Bbe. Death by Email 5.; Dr.Ing PhD Proposal

Update 26th August 2026.

It’s been a long road. Five years later, despite the mass of evidence I can now bring to bear I must report my PhD application through Treforest has been hijacked by Engineering Gatekeepers. This is the story. Let the evidence speak for itself…

Over the course of phone conversations, teams meetings, and email exchanges between 22nd April and 17th August 2026, with a view towards publication, professor Bai was enthusiastic, excited at the potential gains, and keen to help me get the work presented for peer review. The PhD was irrelevant to me, I was just seeking a means to achieve peer review, because deliberate ignorance is a technique that works well, so far, but will crumble at first contact.

The professor and I had several discussions ending the second where he said the next move was that we will publish first project, to restore the reference, and then proceed to project two, the proposed foundational shift in engineering practice.

We had a further conversation after this, where Prof Bai said he needed to check with the University that he was ok to co-author the paper. And then he bailed. So only after talking to senior engineers did he change his mind, up to then he had been very enthusiastic.

Summary of efforts made to satisfy publishing criteria for peer review by PhD route.

21st April – enquiry
22nd April – approach professor
30th April – chased
1st May – response
5th May – concern on corrupt practice
11th May chased
13th May – response
22nd May -response
22nd May – Tech Note supplied
1st June – sent summary on projects
2nd June – response
8th June – detailed response
15th June – confirmed project should meet all requirements
16th June – meeting set up, details supplied
24th June – confirmed progress agreed at meet
25th June – sent Nuclear Technical Note
26th/27th June – response
29th June – projects submitted
8th July – request for Lab visit
8th July -response
10th July – feedback on projects
20th July – formal project presentation
27th July – response
7th August – response
9th August – final Project 1 for publication
11th August – detailed feedback and request to see reference documents
11th August – sent
12th August – confirmed
13th August – chased
15th August – chased
17th August – professor bails out
25th August – request for engineering feedback…

Original Story 16/6/26

I am applying for a PhD by Portfolio with South Wales University in Treforest. Professor Bai is head of civil engineering and has given me the specific requirements. Below is my proposal:

Prepared for Professor Jiping Bai – PhD by Portfolio Application, Teams meeting scheduled: 23rd June 2026

Martin Reynolds BEng – 16th June 2026

Portfolio Structure Overview (Three Related Projects)

The majority of the work is already complete (2008–2026). I propose the following three distinct but related projects, all grounded in professional practice and conceptual investigation:

Project 1: Historical Provenance & State of Practice Audit (2008)

BEng thesis on circular concrete tanks as audit
Outputs: Full thesis resubmitted with updates: references to Lewe 1915 via Carpenter 1927, identification of missing provenance in PCA 1942/1965/1993 editions.
Individual contribution: Systematic audit revealing the broken reference chain; first modern linking of PCA tables back to Lewe.

Project 2: Geometric First-Principles Extension of Lewe (2023–2026)

Development of the Lewe Disc model and ring-tension judder wave.
Outputs: Notebook derivations, force-logic diagrams, modified Young’s modulus / post-yield transition graphs, pi-tensor mappings.
Individual contribution: Treating the wall as an infinitely thin 2D ring/disc, deriving the circumferential judder wave and augmented hoop-stress equation (σ_θ = pr/t + M_rot + σ_ring tension), demonstrating 18–20% material savings.

Project 3: Application to Sustainability & Safety Factor Visibility (2026)

Integration with sustainable concrete design and critical infrastructure.
Outputs: Technical Notes on material efficiency, nuclear containment relevance, dilatancy clamping, and full geometric visibility of safety factors.
Individual contribution: Linking the geometric framework to low-carbon design, reduced embodied carbon, and forensic control of cumulative safety margins.

These three projects form a coherent narrative: from audit of existing practice → geometric first-principles innovation → practical application to sustainability and critical structures.

Critical Overview (Proposed Structure)

The Critical Overview (~15,000 words) will:

Demonstrate the relationship between the three projects (historical gap → theoretical extension → applied benefit).
Articulate the original contribution: A transparent, coefficient-independent geometric mechanics framework that restores visibility of all safety factors from first principles, enabling measurable material and carbon savings while maintaining stability.
Position the work in the field: Builds directly on Lewe 1906/1915/1923, addresses limitations of empirical tables, and offers a novel route for sustainable shell design.
Reflect on limitations and future work: Assumptions, validation needs, and potential integration with FEA/surrogate modelling.

