Open Discussion Learn to Live Without CP 114 by D.D. Matthews
Date published

N/A

Price

Standard: £10 + VAT
Members/Subscribers: Free

The Institution of Structural Engineers The Institution of Structural Engineers
Back to Previous

Open Discussion Learn to Live Without CP 114 by D.D. Matthews

Tag
Author
Date published
N/A
Price

Standard: £10 + VAT
Members/Subscribers: Free

The Structural Engineer
Citation

The Structural Engineer, Volume 57, Issue 12, 1979

Date published

N/A

Citation

The Structural Engineer, Volume 57, Issue 12, 1979

Price

Standard: £10 + VAT
Members/Subscribers: Free

In a previous open discussion at the Institution in January 1977 on the topic 'Towards a European Code for concrete - can concise Codes be compreshensible and comprehensive?', a wide range of opinion was expressed on the requirements for an ideal design Code. Re-reading the discussion leads me to the conclusion that, if as many views as possible are to be accommodated so that the Code can properly claim to be a consensus document, conciseness becomes almost an impossibility.

Additional information

Format:
PDF
Publisher:
The Institution of Structural Engineers

Tags

Opinion Issue 12

Related Resources & Events

The Structural Engineer
<h4>Verulam</h4>

Verulam

Barriers and regulation. In June 1979, Mr. J. D. Peacock questioned the need for vehicle barriers at internal boundaries of limited level difference in car parks, accompanying his letter with correspondence from DOE which left no doubt that that establishment considers that there is. Our speculation on the likely outcome of a joint submission to DOE under Section 67 of the Public Health Act drew from Mr. Turner (September 1979) the point to which Mr. Peacock now responds. He writes: I should like to thank Mr. Tanner who has made the point that local authorities have a tendency to apply regulations because they are 'written' but without knowing the reason for them, and sometimes, knowing the reason, will (despite considering the regulation to be unnecessary in the particular circumstances) still insist on compliance. Verulam

Price – £10
The Structural Engineer
<h4>Upper and Lower Bounds of Elastic Critical Loads</h4>

Upper and Lower Bounds of Elastic Critical Loads

The elastic critical load of a plane frame is that at which the resistance offered by the frame to any random disturbance is nil. For this state the stiffness matrix corresponding to all possible disturbances is singular. The elements of this matrix are in terms of the physical properties of the members and the modified stability functions tabulated by Livesley and Chandler. The usual method adopted is one of trial and error. A load trial is chosen, the value of the stiffness of the frame is then calculated, and the critical load is that at which the stiffness of the structure vanishes. Several load trials must be made before the critical load is predicted. S. Z. Al-Sarraf

Price – £10
The Structural Engineer
<h4>The Importance of Project Management</h4>

The Importance of Project Management

There is a worldwide trend towards ever-increasing size and complexity of construction projects, placing greater demands on clients, consultants, and contractors alike. Working together, they make an outstanding contribution to the national wellbeing. A.C. Paterson

Price – £10