Discussion
BRIEFING: CDM 2007: out with the old, in with the new: by Anna Rabin (August 2007)
Contribution by John Anderson
I cannot agree with the author that The Construction (Health, Safety and Welfare) Regulations 1996 have been incorporated in the Construction (Design and Management) Regulations (CDM) 2007 ‘with little change’. This is not true: there is a great deal of change.
I also do not agree that the old planning supervisor role of CDM 1994 was ‘more supervisory’ in nature. That is not true either. The name ‘planning supervisor’ was a mistake from the beginning as they had neither a planning nor a supervisory function of any kind.
Furthermore, I do not think it is true to say that the new CDM coordinator will necessarily by more ‘hands-on’. The best of the old planning supervisors were as hands-on as they needed to be. The real shame was there were not enough good ones around in the industry to make the difference that was anticipated.
In respect of CDM coordinators, I accept that the author is quoting part of the end of the Approved Code of Practice when she says they ‘facilitate good communications’. The real problem lies in the unfortunate differences between the text of the 2007 regulations (20 and 21) and the various mini-specifications of the CDM coordinator's job scattered throughout the Approved Code of Practice at paragraphs 84, 90, 65, 92, and 200. The really big job description—which is perhaps impossible to fulfil—is in paragraph 90(f).
I believe it is incorrect to say that a ‘client's information pack has to be provided to every designer and every contractor’. The pre-construction information is set out in appendix 2 of the Approved Code of Practice. The client's duty to provide information is in regulation 10. These are two different things. What the author does not mention, which is new, is the mobilisation period that has to be given by the client, regulation 10(2)(c), and the similar duty on the principal contractor, regulation 22(1)(f).
It is also incorrect to say that all CDM parties (excluding the client) have to ‘address’ health and safety competence. Regulations 4(1)(a) and 4(1)(b) are about a great deal more than ‘addressing’.
Finally, it is only part of the story to say that all parties have to cooperate. What is really new is regulation 5(1)(a), where ‘every person’ has to ‘seek the cooperation of any other person’. This is a pro-active duty. The duty to do the actual cooperating is in regulation 5 (1)(b). It is a pity the author did not mention the 5(1)(a) duty.
Authors' response
I am delighted to have stimulated a debate following the recent publication of my briefing article. Given my original article was 1300 words and reduced to 700 words because of space considerations, I might have expected a little more critical acclaim.
P14989: A clearer vision for pedestrian guardrails: by Douglas Stewart (August 2007)
Contribution by Daniel Moylan
Douglas Stewart makes three points: that guardrail through which motorists can see is safer than ‘solid’ guardrail; that guardrail at pedestrian crossings prevents diagonal crossing; and that Kensington High Street is a disaster. The first is plausible, the second debatable and the third merely ill-informed.
Most guardrail removed from Kensington High Street was installed to prevent loading in the days before decriminalised parking enforcement. It is no longer needed. The small amount retained is mostly there to prevent people tripping over Trief kerbs that form part of the Underground tunnel just beneath the surface. The author says the design of this is unsafe because people can climb through it, as children did in the 1930s, the most recent evidence he refers to to support his argument. In fact it is astonishing that, given the opportunity, this potentially enjoyable risk sport (climbing through guardrail) has not yet taken off in Kensington High Street: perhaps modern kids are less adventurous—or more sophisticated—than their 1930s counterparts.
Horses for courses and learning by doing are the paths that Kensington and Chelsea has followed—and would recommend to others—not rigid adherence to the use of a patented product in every case.
Author's response
I suggest readers judge the validity of the contributor's comments on the three points for themselves, by referring to the paper.
The main reason that he is unaware of ‘modern kids’ climbing through open guardrail as they did in the 1930s is not that they have become less adventurous or more sophisticated. It is that most children are now kept indoors because streets are so dangerous, a consequence of our failure to apply science to understand accidents and engineering to prevent them.
One exception is high-visibility guardrail, but ‘rigid adherence to the use of a patented product’ is unnecessary. Although the original Visirail is no longer produced, several copies are available due to expiry of its patent several years ago. Its successor, Visiflex, has patents which help to ensure its improved performance and quality.
Contribution by Graeme Swinburne
I must refute the author's statement in his paper that, ‘Non-accidents are being replaced by accidents, so the need for guardrail will again become evident, as already suggested by a road safety report for Kensington High Street.’ The report to which the author refers does not draw this conclusion, in fact quite the opposite.