Supporting Materials Ready

Full 2008 BEng thesis (Project 1)
Notebook derivations and diagrams (Project 2)
Latest Technical Notes and pi-tensor drawings (Project 3)

This portfolio is ready for formal presentation. The Critical Overview can be written to demonstrate originality at PhD standard.

Updated 26th August 2026 with full email trail…

PUBLIC / CYHOEDDUS

Dear Martin,

Thank you for your enquiry about studying for a PhD by Portfolio with us here at the University of South Wales.

I would recommend you take a look at the Graduate School webpages as firstly you will need to identify a Research and Innovation Group (RIG) where your research will fit. I see you mention the Engineering RIG, I would recommend you make contact with a potential supervisor, within that group, to discuss the portfolio of work you are intending to use for this Doctorate. They will be able to determine if you have a sufficient portfolio ready.

I hope this helps.

Best wishes,

Llinos

Dear Professor BaiI am writing to enquire about the suitability of my background to be considered for the PhD by Portfolio route in Civil or Structural Engineering at the University of South Wales (Treforest campus) commencing in October 2026. I hold a 1st Class BEng Civil Engineering, which I obtained as mature student in 2008, and have over 20 years of professional experience as engineer and manager in consultancy, contracting and client roles, always in Highways. I am particularly interested in having my original contributions to Rigid Body Mechanics formally recognised through the portfolio route.

Over the course of my career, and building on my 2008 Thesis on Concrete Water Tank Structural Design, I have developed an extended framework for rigid body mechanics with direct applications to thin elastic shells and reinforced concrete structures. This work integrates Viktor Lewe’s 1915 matrix coefficients for the statics of thin shells (specifically abb5 and abb14 diagrams for membrane, shearing, and bending forces, which themselves are derived from Lewe’s 1906 Physics dissertation) with principles derived from Osborne Reynolds’ dilatancy mechanism (1885 to 1903). The approach enables a unified treatment of indeterminate shell structures by incorporating orthogonal stretch, ring tension, and dilatancy-induced clamping effects. The core mathematical innovation lies in the inversion of aspects of Euler’s rigid-body axis theorem to achieve micro-macro closure in shell mechanics. This produces certain position and momentum readouts at the dilatancy origin through orthogonal stretch and ring-tension counter-snap, enabling more precise prediction of surface resistance and volumetric behaviour in overconstrained systems.

Key engineering outcomes include an augmented hoop-stress equation for cylindrical reinforced-concrete shells of the form

σ_θ = pr/t + M_rot + σ_ring tension, where the additional ring-tension term arises from positive rotation moment in the optimised state. This formulation has demonstrated the potential for 12–18% reductions in wall thickness while maintaining structural stability, leading to lighter and more material-efficient designs. The framework also provides closed-form expressions for Lewe’s j and k twist coefficients indexed by 3-6-9 strain progression, offering practical improvements in curvature optimisation and bending geometry for shell and membrane structures.

In practical terms, the method unifies compressive force paths with electric shock pulse equivalents, ring-tension twist, and dilatancy clamping. This has been applied to optimise container and shell statics, with supporting notebooks and diagrams (e.g., bending-force and force-logic construction diagrams) which are available for review.

I have compiled a portfolio of supporting materials, including detailed derivations, force-logic diagrams, and design applications developed through my consultancy practice (Ace Consultancy). These outputs represent a coherent body of original engineering work that extends classical thin-shell theory for real-world civil and structural applications.

I would be grateful for an initial discussion on whether this work could form the basis of a PhD by Portfolio, and whether suitable supervision is available within the Engineering Research and Innovation Group. I am happy to provide a more detailed research proposal outline, portfolio samples, and my full CV at your convenience.

…you are my local university, as well as being the most suitable, I believe.

Thank you for your time. I look forward to hearing from you

Then I chased

Dr, as discussed, see my email below. Please give me a call to discuss tomorrow (Friday 1st May))

..and got reply

PUBLIC / CYHOEDDUS

Dear Martin,

Received your email, will review and get back next week.

