The Structural Engineer > Archive > Volume 76 (1998) > Issues > Issue 12 > Discussion on Hazards, Risks and Structural Safety; Hazard and Risk Assessment in Other Industries;
Name of File 6237-76-12.pdf cached at 16/12/2017 01:40:31 - with 6 pages. pdfPath: E:\k9.istructe.org\CMS\webtest\files\1e\1edce5d7-33ef-4f81-b1c3-a73d56d4e0ba.pdf. thumbPath: E:\k9.istructe.org\CMS\webtest\files\pdfthumbs\1edce5d7-33ef-4f81-b1c3-a73d56d4e0ba_1.png. objDoc: 1 - True. objPreview.Log: . strFileName: 1edce5d7-33ef-4f81-b1c3-a73d56d4e0ba_1.png

Members/subscribers must be logged in to view this article

Discussion on Hazards, Risks and Structural Safety; Hazard and Risk Assessment in Other Industries; Hazard and Risk Assessment for Constructions: a Regulator's view by Dr. J.B. Menzies, Mr. M.P. Cottam, Dr. J.R. Maguire and Mr. B.S. Neale

Mr G. T. Harding (F) Perhaps I may preface my comments by referring to the slide Brian Neale showed us which depicted a collapsed wall. It reminds me that we have to be very careful about what decisions are taken as to risk assessment. Reference was made to the possible need for a traffic barrier to guard against the boundary wall becoming damaged, but in view of the juxtaposition of the adjacent buildings and the wind loading referred to, one would probably conclude either that the central pier was built on the wrong side of the wall or that the pier should have featured on both sides of the wall. My contribution to Verulam in February 1993 discusses this subject.