Structural Engineer's Pocket Book: Eurocodes: Eurocodes
D**G
Five Stars
good works. thanks
R**B
Doesn't include pullouts as stated in the preface
Book is the 2015 edition, so the errors were rectified for this one. It was printed by Amazon, but doesn't include the Eurocode notation pull outs in the front and back covers which the preface clearly states are included. It doesn't make the book useless, but it grates that you pay for a book that doesn't include everythign it should.Any civil / structura engineers who need an explanaiton of this book are only just starting out as 99% of engineers know what this book is and how helpful it is as a reference.
B**R
A vital resource, but use with caution
This can be a huge timesaver for quickly looking up values and also contains practical advice and references. It's a must have for any structural engineer working to Eurocodes. It would be five stars if it weren't for the large number of errors I have come across. The book contains so much data that I have only used a fraction of it, but I've found enough mistakes to make me cautious about trusting data and formulae without double checking.Here are some examples:The Timber Properties table (p.266) gives BS EN 338:2009 as the source, but the timber strength values given are from the older standard (BS EN 338:2003). Some strength values have changed significantly between these versions - e.g. the shear strength of C16 softwood being increased from 1.8 to 3.2 N/mm2. There are typos in the symbols in the table headings (e.g. putting E_0.05 instead of E_mean), and some of the density values are swapped round so the 'minimum' is higher than the 'mean'.The equation for Critical Buckling Moment on p.211 is missing a factor of pi squared (which has changed to an 'x') and there is a dubious looking value for C1 in the table for the case of a fixed-pinned beam.On p. 115, the area of B131 mesh should be 1310mm2/m (not 131mm2/m).The alphabetical order in the table of actions on p.89 has gone a bit awry, with Concrete coming before Coal coming before Chalk.You only have to glance at the formula for the Perry-Robertson buckling load on p.66 to see that it has also gone badly wrong.It's probably still the best, most compact quick-reference handbook available though, once you are aware to look out for the errors. The preface includes an email address where the author encourages you to send corrections and suggestions - but I can't find a list of errata that has been made available.
S**R
Seems pretty good, with lots of really useful & accessible ...
Only had it a few days, to replace a first edition copy (2004).Seems pretty good, with lots of really useful & accessible information. Quite a few silly mistakes though, e.g.:1. sketches which accompany the steel section tables are wrong2. deflection formula for s/supported beam with udl is wrong (denominator should be 384)plus several others I've spotted already - doesn't exactly inspire confidence & pretty inexcusable really for a book in its 3rd edition.Still, in experienced hands it's probably safe to use.Also some obvious omissions which could have been really useful, e.g.1. wind pressure coeffs. for vertical walls, flat roofs & duo-pitched roofs, together with some simplified methods for calculating net wind pressures.2. Screw withdrawal values for timber connections.In summary, it's a shame a bit more effort wasn't made to take a good book & make it a great book.
E**S
Dangerously riddled with errors.
This book is essentially useless to me as it's full of errors, meaning it can't be trusted. Not at all what you want from a book that should be providing sanity checks in the design of buildings that you want to remain standing. For £28 This is outrageous. You should not be allowed sell this book. Apart from everything else i have mentioned, it's dangerous!
T**S
Errors!
Riddled with mistakes especially mathematical! I am doing a Beng in Civil Engineering and this may have interfered with an exam I just did! How can you get the max. bending moment equation wrong?! That's like a Physics textbook getting Einstein's e=mc^2 wrong!This is actually on the recommended reading list for my studies. Will have to advise the course director. Avoid.
ترست بايلوت
منذ شهر
منذ شهر