N/A
Standard: £10 + VATMembers/Subscribers: Free
Members/Subscribers, log in to access
The Structural Engineer, Volume 66, Issue 12, 1988
A conference was held on 12-13 May 1988, at Britannic House in London, to discuss the revised version of the report Soil-structure interaction. The report, by a most distinguished committee, was sponsored by the Institution in collaboration with ICE and IABSE. By coincidence the conference marked the 17th anniversary of the formation of the Informal Study Group set up to review the phenomenon. This group was responsible for the 1978 report, and the work of the second has followed an earlier conference at the same venue in 1984. 120 delegates attended, and there were 65 discussion contributions from the floor.
The 1st International Oleg Kerensky Memorial Conference - on tension structures - has been arranged as a tribute to the late Dr Kerensky. It is intended to hold a memorial Conference every two years.
Storm damage The 5 January issue of Structural News contained a report of a discussion held at the Institution on the damage caused in south-east England by the storm of 16 October last. Reported conclusions were that ‘engineered structures withstood the effects of the storm with little or no primary damage’ and that ‘modern structures designed using the Code’ (CP3: Chap V: Part 2: 1972) ’behaved well when properly constructed’. In our issue of 15 March, Mr L. Metter argued that the latter conclusion was misleading, since the survival of structures designed to the 1952 wind Code showed that the more demanding 1972 Code is ‘both onerous and incorrect’. John Mayne, of the Building Research Station, cautions against necessarily drawing such a conclusion: While Mr Metter is undoubtedly correct when he states that the October storm tested many buildings designed to the 1952 wind loading Code, as well as the 1972 Code, the corollary, in his last paragraph, that this lends ‘further weight to the view generally held by practising engineers that the 1972 Code in respect of wind loading is both onerous and incorrect’ is not valid. His letter betrays a misunderstanding of the way in which codified design procedures contribute to overall levels of structural safety. Verulam