The original aim of the project was to ensure accident levels did not increase and at least followed the borough trends. Also, much of the guardrail in Kensington High Street was never introduced as a road-safety measure, but to stop parking and the resulting congestion. With the introduction of decriminalised parking, there are now other ways local authorities can keep traffic moving.
Work carried out for the Central London Partnership and Transport for London by Jan Gehl showed the considerable amount of ‘non compliance’ with guardrail by pedestrians, and questioned its genuine effectiveness in some locations.
I note the author invented Visirail and its successor Visiflex, for which he must take much credit. In the past I have specified Visirail when it was considered the right solution but I would like to point out that it isn't only planners who are questioning the appropriateness of some established solutions.
Kensington High Street and the other similar projects which are being implemented across the country involve a great deal of design and very close scrutiny, post implementation. The Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea was not cavalier when it took the decision to remove guardrail, it followed a metre-by-metre analysis of the problems. Then, when the changes were made, there followed a period of meticulous monitoring. This was very labour-intensive, but if you are going to break away from the model I and many others have followed over the last 30 years, you will have to commit the time and resources.
Whilst I am sure the examples given by the author are the most appropriate solution for those specific locations, you could conclude from the text that there is only one solution. This is obviously not the case and I am sure that is not the message the author wanted to send. However, let us ensure the new generation of engineers and highway designers are well trained and use the best of good design, which may not always involve the use of guardrail.
Author's response
Just because guardrailing is introduced to stop parking does not preclude it from preventing accidents. This is demonstrated by the pedestrian accidents that occurred2 where guardrails had previously been installed in Kensington High Street.
Jan Gehl's attitude to guardrails may be influenced by their rarity in his own country, Denmark. Unlike Britain, pedestrians in Denmark are required to use pedestrian crossings, which are liberally provided. So although Danes are spared the ‘herding’ by guardrails which Gehl dislikes, they are in effect herded by legislation instead. Research comparing these alternative methods to prevent diagonal crossing and safeguard pedestrians could be invaluable.
‘Non-compliance’ by pedestrians can be a problem with excessive lengths of guardrail, which pedestrians may jump over; and with very short lengths, which can promote diagonal crossing and its perceptual hazard. The remedies are self-evident.
Professor Gehl's report Towards a Fine City for People19 has the laudable aim of making London a ‘walking-friendly’ city. The most unfriendly experience that a pedestrian can suffer is collision with a vehicle so, if the effectiveness of guardrails is being questioned, why were no accident data presented? Had their safety record been investigated it would have been discovered that even if guardrails may not improve the streetscape, at least they are friendly and very cost-effective.
After the £5 million enhancement of Kensington High Street, 17 fewer pedestrian casualties per year were recorded.2 Similar expenditure to install high-visibility guardrails at pedestrian crossings throughout Britain would prevent more than 2000 pedestrian casualties per year, based on before-and-after studies. If we are serious about preventing death and injury to pedestrians, especially children, priorities for action and funding should be urgently reviewed.
I agree that ‘questioning the appropriateness of some established solutions’ by engineers is necessary. Getting rid of pedestrian guardrails is just one example of a solution that is flawed and dangerous. There are several others. The UK Department for Transport requires political encouragement to identify these mistakes and rectify them. Otherwise, major errors such as removing guardrails will be perpetuated, and road users will continue to suffer avoidable accidents.
My paper does, I admit, focus on one particular solution. However I know of no other remedy for pedestrian accidents whose benefit is so large, so cost-effective and so widely applicable as high-visibility guardrail, so I make no apology for my emphasis. I trust the contributor's analyses and monitoring will lead him to the same conclusion.
Contribution by Marin Hordyk
The removal of guardrail should only be considered when part of a wider design for the whole streetscape and not in isolation. The removal of guardrail should only be deemed appropriate where the wider design incorporates features that ensure vehicle speeds are reduced to less than 30 km/h (20 mph) and thereby reduce the risk of accidents and collisions.
No one I have met in the profession would suggest removing guardrail from crossing points of distributor roads and so on but, within the urban environment where vehicle traffic should be secondary to pedestrian movements (as recommended in the Manual for Streets20), removal of unsightly barriers should be welcomed and embraced.
