BOOK REVIEWS
hand, the derivation and comprehension of satis-
factory shell theories has taken a number of
decades and the resolution of its very real
subtleties still attracts the attention of dis-
tinguished scientists. Engineers, on the other
hand, regularly employ and often seem to prefer
THE NATURE OF STRPCTURAL DESIGN AND
SAFETY, by David Blockley, Ellis Horwood
Limited, Chichester. Price: f25.00 (hardback);
f12.50/$33-00 (paperback).
This is a big book, not only in size (nearly 400
pages) but in sweep and scope. It attempts to
define the foundations on which structural design
rests, and the author leads the reader to regions
which, almost certainly, he has never visited
before. The structural engineer may know some-
thing about probability theory; what does he
know about fuzzy sets and approximate reason-
ing? He may be familiar with the ideas of limit
state design; has he an equal knowledge of the
history of structural design, does he know whether
his judgements are analytic or synthetic, can he
outline the traditional view of the scientific
method based on induction, can he handle the
mathematics of logic and of set theory?
The book is, in short, difficult, but Dr. Blockley
writes in a lively and always compelling style, and
there is no need at a first reading to follow the
mathematics in detail. There is a general intro-
duction to the problems of structural engineering,
followed by the assembly of a philosophical
apparatus necessary to the discussion of the
nature of mathematics, science and engineering.
These three are not the same; mathematics, for
example, is a rigorous consistent deductive system
based upon axioms, and it cannot be tested by
experience. The theories of science can be so
tested, but the difference between science and
engineering can be illustrated by a discussion of
rules-of-thumb. Here Dr. Blockley leans on the
views of Popper, notably that a scientific theory
can never be proved, only disproved. Thus science
progresses because scientists attempt to falsify
their conjectures as ingeniously as they can. The
engineer, however, does not wish to falsify his
rules; on the contrary, he has an interest in
designing a safe rather than an unsafe Htructure.
Design rules are in fact tested in time by
311
those shell finite element computer programs
which have been developed from heuristic consi-
derations with little or no reference to shell
theory.
L. S. D. MORLEY
Farnborough, UK
combinations of unfortunate circumstances, but
engineering rules are thereby only disproved
weakly.
It is against this kind of background that Dr.
Blockley presents his discussion of the present
methods of safety analysis of structures (which
includes illuminating design examples), and
develops his exposition of the analysis of
uncertainty. Central here is the use of fuzzy logic,
in which imprecise statements (‘this structure is
very expensive but also very safe’) can be labelled
with fuzzy truth values. This mathematical
presentation occupies something over a quarter of
the book; some dozen case studies are then
presented, and it is shown how these can be
analysed by fuzzy logic. (For example, the first
Quebec Bridge failure of 1908 is attributed
unequivocally to an inadequate understanding of
the behaviour of the lattice columns.)
Dr. Blockley is modest, and probably correct,
when he says that practising engineers will find the
book of little direct use in their everyday work.
However both the practising and the academic
engineer will find a great deal to enrich their
understanding of the basic design process.
(The book is well-illustrated, although the half-
tone blocks are somewhat grey. Proof reading was
not perfect. In particular, commas are displaced
and occasionally make reading difficult: ‘Because
many of these random hazards occur, quite
frequently, classical statistics may be used to
estimate the probability of occurrence’ (p. 43).
Apostrophes also float: ‘Archimede’s treatment
of mechanics’ (p. 64); and the ultimate solecism:
‘it’s’ (p. 90). With so many words not usually in the
engineer’s vocabulary (e.g. epistemology,
ontology), a word like ‘preception’ (p. 76) might
lead to the use of a dictionary, but is actually a
misprint for ‘perception’.)
J. HEYMAN
Professor of Engineering
University of Cambridge