Kind regards,

Jiping Bai, PhD SFHEA

Associate Professor – Circular materials & structural decarbonisation for net zero

Lead – Engineering Research and Innovation Group

Lead Consultant – USW Commercial Services

(Structural and Material Testing and Assessment)

Faculty of Computing, Engineering and Science

University of South Wales | United Kingdom

Associate Editor – Construction Innovation: Information, Process, Management

Guest Editor – Advanced Concrete Materials for Net-Zero, Intelligent and Resilient Infrastructure
Applied Sciences (MDPI).

Editor / Author – Sustainable Concrete Materials and Resilient Structures

Clearly, Professor Bai is a well-connected engineer. I spoke to him on phone and raised my concerns so I sent him info to try to give him background prior to further discussion, and to let him know my suspicions about potential corrupt practice...

Professor, thanks for considering my application.

The link here will take you to an outline for my PHD proposal from my latest post

My proposal completes a task I was set by my professor in 2008, and I am concerned that because I am exposing potential corrupt practice by the PCA that this may be uncomfortable for any institution to be involved.

Dr Lewe is a key reference for my work, and I introduce him via the undisclosed theory in 1993 Portland Cement Association Circular Concrete Tanks without Prestressing. Details about Dr Lewe can be found on my Ace-Consultancy site.

I look forward to talking with you soon

Chased…

Professor

I hope you were able to review my proposal last week, as per your response. I am available to meet at your convenience, with a little notice, if you would like to discuss in person or please ring me on ***

Note I have been trying to phone today but the switchboard is not taking calls at the moment.

Look forward to talking with you

A reply, indicating all is on track and there is no need for haste

PUBLIC / CYHOEDDUS

Hi Martin,

Sorry for the delay. I have not forgotten about this; other commitments have unfortunately delayed my progress. May is particularly demanding due to exam marking and the large volume of undergraduate and postgraduate dissertations that need to be assessed in preparation for final classifications and graduation processes.

Our next PhD entry point will be in October, so we still have some time to review everything properly. I will prioritise this as soon as I complete the marking and viva commitments.

Regards,

Jiping

Prof updated me after a phone call…

PUBLIC / CYHOEDDUS

Hi Martin,

Just drop a line to apologise for the lack of progress recently. Exam and dissertation marking, along with viva commitments, have been overwhelming and have understandably taken priority over other responsibilities. I still have two MSc vivas to complete by 12:00 today, after which I will finalise all marking and submit everything to the system by the end of the day.

A couple of more items to be cleared next week but will try to get back by the end of next week.

Have a lovely Bank Holiday weekend!

Regards,

Jiping

Dear Professor Bai,Thank you for your update — I completely understand how busy this time of year is with marking and vivas. No apology needed at all.

I hope the rest of your marking goes smoothly and you have a chance to enjoy the Bank Holiday weekend.

I’m happy to wait until the end of next week for any initial thoughts. In the meantime, I have prepared a short summary tailored specifically to your research interests in sustainable and low-carbon concrete, material efficiency, and advanced computational modelling of concrete structures. The Lewe Disc / ring-tension approach offers a potential first-principles route to 18–20% material savings in cylindrical and thin shells — which aligns directly with sustainability and optimisation goals.

I’ll hold off sending anything further until you’ve had a chance to clear your current commitments.

Wishing you a productive end to the semester.

Best regards,
Martin Reynolds
BEng, Director
Ace Consultancy – Reality Engineers
ace-consultancy.uk

There was a phone conversation, then I sent this…

Dear Professor Bai

Thank you again for your update. I hope marking and vivas went smoothly and you had a chance to enjoy the Bank Holiday.