On a wider point, the author's attitude means that planners and so on take engineers less seriously and give less weight to our opinion as a result. After all, the evidence suggests that the socio-economic problems of some suburban estates have been contributed to by the prescriptive highway design requirements insisted upon by my older colleagues in the industry.
Removing guardrail is a great benefit to the urban environment and we engineers should use our vast experience to ensure that streetscape design maximises the levels of safety afforded to road users whilst ensuring they have a welcoming environment in which to live and work.
Author's response
I agree that if traffic speeds are very low, risk could be so reduced that guardrail is not justified. There is, however, little official guidance on which to base such decisions.
If movement of pedestrians is a priority, their safety should be also. Removing guardrail may improve amenity but will normally increase casualties. This may be predicted from before-and-after accident statistics for guardrail, if the date of installation is known. Without such evidence that it is not preventing accidents, which is unlikely, it might be wise to obtain indemnity insurance, as did councillors before deciding to de-clutter Kensington High Street.
Engineers in progressive fields such as electronics, aerospace or structures are taken very seriously. They create products which are tangible and profitable, unlike accident and investigation prevention engineers who have to ‘sell’ non-accidents, which are neither. That is why road accident investigation and prevention is an engineering backwater, in chronic need of innovation and development.
References
19. Gehl J. Towards a Fine City for People—Public Spaces and Public Life—London 2004. Gehl Architects ApS, Copenhagen, Denmark, 2004.
20. Department for Transport, Communities And Local Government and Welsh Assembly Government. Manual for Streets. Thomas Telford, London, 2007.
P14884: SCOSS: safeguarding structural safety for 30 years: by John Carpenter (August 2007)
Contribution by Billy Walker
Under the sub-heading ‘Legal and associated procedural issues’ on page 128, the author refers to ‘self-certification’ of the Building Regulations process and states it was tried in Scotland and found not to function with sufficient certainty.
We in Structural Engineers Registration Ltd (SER) are concerned that inadvertently this may have left readers with the mistaken impression that he is referring to the certification scheme for structural design currently in operation in regard to the Building Regulations in Scotland.
It might have been helpful if the paper had explained that the weaknesses inherent in self-certification were recognised in Scotland and, as a consequence, a new certification scheme for structural design was introduced there in 2005.
The scheme was conceived and supported by both ICE and the Institution of Structural Engineers, provided by SER, approved and audited by The Scottish Building Standards Agency, and embraces independent assessment.
It is described in some detail in the June 2007 edition of Proceedings of ICE, Structures and Buildings (pp 125–128) and, of course, at the SER website (www.ser-ltd.com).
Author's response
While I do not entirely share the concern expressed—my paper clearly refers to past experiences and relates to self-certification—I am more than happy confirm support for the current certification scheme run by SER. It is commended to others.
The scheme appears to be a significant success with growing numbers of participants. A particularly strong feature is the requirement for the approved certifier of design to have responsibility for the entire structure; the failure to have one person with overall responsibility is a weakness in many Building Regulations submissions outwith this scheme, and in England and Wales generally. SCOSS has commented on this issue in its latest biennial report.
