Author: Ruthen, Sir Charles T
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
Ruthen, Sir Charles T
From time to time arguments for and against the Channel Tunnel have appeared in the daily press and elsewhere, so that a few brief notes on the various schemes may be interesting. Whilst it would be beyond the province of THE STRUCTURAL ENGINEER to discuss its advantages and disadvantages from a commercial point of view, to the writer the advantages appear obvious. These have been recently set out by the Association "France-Grande-Bretagne.”
The subject of the attrition of concrete surfaces exposed to sea action was dealt with by me in a paper read on January 22nd, 1920, before the Concrete Institute, now known as the lnstitutim of Structural Engineers. The object of the present communication is to describe the results of the experiments referred to in that paper. I endeavoured there to analyse the mechanism of attrition, going on from that to investigate the factors governing, and the possible methods for reducing attrition. It was shown that the injury to the concrete surface was primarily due to a fracturing and breaking away of the particles forming that surface, the conditions being exceptionally favourable
for the removal of the broken material by the water. In the latter respect such surfaces as are now considered differ fundamentally from horizontal surfaces upon which the products of disintegration are allowed to collect in the form of dust, forming a protecting layer. It was shown, broadly, that whether or not surface would resist the attack of boulders driven against it by the sea would depend upon two main
factors :-(n) The stress produced on the material by the blows of the boulders.(b) The resistance of such material to disintegration.
Dr. J.S. Owens
Prof. S. W. Perrott, in opening the discussion, said he would like to suggest that each member taking part would mention his name. As Mr. Clarke was not present to hear the remarks it was essential in dealing with each point in the paper, to do so as clearly as possible in order that the reports sent forward to Mr. Clarke would be as clear as possible. Continuing, he said that this was a paper very suitable for meetings, and one which should be welcomed because matters of this kind were always wanted to deal with. It is in the details that new things can be done with great advantage. The suggestions set out in this paper formed a type of detail which might be of great use to structural engineers. He hoped everyone would contribute to it. The Hon. Secretary then read a written criticism from Mr. Durose which we hope to publish in a later issue.