Since we last communicated, I believe I should be more candid about the background and current position.
In 2008, during my BEng, my professor (Dr Stephen Vary) set me a genuine open question: could I develop a method for designing circular concrete tanks that did not rely on coefficient tables? At the time I reported back that I could not — the coefficients had to stay — but my thesis stood as a report on the state of practice. I did uncover the link to Viktor Lewe and noted that existing practice was based on coefficient tables with no clear provenance.
My work since has taken me deep into Viktor Lewe’s 1915 thin-shell matrix theory. Treating the cylinder wall as an infinitely thin 2D ring/disc and deriving ring tension as a circumferential judder wave from geometric first principles has produced an augmented hoop-stress equation with a positive ring-tension term and demonstrated potential 18–20% material savings in reinforced concrete cylindrical shells.
The Institution of Civil Engineers is currently reviewing the broader issue of proper attribution to Lewe’s 1915 work in modern design guidance.I have now approached three professors with relevant expertise in shell mechanics, nonlinear analysis, and concrete structures. In each case they acknowledged potential technical merit in the modified Young’s modulus diagram and ring-tension concept from first principles. However, all three ultimately declined to supervise or progress it, essentially because it falls outside their current experience and research focus.
This is genuinely novel work. It is not incremental — it is a first-principles geometric reinterpretation. Because it is truly novel, it does not fit neatly into existing specialisms, which appears to be the main barrier I am encountering.
The Treforest campus of the University of South Wales is local to my home. With your expertise in sustainable and low-carbon concrete, material efficiency, and computational modelling of structures, it feels like a natural home for this research. The work aligns directly with optimisation, reduced embodied carbon through lighter shells, and full visibility of safety factors from geometric first principles.
I am therefore asking whether you would be willing to consider supervising or co-supervising this body of existing work as a PhD by Portfolio. I am not asking you to endorse every detail or to position yourself against the wider profession — simply to help present this novel route through a formal academic process so that the findings can be properly considered by the appropriate academic body.
I remain available for a short call at your convenience and can send the full technical note, diagrams, and supporting materials immediately.

Thank you for considering this. I value your honest assessment.
Best regards,
Martin Reynolds
BEng, Director
Ace Consultancy – Reality Engineers
ace-consultancy.uk

Confirmed receipt…

PUBLIC / CYHOEDDUS

Received, thank you.

I am reviewing and check the updated reg for PhD by Portfolio route.

Regards,

Jiping

I chased again and received response…

PUBLIC / CYHOEDDUS

Dear Martin,

Sorry for taking so long to get back. I had a look at your emails with information about what you have done in general. Before proceeding further, I would like to give you a summary about the process of pursuing a PhD by Portfolio here.

To be eligible for this route, the majority of your projects and their associated outputs must already be complete at the time of your registration. You are expected to have a portfolio consisting of about three projects that relate to professional practice, empirical investigation, or conceptual investigation. During the admission stage, the Degrees Committee must be satisfied that your proposed body of work will allow you to write a suitable narrative that demonstrates originality in your field.

The Portfolio: This includes materials from up to three distinct but related projects and their associated outputs. These outputs can take a wide variety of forms, such as published books, journal papers, patents, etc. These need to show the exact nature and significance of your individual contribution to the work.

The Critical Overview: Alongside the portfolio, you must write and submit a critical overview. This critical overview is crucial, as it must demonstrate the relationship between your various projects and clearly articulate how they provide an independent and original contribution to knowledge, at a standard equivalent to a traditional PhD thesis.

Of course, there will an examination for a PhD by Portfolio, which follows the exact same principles as a traditional PhD by Thesis, external examiner’s review and viva.

I hope this helps.

Kind regards,

Jiping Bai, PhD SFHEA

Subject: Re: PhD by Portfolio Enquiry – Request for Meeting to Discuss Presentation Route

Dear Professor Bai,

Thank you for the detailed information on the PhD by Portfolio route. I appreciate you taking the time to outline the requirements clearly.
I confirm that the majority of my projects and outputs are already complete, based on over 20 years of professional engineering practice. I have a coherent body of work — including notebook derivations, force-logic diagrams, the modified Young’s modulus / ring-tension transition, and the pi-tensor geometric framework — that relates directly to thin-shell mechanics and sustainable concrete design. These outputs demonstrate a clear individual contribution and appear well-suited to the portfolio format (approximately three related projects).I fully understand the importance of the Critical Overview in tying the projects together and articulating the original contribution to knowledge at PhD level.
Given that Treforest is local to me, I would very much value a short meeting (in person or online) at your earliest convenience to discuss how best to structure and present this body of existing work as a PhD by Portfolio. I can bring the key notebook drawings and pi-tensor materials, and send a concise summary pack in advance if helpful.
Would you have availability for a 20–30 minute discussion in the coming weeks? I remain flexible and happy to work within the University’s process.

Thank you again for your guidance. I look forward to your thoughts.
Best regards,
Martin Reynolds
BEng, Director
Ace Consultancy – Reality Engineers
ace-consultancy.uk

1st teams meeting set for 23rd June

Hi Martin,

Following our phone call, please find the meeting details for discussing your enquiry about the PhD by Portfolio in Civil/Structural Engineering.