Full versions of these discussions can be read with all other discussions in the online version of the journal at www.civil-engineering-ice.com
Proceedings
RECENTLY PUBLISHED PAPERS
In addition to Civil Engineering, the ICE Proceedings includes twelve specialist journals. Papers and articles published in some of the most recent issues are listed here. Summaries of all these and other papers and articles published in the past three years can be read free at www.ice.org.uk/journals. ICE members can download any 15 papers published in 2007 for £25 from www.iceknowledge.com
Bridge Engineering
160, No. BE3, September 2007, 99–159
PAPERS
Design and construction of the New Sheppey Crossing, UK
R. Clough and J. Parsons
The repair and strengthening of Burnton railway viaduct, UK
W. McQueen, M. Goodall and G. Bell
Design and construction of Megalorema Viaduct, Greece
K. Ahmadi-Kashani, C. Brun and P. Papanikolas
Probability-based bridge assessment
A. O'Connor and I. Enevoldsen
Investigation and strengthening of Hyde Lane Bridge, UK
I. Frostick, S. Fraser and T. Westlake
Innovative bankseat for new Highfield Lane Bridge, UK
I. Biana
Civil Engineering Special Issue
160, No. CESI2, November 2007, 1–64
PAPERS
Channel Tunnel Rail Link section 2: designing a safe, high-speed railway
K. Watson
Channel Tunnel Rail Link section 2: Eb bsfleet valley
D. Twine
Channel Tunnel Rail Link section 2: Thames tunnel
M. Burgess and H. Davies
Channel Tunnel Rail Link section 2: north Thames marshes
N. O'Riordan and M. Kirk
Channel Tunnel Rail Link section 2: London tunnels
E. Woods, G. Battye, K. Bowers and F. Mimnagh
Channel Tunnel Rail Link section 2: Stratford
S. Dyson and I. Blight
Channel Tunnel Rail Link section 2: King's Cross lands
I. Gardner and T. Smart
Channel Tunnel Rail Link section 2: Thameslink station at St Pancras
M. Gates-Sumner and A. Chodorowski
Channel Tunnel Rail Link section 2: St Pancras International station
I. Gardner and T. Smart
Channel Tunnel Rail Link section 2: railway systems
D. Bennett
Channel Tunnel Rail Link section 2: procurement and contract strategy
M. Attridge and H. Tamber
Channel Tunnel Rail Link section 2: project controls
M. Kelly and M. Edmunds
Construction Materials
160, CM1, February 2007, 1–45
PAPERS
European testing of roofing slate
I. G. Blanchard and I. Sims
Modelling compressive strength of eccentrically loaded masonry
T. M. Roberts and T. G. Hughes
Using X-ray computed tomography to study paving materials
K. Gopalakrishnan, H. Ceylan and F. Inanc
Using concrete admixtures for sulphuric acid resistance
E. Hewayde, M. L. Nehdi, E. Allouche and G. Nakhla
Engineering Sustainability
160, No. ES2, June 2007, 55–107
PAPERS
Sustainability indicators for environmental geotechnics
I. Jefferson, D. V. L. Hunt, C. A. Birchall and C. D. F. Rogers
Strategic environmental assessment for wind farm sites
M. Rogers, M. Rogers and I. Magee
Multi-criteria decision aids for sustainable water management
J.-H. Kain, E. Kärrman and H. Söderberg
Improving company performance through sustainability assessment
P. Braithwaite
Geotechnical Engineering
160, No. No. GE4, October 2007, 185–246
PAPERS
Embankment supported on piles with biaxial geogrids
M. S. S. Almeida, M. Ehrlich, A. P. Spotti and M. E. S. Marques
A case study: delayed failure of a deep cutting in lodgement till
D. Hughes, V. Sivakumar, D. Glynn and G. Clarke
Flow nets and textbooks
E. N. Bromhead
Remediating a soil-nailed excavation in Wuhan, China
Y. Yang
Reducing differential settlements of approach embankments
S.-L. Shen, Z.-S. Hong and Y.-S. Xu
Controlling clay pore pressures for cut-and-cover tunnelling
T. O. L. Roberts, H. Roscoe, W. Powrie and D. J. E. Butcher
Rectangular barrettes and circular bored piles in saprolites
G. H. Lei and C. W. W. Ng
Management, Procurement and Law
160, No. MP2, May 2007, 45–89
BRIEFINGS
The Public Contracts Regulations 2006
R. Williams
The psychology of managing project cost
T. Aikens
How recent case law affects the conduct of an expert
J. Winter and L. Davies
Engineering skills shortages in China—a personal view
G. Mills
PAPERS
Risk management and value management in project appraisal
D. Afila and N. J. Smith
Predicting construction disputes: an aetiological approach
P. Fenn
Design management: changing roles of the professions
S. Male, D. Bower and B. Aritua
Municipal Engineer
160, No. ME3, September 2007, 115–159
PAPERS
Effective partnering—remediating the former Avenue coking works
J. H. W. Turner, S. Pearce, M. J. Fenton and B. Sims
Application of partnering principles to a framework contract
D. Gullick, R. Cairns and D. Pearson-Kirk
Continuous learning processes in creating the public realm
A. Ataöv
Infrastructure cost planning: a design-led approach
S. H. Saroop and D. Allopi
The attenuation and treatment of runoff using sand tanks
M. Mansell and S. Tingle
Structures and Buildings
160, No. SB4, August 2007, 185–243
PAPERS
Analysis of São Vicente de Fora church, Portugal
