First published: N/A
Standard: £9 + VAT
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.
Added to basket
Wind over Christmas Nick Cook has reverted to the daunting topic of BS6399 in all its subtleties. He writes from St. Albans: Your anonymous correspondent of 18 August VOL76 No. 16 is not quite the 'Looney' he fears, since both his points are very important and formed the subject of lengthy debate in the drafting committee. The answer on BSI committee composition is simple: the drafting committee B/525/1/2 was composed of 3 'wind engineers' that know the subject and 4 design engineers that have to apply the standard - 6 chartered. This was supervised by B/525/1 that comprised industry representatives, including one from this Institution.
Precast beams acting compositely with in situ concrete deckslabs are a popular form of bridge construction. In the last 40 years, the use of this form has been extended to constructing multispan bridges on a span-by-span basis with movement joints at each support. Such joints have not performed satisfactorily because the penetration of road salts through them causes corrosion damage in these constricted areas of the bridge. Several methods of eliminating such joints have been evolved during the last 30 years; these are briefly described here. The deckslab continuity method, evolved by the author; is then presented. Its concept, design and applications are described with a view to engineers extracting maximum advantage from this powequl, yet simple, method of achieving continuity in multispan bridges. It is also shown that this method generally results in large economies as compared with the other methods and some savings even as compared with the undesirable 'jointed' span-by-span construction. A. Kumar
With the regulations now more than three years old, it is the view of those administering the regulations (i.e. HSE), that generally, designers have taken their duties seriously and have been most diligent in identifying the hazards associated with their designs. However, they have been less diligent in taking the issues forward and amending their designs to avoid the risk ie the first priority in the hierarchy of risk control: (1) avoid - alter the design; (2) combat at source - design in, details which reduce the risk ie provide lifting points for items which require lifting; (3) control the risk - provide protective measures i.e. introduce measures to protect the entire work force. The use of personal protective equipment should only be used as a last resort. CDM Task Group