related. Brian Simpson

The author has spent much of his professional life assessing the condition of existing buildings for maintenance, repair; refurbishment, extension and change of use. He had a feature article published in The Structural Engineer (1 November 1994 ); it set out some of the skills which he considered were required by structural engineers taking on building appraisal and refurbishment projects. This paper examines the whole subject of building refurbishment in some greater detail. B.P. Clancy