J. R. Correia, F. A. Branco and J. de Brito
Assessment of progressive collapse in multi-storey buildings
B. A. Izzuddin, A. G. Vlassis, A. Y. Elghazouli and D. A. Nethercot
Nonlinear response of a torsionally coupled baseisolated structure
F. Khoshnoudian and N. Azizi
Modelling prop loads during concrete slab construction
X. C. Pintado Llurba and R. J. Carlton
Impulsive loading on a concrete structure
J. I. Siddiqui and S. Ahmad
Transport
160, No. TR4, November 2007, 155–207
PAPERS
Refurbishment of London Underground bridge D141
G. T. Bessant and P. Williams
Comparison of noise impacts from urban transport
M. Frost and S. Ison
Understanding behaviour through smartcard analysis
H. Bryan and P. Blythe
Partnering to improve public transport in developing countries
M. Sohail and D. A. C. Maunder
Mechanistic-empirical evaluation of airfield test pavements
K. Gopalakrishnan
Determining the sample size of probe vehicles
Y. Li and M. McDonald
Water Management
160, No. WM3, September 2007, 133–194
PAPERS
Influence of El Niño on rainfall in Guyana and Uganda
R. Wardlaw, D. Jaigopaul and Z. Rahaman
Linking one- and two-dimensional models for free surface flows
D. Liang, R. A. Falconer and B. Lin
Optimising flow–sediment transport parameters for rivers
G. Akbari
Scour in hydraulic engineering
W. H. Hager
Local scour by submerged offset jets
R. Karki, M. A. A. Faruque and R. Balachandar
Cost-effective leakage reduction through district metering
B. Janković-Niŝić, N. J. D. Graham, Ć. Maksimović and D. Butler
Prioritising sewerage maintenance on serviceability criteria
S. Arthur and H. Crow
Request for papers
All Proceedings journals rely entirely on papers sent in by civil engineers and related professionals, researchers, academics and students. Papers should be around 2000 to 5000 words long, in good English and with adequate illustrations and references. Project papers are particularly welcome. All papers sent in will be assessed on merit and not on the status of the author. Simply submit your text and images using the online submission system via www.ice.org.uk/journals.
New online submissions system
Authors can now submit papers to Civil Engineering and all other ICE Proceedings journals via the internet. By clicking the ‘Online submission’ links on the individual journal home pages—which can be reached via www.ice.org.uk/journals—authors can submit, and immediately receive confirmation of receipt, 24 hours a day and from anywhere in the world. They can also track the progress of their submissions through the review process at any time. This is an important development and one that is required to support the continuing development and internationalisation of the ICE's world-class journals publishing programme.
Personal on-line subscriptions to specialist Proceedings journals start from £11 a year for members. Print subscriptions start at £21 a year and include full on-line access to the current and past three years' issues. Please call +44 (0)20 7665 2227, email subs@ice.org.uk
Books
REVIEWS
Ove Arup—master builder of the twentieth century
by Peter Jones, published by Yale University Press, 2006, £25·00, reviewed by Joe Gunning, University of Ulster
This is the first biography of Ove Arup by Peter Jones, emeritus professor for philosophy and former director of the Institute for Advanced Studies in the Humanities at the University of Edinburgh. The author has had access to the vast private archives of Arup, and this has enabled him to chart his subject's life in detail.
Historically, the book covers every stage of Arup's extraordinary life. It charts the growth of the Arup consulting practices from their foundation in 1946, to employment of 3500 at the time of his death, and to almost 8000 in 2006. The text records Arup's practical contribution to the development of a holistic, multi-disciplinary, co-operative approach to construction, together with a selection of the key projects with which he was involved.
The philosophy of Arup—which he only fully articulated late in his lengthy career—has emerged in a fragmented form which Peter Jones has attempted, partially successfully, to present in this text. This scholarly work includes hundreds of notes and references to substantiate its contents. It also includes 80 photographs which have never previously been published.
In conclusion, the biography deals with something of an enigma. Arup's contribution to the twentieth century development of construction is immense. This book should be read and reread by all architects, engineers, builders and others interested in developing their understanding of construction as a holistic process.
Perhaps the author, obviously fully conversant with the many sides of Arup's complex personality, could produce another, slimmer volume which might encapsulate his full philosophy more concisely and thoroughly, since Arup did not get round to doing so during his own lifetime.