Please let me know if your availability changes.

Kind regards,

Jiping

I confirm and send info for professor for meeting to try to keep focus on progress…

Dear Professor Bai,
Thank you for agreeing to the Zoom meeting on Tuesday 23rd. To make best use of our time, see below a proposed agenda. The focus will be on how to structure and present my existing body of work as a PhD by Portfolio, with particular emphasis on sustainable concrete shells and geometric first-principles mechanics.
As requested, I have prepared project documents structured around the PhD by Portfolio (included below the summary), of three distinct but related projects, all with the majority of outputs already complete. I also include a proposed structure for the Critical Overview to demonstrate the original contribution to knowledge.
I believe this meets the eligibility criteria and provides a clear narrative of originality in sustainable geometric mechanics for concrete shells.
I remain available for any further discussion or adjustments needed to progress to the formal application stage.
I look forward to speaking with you.
Best regards,
Martin ReynoldsBEng, Director Ace Consultancy – Reality Engineers

Summary / Agenda for the Meeting Meeting Agenda – PhD by Portfolio Discussion
With Professor Jiping Bai – Tuesday 23rd June 2026
Purpose: Discuss how best to present my existing body of work as a PhD by Portfolio at the University of South Wales, focusing on sustainable concrete structures and geometric first-principles mechanics.
Background
In 2008 my professor (Dr Stephen Vary) set an open question: could circular concrete tanks be designed without reliance on coefficient tables? My subsequent research traced the tables to Viktor Lewe’s 1915 thin-shell matrix theory. I have since extended this into a first-principles geometric framework.
Core Contribution
Treating the cylinder wall as an infinitely thin 2D ring/disc yields ring tension as a circumferential judder wave. This produces an augmented hoop-stress equation:
σ_θ = pr/t + M_rot + σ_ring tension
with demonstrated potential for 18–20% material savings while maintaining stability, plus full visibility of safety factors from geometric first principles.
Alignment with Your Research
This approach offers measurable benefits in low-carbon concrete design, material efficiency, and optimisation of thin shells — areas central to your work on sustainable materials and computational modelling.
Portfolio Readiness
I have a coherent body of existing outputs (notebook derivations, force-logic diagrams, pi-tensor geometric mappings, and the modified Young’s modulus / ring-tension transition). The Critical Overview can articulate the original contribution at PhD level.
Discussion Points

Suitability of this work for PhD by Portfolio route.
Structure of the Critical Overview.
Any additional outputs or framing needed for USW requirements.
Next practical steps and timeline.

I look forward to your guidance. All materials (Technical Note, key diagrams, and notebook excerpts) are available on request if helpful.

Teams meeting held 23rd June 2026, summary sent to prof Bai for records

Professor Bai

Thank you so much for the meeting on Tuesday, it was genuine pleasure to talk through the potential for a geometric first principle design procedure.

As discussed:

The work appears to be original, with the reference to V Lewe, 1915, noted, and that the end game of my presentation will be external judgement by engineering peer review to determine. As evidence of originality, the approach will be initially to progress with 3 projects as proposed in email below,summarised as:

Project 1: Historical Provenance & State of Practice Audit (2008–2012) – ‘Rescue Lewe’ and place in existing context with his ‘wall’ of PCA coefficientsProject 2: Geometric First-Principles Extension of Lewe (2012–2025). – Reduce wall with a ring and analyse as judder wave, bringing the dynamic strength of the water, from which the concrete itself is constructed, to the fore.Project 3: Application to Sustainability & Safety Factor Visibility (2020–2026) – testing and experimental opportunities to be explored as project 2 progresses
One end goal target is software acceptance, and I will follow your advice and approach some companies, with a view to collaborating.
You will follow up with seeking engineer support based on the projects, and will send me a form to complete so that I may commence in October.
Look forward to meeting again
Martin Reynolds

I also sent a technical note, based on the nuclear containment angle we had discussed…

PhDd. Technical Note 10; Potential Incompleteness in Nuclear Containment Risk Assessment – Proposal for Falsifiable Experimental Validation

Subject: Technical Note & Proposed Falsifiable Experiment – “Do Lewe Tanks Pulse?”

