N/A
Standard: £10 + VATMembers/Subscribers: Free
Members/Subscribers, log in to access
The Structural Engineer, Volume 56, Issue 8, 1978
Designers can conveniently be divided into two camps, those who believe that structures are inherently 'better’if they are designed using the maximum possible rigour and those who do not. The latter believe that the difference between the predictions of the most sophisticated analytical model and the behaviour of a real structure is such that simple methods of design are just as good, if not preferable. A.W. Beeby and H.P.J. Taylor
This Guidance Note published by the authority of the Council of the Institution is one of the series published from time to time as a reminder of the standards of courtesy and responsibility which members are required to observe at all times. Guidance Notes Nos. l and 2 dealing with Informative Publicity and the General responsibility of members when called upon to check or appraise the work of another structural engineer, first published in August and September 1973 are repeated from time to time. They appeared in The Structural Engineer, May 1978, pages 154 and 155.
The authors' examination of end plate connections, with particular reference to thin column flanges, provides reassuring evidence of the ductility of such connections, albeit with some loss of strength. The criteria adopted for assessing the yield moment in the tests seem unduly conservative when one considers the well-formed plateaux of the moment-rotation curves. For double beam connections in a multi-storey frame, it would not be unreasonable to anticipate hinge rotations of the order of 30 x 10-3 radian and on this basis J1 almost qualifies as a full-strength connection instead of the half-strength assessment applied by the authors. J.O. Surtees, J.H. Howlett and R.C. Hairsine