I understand all employees of the Arup empire have received free copies of the book. If readers cannot borrow a copy from a colleague, the cost of purchase would be amply rewarded by thorough study of the text.
The man who buried Nelson: the surprising life of Robert Mylne
by Robert Ward, published by Tempus, 2007, £14·99, reviewed by Susan Hots, ICE
This is an interesting and informative account of the life of an engineer who was sufficiently distinguished in his lifetime to merit burial in St Paul's Cathedral (between Nelson and Wren), but whose career has been eclipsed by contemporaries such as Smeaton and Rennie.
The eighteenth century was a period of flux for the engineering profession, the last time when it was still possible to have parallel careers in architecture, surveying and civil, structural and hydraulic engineering. Mylne's endeavours in all these areas are described—his bridges (Blackfriars in particular), waterworks (he was surveyor of the New River Company) and architecture, where he was surveyor of both Canterbury and St Paul's Cathedrals, hence his involvement with Nelson's funeral.
In many ways it was as a surveyor that Mylne was most successful, certainly financially, but it was success in the Blackfriars Bridge competition—only the third stone bridge across the Thames in London—that made his name. This detail here is well warranted.
Mylne's problems with colleagues during his time as clerk of works at Greenwich are well documented but there is no such detailed account of the equally litigious dealings with the Eau Brink Cut. In the latter case, his disagreement with his associate Sir Thomas Hyde Page landed up in the Court of King's Bench. His work on the Gloucester and Berkeley ship canal was also ill-fated, suggesting he could at times be difficult to deal with.
Anyone interested in the history of engineering and the construction professions will find the book useful.
Interfaces between science and society
edited by Ângela Guimarães Pereira, Sofia Guedes Vaz and Sylvia Tognetti, published by Greenleaf Publishing, 2006, £35, reviewed by Joe Gunning, University of Ulster
This fascinating book presents the main ideas, discussions and findings of a workshop of the same title held in Milan in November 2003, organised by the Knowledge Assessment Methodologies group of the European Commission's Joint Research Centre in Ispra, Italy.
One of the many insights contained in the text is that post-normal science, accepting the implications of complexity, is required to deal with the uncertainties of modern society. It is accepted that the ideas contained within the book may represent a quantum leap for many civil engineers. The text is never likely to become a best-seller, but civil engineers are urged at least to dip into the websites relating to the research centre (www.alba.jrc.it).
The book is not a particularly easy read, being generously supported by academic references in each chapter. However, the discerning reader may find much of interest within its pages. The essence of civil engineering is the application of science to the needs of society, so engineers should make an effort to enhance their sense of social responsibility in these increasingly complex environments and technologies. They cannot stand back from issues of ethics, political legitimacy and the social status of science and engineering.
In conclusion, this is an extremely timely publication which draws attention to the interfaces between science and society. The problems of civil engineering are becoming increasingly ‘wicked’—where simple considerations such as maximum net benefit and risk avoidance are inadequate. Civil engineers who wish to become involved in the debate are invited in the book to join a virtual network on the subject by e-mailing science-society@jrc.it.
Engineering libraries are urged to purchase a copy of this text to stimulate awareness of this evolving subject among their readership.
Dictionary of industrial archaeology (2nd edition)
by William Jones, published by Sutton Publishing, 2006, £17·99, reviewed by Graham Tombs
This book is a dictionary not only of technical terms but also of inventions, inventors and titles such as, ‘Rebecca Riots’ and ‘United Society of Mines Royal and Mineral and Battery Works’ set out in alphabetical order along with their comprehensive definitions and explanations.
The number of entries is huge (quoted as over 2600), covering a wide range of subjects associated with the mining, construction, manufacturing and transport industries from around 1750 to the early twentieth century.
The text is comprehensively illustrated with simple diagrams and sketches to assist in the explanation of terms in complicated arrangements. Some examples of these are steam engine centrifugal governors and reversing gears (mechanisms), Richard Arkwright's 1769 water-powered spinning machine, Newcomen's buoy controller, the grasshopper engine, watertube boilers and the Jacquard mechanism.
Imperial units are used throughout and tables of abbreviations and conversion factors are provided.
An extensive bibliography is included and set out under sections headed ‘overviews of industrial archaeology’, ‘regional studies’, ‘industrial archaeology overseas’, ‘transport’, ‘biographies’ and ‘miscellaneous’.