Dear Professor Bai,

Following our meeting, I have prepared a short Technical Note (see link) focused on the nuclear containment risk angle and a clear, falsifiable experimental proposal to test the core pulsatile behaviour, which may be useful when discussing my work with potential supporters.
The experiment (“Do Lewe Tanks Pulse?”) is simple, low-cost, and directly addresses the request for proof. A 1 m diameter super-thin steel cylinder model with external elastic confinement is proposed for Phase 1.
I remain available for further discussion
Thank you again for your time and guidance.

Best regards,Martin Reynolds

Prof confirmed below, with next steps to hone projects for publication for peer review

PUBLIC / CYHOEDDUS

Thank you for the notes, I am preparing some notes for your preparation and will forward asap.

Enjoy the hot weather and weekend.

Kind regards,

Jiping Bai, PhD SFHEA

Prof Bai supplied examples on presentation style and tone…

PUBLIC / CYHOEDDUS

Good morning, Martin,

I’ve attached the project proposal template. Please complete as much of it as you can and return it for my review. As you will be undertaking your degree via the PhD by Portfolio route, I may provide you with a revised proposal template after reviewing your initial proposal, to allow you to expand your proposal in line with the three focused projects.

Regards,

Jiping

Here’s me supplying amended projects as requested…

Dear Professor Bai,

Attached are the three project proposals formatted to the template. They are intended to show the completed work, the original contribution, and the proposed experiment for validation.I believe this package demonstrates a coherent portfolio ready for formal consideration and I look forward to your feedback and next steps.

Best regards,
Martin Reynolds

prof supplies examples of previous PhD projects…

PUBLIC / CYHOEDDUS

Thank you, Martin, for the proposal draft, which could be expanded into project focused. The submission must consist of a “coherent portfolio” of outputs, which may include peer-reviewed journal articles, book chapters, monographs, technical reports, or creative works (such as software).

The portfolio model here requires evidence from submissions indicates that the PhD by Portfolio is a distinct doctoral award (or specific pathway) characterised by multi-volume submissions: Submissions are often structured across multiple volumes (e.g., Volumes 1–3) to accommodate the breadth of evidence. Typical structure I would think: (a) Retrospective Project 1 with outputs: A distinct body of work derived from previous professional activity; (b) Retrospective Project 2: A second distinct body of prior work with outputs; (c) Prospective (“Live”) Project 3: A new, supervised investigation involving primary data collection etc.

Please find the attached sample (only showing 2 retrospective projects). What you see is the outputs (very solid and highly evidenced) which stand out.

Will you be able to use the similar format to outline your potential project submission?

Cofion gorau/Kind regards,

Jiping Bai, PhD SFHEA

(Tangent trying to get Project 3 experiment started…)

Professor

Would it be possible to arrange to come and visit the university so that I can see the facilities? I am working on tank designs, and need to be able to see what may be possible.

Please could you give me a call when you have a moment?

But prof wants focus on projects 1 and 2, not a problem…

PUBLIC / CYHOEDDUS

We are currently relocating our laboratories to another building, and they are expected to be reinstalled in September. In terms of water tank testing, there may be limitations in our available capacity. This is why I suggested during our discussion that, if you have contacts at other universities, it may be worth exploring potential collaborations.

One organisation I recommended is BRE. I’m not sure whether you have worked with them previously, but it may be worthwhile approaching them to enquire whether it would be possible to use their testing facilities.

At this stage, it is essential that you have already completed Projects 1 and 2 and produced the required outputs (please refer to the sample I sent). This is a key requirement and a distinctive feature of a PhD by Portfolio.

Cofion gorau/Kind regards,

Jiping Bai, PhD SFHEA

Attempting to explain that the doors are closed to anyone on the outside, and please give me feedback on work presented…

Professor

Thanks for reply, I did try to ring.

As discussed, I have struggled to gain access to other Universities, acknowledging my work has ‘technical merit’ but not wanting to engage further. Do you have a contact you could help me with? Bristol perhaps? I will contact BRE.

Have you reviewed the three projects I sent you on the templates provided? Happy to commence on their main body now but would appreciate some feedback before I do. You say ‘at this stage it is essential I have completed projects 1 and 2’, do you mean I should have presented them as finished projects? Happy to get on with this but would appreciate feedback first.

