Name of File 5916-73-20.pdf cached at 16/12/2017 09:21:43 - with 3 pages. pdfPath: E:\k9.istructe.org\CMS\webtest\files\c3\c38dfab8-4c76-49b4-bcf4-c294c1f242ca.pdf. thumbPath: E:\k9.istructe.org\CMS\webtest\files\pdfthumbs\c38dfab8-4c76-49b4-bcf4-c294c1f242ca_1.png. objDoc: 1 - True. objPreview.Log: . strFileName: c38dfab8-4c76-49b4-bcf4-c294c1f242ca_1.png

Members/subscribers must be logged in to view this article

Verulam

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