This book is a mine of information and should be invaluable to anyone working in the field of industrial history and should be of general interest to many civil and mechanical engineers.
Civil engineering heritage Scotland—the lowlands and borders / highlands and islands
edited by Roland Paxton and Jim Shipway, published by Thomas Telford, 2007, £17·50 each or £30 together, reviewed by Costas Georgopoulos, The Concrete Centre
These two books complete Thomas Telford's Civil Engineering Heritage series for the UK and Republic of Ireland and cover a thorough selection of historical engineering works executed in Scotland during the last six centuries.
They are both authoritative reference and guide books and have been written to attract readers from both the engineering community and the general public. The public will better understand the substantial contribution of civil engineering to civilisation, while engineers will better appreciate the civil engineering achievements of the past so they can develop a more sustainable civil engineering infrastructure for the future.
Taming the forces of nature in bridging rivers, building dams and driving roads, canals and railways in Scotland has always been a great challenge for engineers considering the geographical, geological and climatic extremes that prevail in the country. Yet clearly they succeeded—for example the books detail over 350 landmark bridges and how they were designed and built.
The eminent editors, with the invaluable support of over 150 experts and organisations, give each project its location, scale, names of the designer and the contractor and a short description. Most projects are also illustrated, and the books contain approximately 500 images in total. Further research on individual works is facilitated by almost 650 references.
Professional communication in engineering
by Hazel Sales, published by Palgrave Macmillan, 2006, £50·00, reviewed by Joe Gunning, University of Ulster
This book is written by an unashamedly arts-oriented researcher, with a background in language and linguistics and experience in teaching communication skills to engineering students in both Singapore and the UK. The work is based on a six-year study of engineers working on products for the aerospace, defence and automotive industries.
The sound theoretical basis gives immediate indication that the book may be too academic for most practising civil engineers, who are already well served in communication texts by authors like Bill Scott's Communication for Engineers, published by Thomas Telford. Hence this relatively expensive book appears to be surplus to the requirements of most civil engineers.
It may appeal to the more academic-minded, as it is a widely researched volume with over 100 references cited. It does provide some useful guidance on writing technical specifications and presenting engineering proposals. However, the writing style of the book itself does not always qualify as easily readable, contradicting some of the advice of the text. In particular, the work lacks any defined conclusion, terminating abruptly after a chapter on executive summaries.
As such it is not a particularly good guide for civil engineers seeking to improve the clarity of their own communications, as the title might have suggested. It justifiably criticises attempts to over-simplify English. However, the messages of the text might have been presented in a more user-friendly format. Hence the book is one for the shelves of a library rather than those of a practising engineer, although it is a worthy academic examination of the subject.
Full versions of these reviews can be read with all other reviews in the online version of the journal at www.civilengineering-ice.com
NEW BOOKS
The ICE's bookshop in London carries one of the most comprehensive ranges of civil engineering books in the world. New books received in the past three months are as follows.
A guide to health and safety prosecutions
Michael Appleby and Gerard Forlin £35·00
Advanced fluid mechanics
William Graebel £39·95
Brunel's timber bridges and viaducts
Brian Lewis £24·99
Building Regulations in brief (5th edition)
Ray Tricker and Rozz Algar £19·99
CDM Regulations 2007 explained
Raymond Joyce £50·00
CECA schedules of dayworks 2007
Civil Engineering Contractors Association £19·50
Designers' guide to EN 1993-2 Eurocode 3: Design of steel structures. Part 2: steel bridges
Chris Hendy and Chris Murphy £85·00
Engineering mathematics
John Bird £21·99
FIDIC design, build and operate pre-press seminar edition 2007
International Federation of Consulting Engineers £20·00
Handbook of structural steelwork (4th edition)
Steel Construction Institute £45·00
ICE specification for piling and embedded retaining walls (2nd edition)
Federation of Piling Specialists / BGA / ICE £49·00
Introduction to Autocad 2008
Alf Yarnwood £21·99
Planning and design of engineering systems
Graeme Dandy, David Walker, Trevor Daniell and Robert Warner £29·99
Project management demystified
Geoff Reiss £19·99
Reinforced concrete design to Eurocode 2 (6th edition)
Bill Mosley, John Bungey and Ray Hulse £34·99
Reynolds' reinforced concrete designer's handbook (11th edition)
Charles Reynolds, James Steedman and Anthony Threlfall £35·00
Spon's architects' and builders' price book 2008
Davis Langdon £135·00
Spon's civil engineering and highway works price book 2008
Davis Langdon £145·00
Spon's external works and landscape price book 2008
Davis Langdon £105·00
Spon's mechanical and electrical price book 2008
Davis Langdon £135·00
Thomas Telford
Lionel Rolt £9·99
The bookshop is in the ICE foyer, I Great George Street, London SWIP 3AA and is open from 9.30am to 5.00 pm, Monday to Friday. Books can also be ordered by calling +44 (0)20 7665 2462, emailing orders@thomastelford.com or by visiting www.thomastelford.com or the bookshop section of www.ice.org.uk
ICE review
A review or recent and forthcoming developments at the Institution of Civil Engineers by ICE director of communications and marketing Anne Moir. For further information please contact the Communications Office on +44 20 7665 2150.
