Standard: £9 + VAT
Members/Subscribers, log in to access
An IStructE account gives you access to a world of knowledge. Create a profile to receive details of our unique range of resources, events and training.
Dr P. A. Jackson (F) (Gifford & Partners) Having been responsible for the assessment, testing and analysis of a number of similar bridges, I was very interested in this paper. I have a few comments and would like to hear the authors’ views.
As members with sufficiently long memories will recall, the Government’s proposals for ‘Approved Persons’ were extensively debated 12 years ago; procedures for assessing candidates and maintaining a register were formulated jointly with the Institution of Civil Engineers and, at that time, it was hoped that there would be rapid progress towards final approval by Government. The underlying assumption (which still applies) was that ‘Approved Inspectors’ (AIS), when appointed, had to approve all Building Regulations, whereas ‘Approved Persons’ (APs) would specifically address structural requirements. While they therefore had to understand the Building Regulations sufficiently to know the context within which structural adequacy was determined, there was no need fully to understand (or indeed be responsible for) other aspects of the Regulations. Stefan B. Tietz
This paper considers where over-design may exist in current engineering practice and, in particulal; traces the history of imposed load allowances and the relevance of current values, as designated in the current British Standard, to today’s commercial ofice buildings. Independent research into actual loading conditions is considered and compared with the normally adopted values of imposed loads. Anomalies with other western European countries are noted, and areas where a review of the current relevant British Standards may be appropriate are identfied. J.A. Austin