Please give me a ring if you can

Some feedback at last, but feels like a circular argument building, in that I need to have already published in order to get published?..

PUBLIC / CYHOEDDUS

Good morning, Martin,

The project proposals possess good academic value by uncovering a “broken provenance” in structural design, reconnecting modern standards to Lewe’s 1915 first principles. The work is potential in offering material savings. The approach adopted provides a good contribution that enhances safety-factor transparency while addressing modern engineering challenges like nuclear containment and carbon reduction.

As this is a PhD by Portfolio submission, it typically requires evidence from two to three completed projects. To strengthen the academic rigour and originality of the portfolio, I usually look for at least two completed projects alongside one ongoing project.

At the moment, the outputs from the first two projects are not entirely clear. Could you use the sample I shared as a template to present your projects? Please ensure that you include all relevant outputs for each project.

Take your time putting everything together. I will be on annual leave for the next two weeks, starting next week. If you are able to send the documents before I return, I will review them upon my return and begin exploring other potential resources and collaborators. Once I have completed my review, I will arrange another meeting to discuss the best way forward.

Kind regards,

Jiping Bai, PhD SFHEA

As instructed, I adjusted my projects to suit templates and resubmitted

Professor Bai

Please see attached, replicated below, my PhD project proposal, structured towards clear outputs as requested.

I am eager to hear your feedback, and to progress to registration.

Look forward to speaking again soon

Martin

PhD by Portfolio Proposal
Martin Reynolds BEng
PhD (Civil Engineering)

Introduction

At the conclusion of the author’s 2008 BEng thesis ‘Cylindrical Reinforced Concrete Elevated Water Tanks’, the section ‘Recommendations for Further Study’ scheduled the following tasks:

Understand derivation of PCA tables
Translation of Documents from German Publications
Follow up further references
Create a design method from scratch using basic shell theory
Examination of the effect of deflection in the base slab
Investigation into the effects of prestressing on deflection characteristics.

The conclusion of this work is presented here. The question originally set by my professor now has a different answer: can cylindrical concrete tank load analysis be carried out without using coefficients? In 2008 the answer was no. On completing the tasks above, it is now possible to derive cylindrical tank behaviour from first-principle geometric analysis without reliance on coefficient tables. The implications for risk assessment in nuclear containment and for future material savings are significant.

This PhD by Portfolio comprises three interconnected projects. Projects 1 and 2 are substantially complete and retrospective in nature. Project 3 is prospective and will include new supervised experimental work.

Rationale and Background

The design of reinforced concrete cylindrical tanks, silos and containment structures in civil engineering continues to rely heavily on empirical coefficient tables, specifically those in Domel & Gogate, Circular Concrete Tanks without Prestressing, Portland Cement Association, 1993 (originally issued in 1942). These tables, while operationally useful, lack clear and traceable attribution to their original theoretical source — Viktor Lewe’s 1915 thin-shell matrix analysis.

This creates a long-standing disconnect between established practice and first-principles geometric understanding of key mechanisms such as ring tension and dilatancy. The practical consequences are conservative designs that consume more material (and embodied carbon) than necessary, and safety factors that are not always fully visible or controllable from fundamental geometry — particularly important in critical or ageing infrastructure.

The author first identified this referencing problem during BEng research in 2008. Subsequent independent work has developed a geometric first-principles extension of Lewe’s approach. This body of knowledge has, however, remained outside mainstream academic and professional discourse. The civil engineering profession has the capability to move beyond purely empirical methods. A transparent geometric mechanics framework offers the potential for more efficient, sustainable and safer design of cylindrical shells while improving the visibility of safety margins in high-consequence applications.

This portfolio brings together the historical audit, theoretical development and experimental validation needed to establish and test that framework.

Premise

Within the civil engineering profession exists the technological and intellectual capability to design and construct more sustainable, materially efficient and safer thin cylindrical concrete structures through the application of first-principles geometric mechanics — extending and validating Viktor Lewe’s 1915 theory — thereby reducing embodied carbon, enhancing safety factor visibility, and improving performance in both routine and critical applications.