Sustainability action plan
In July 2007, ICE and other leading UK civil engineering and construction bodies launched a new action plan to make the construction industry more sustainable. Entitled Sustainable Development Strategy, it details industry-wide sustainability targets which will be measured and evaluated over the next few years.
The strategy arose from a steering group comprising ICE, the Association for Consultancy and Engineering, the Civil Engineering Contractors Association, CIRIA and the Construction Products Association. A report will be delivered in December 2007 detailing priorities the construction industry must face up to in order to become more sustainable and to address climate change.
The steering group also wants to see a ‘top ten’ list of things designers and engineers must do to make their buildings and infrastructure more sustainable. Outside the construction industry, the group is aiming to liaise with academics to support the inclusion of sustainable development in the higher education curriculum.
Quentin Leiper, outgoing ICE president, commented, ‘There is a real opportunity for the construction sector to help the UK government deliver more sustainable communities. As civil engineers and construction professionals, we possess the knowledge to deliver sustainable solutions that represent real best value for clients and for society’.
The strategy can be downloaded from the ICE website at www.ice.org.uk/downloads/Sustainable%20development%20strategy%20July%2007(1).pdf
Orr becomes president
David Orr takes over the role of ICE president from Quentin Leiper following his inaugural address at the institution's headquarters in London on 6 November 2007.
Orr is an eminent civil and environmental engineer from Northern Ireland and has played an active role in professional matters for many years. He served as honorary secretary of ICE Northern Ireland from 1994 to 1997, represented the region on ICE's council from 1997 to 2003 and was chairman of ICE Northern Ireland in 2003–04. He is a chartered environmentalist, a fellow of the Institution of Engineers of Ireland and a fellow of the Irish Academy of Engineering.
He was elected ICE vice-president in 2004 and currently chairs the executive board, the institution's UK regional affairs committee and the reservoirs committee. He led the review of ICE governance that was approved by ICE's council in November 2006.
Orr's day job is director of central procurement in the Northern Ireland government. His directorate plays a key role in delivering value, promoting sustainability and enabling reform within Northern Ireland's public sector.
To attend the presidential address, please register online at www.ice.org.uk/presidentsaddress
Flexing political muscle
ICE teamed up with the Royal Institute of British Architects (RIBA) for the fourth time to hold events during the three main political party conferences in September and October 2007.
The Climate Change—Building Skills receptions looked at how engineers and architects are equipping themselves with the skills they need to respond to the challenge of climate change.
ICE's and RIBA's receptions attracted guest speakers such as Labour's secretary of state for communities and local government Hazel Blears, Conservative shadow environment minister Greg Barker and Liberal Democrat shadow environment secretary Chris Huhne.
New journals launched
ICE is launching two further parts of its internationally renowned series of peerreviewed Proceedings journals next year, bringing the total to 16 journals.
Engineering and Computational Mechanics will cover the application of fundamental applied mechanics in civil engineering. Topics of papers and articles will include solid mechanics, fluid mechanics, behaviour of granular materials, structural stress and strain analysis, dynamics of structures and fluid–structure interactions.
Urban Design and Planning will cover the design and planning of urban environments and associated social, economic and environmental issues. Topics will include sustainable settlements, community regeneration, urban infrastructure and transport systems and the interfaces between urban policy, design, construction and management.
The new quarterly journals follow successful launches this year of Energy and Management, Procurement and Law. Papers can be submitted to all ICE journals online by following the submission links from www.ice.org.uk/journals.