Project 1: Historical Provenance & State of Practice Audit (Retrospective)

1 Title of the Research Project
Audit of Provenance Gaps in Reinforced Concrete Cylindrical Shell Design Guidance (Lewe 1915 Reference Chain)

2 Introduction
Reinforced concrete cylindrical tanks and containment structures continue to be designed using empirical coefficient tables whose original theoretical foundation is incompletely referenced in modern guidance. Viktor Lewe’s 1915 thin-shell matrix analysis is the primary source of these tables, yet this connection is not acknowledged. The resulting lack of first-principles visibility affects how safety factors are understood and applied, particularly in critical infrastructure.

3 Research Aim and Specific Objectives
Aim: To establish the broken provenance of current design guidance for concrete cylindrical shells and to identify the implications for safety factor transparency and engineering practice.

Objectives

Document the historical references and theoretical links from existing engineering practice to Viktor Lewe’s 1915 contribution (specifically the paper in Handbuch für Eisen und Beton and its 1923 development, his Engineering Dissertation, and his 1906 Theoretical Physics dissertation) through to the 1993 PCA guidance.
Document and translate key elements of Lewe’s 1915 contribution and trace its relationship to later PCA guidance (1942 → 1965 → 1993).
Identify specific theoretical gaps in mechanistic understanding of geometric effects such as ring tension and dilatancy.
Using Lewe’s theory, produce coefficient tables directly comparable to those in PCA 1993 to demonstrate the predicted 18–20% conservatism already present in existing tables.

These objectives are specific, measurable through documented gaps, achievable using existing thesis material supplemented by targeted archival work, and relevant to both sustainability and safety.

4 Literature Review
Modern design guidance (PCA documents, Eurocode 2, ACI standards) presents coefficient tables as empirical without clear linkage to Lewe’s original matrix work. Earlier secondary sources (e.g. Carpenter 1927) hint at the connection, but this has not been systematically examined in contemporary literature. The gap lies in the absence of a modern critical audit that connects historical theory to current practice and highlights the consequences for first-principles understanding.

5 Research Methodology
Archival and documentary research, including analysis of primary sources (Lewe 1915 and related Handbuch contributions, PCA editions) and verification against ICE library records from 2008. Qualitative gap analysis will be used to assess the impact on engineering understanding and practice.

6 Expected Results / Outputs

A clear provenance map demonstrating the reference break.
Identification of specific gaps in geometric/mechanistic understanding.
A foundational document that justifies and contextualises the theoretical and experimental work in Projects 2 and 3.
The 2008 BEng thesis and supporting translations/summaries will form part of the portfolio submission.

7 Research Plan and Timeline
Substantially complete (2008 and 2023–2025). Final analysis, mapping and writing: 3–6 months from registration.

8 Conclusions
This project establishes the historical and professional context for the portfolio. It demonstrates a long-standing gap in foundational mechanics for concrete shells and provides the justification for the geometric extension and experimental validation that follow.

9 References
(To be finalised — already substantially complete. Includes the 2008 BEng thesis, Lewe 1915 primary sources, Carpenter 1927, PCA editions, and relevant secondary literature.)

Project 2: Geometric First-Principles Extension of Lewe (Retrospective)

1 Title of the Research Project
Development of the Lewe Disc Model – Ring-Tension Judder Wave and Augmented Hoop-Stress Equation

2 Introduction
Building directly on the provenance gap identified in Project 1, this project develops a transparent geometric mechanics framework by extending Viktor Lewe’s 1915 matrix approach. Treating the cylinder wall as an infinitely thin 2D ring/disc reveals ring tension as a circumferential judder wave and introduces geometric restoring forces that are not explicitly captured in conventional empirical methods.

3 Research Aim and Specific Objectives
Aim: To derive and formalise a first-principles geometric mechanics framework for thin cylindrical shells that restores visibility of key mechanisms and quantifies potential benefits for design.

Objectives

Formulate the Lewe Disc concept and the augmented hoop-stress equation.
Develop the associated pi-tensor mapping and 3-6-9 harmonic progression.
Demonstrate the potential for significant material savings while maintaining or improving structural stability and safety factor visibility.

These objectives are specific and measurable through derived equations and quantitative comparisons, achievable with existing notebook derivations and supporting calculations, and directly relevant to sustainable design.

4 Literature Review
Lewe’s 1915/1923 matrix work provides the original geometric foundation. Modern approaches rely predominantly on empirical coefficients or finite element analysis, which often obscures explicit geometric contributions such as ring tension and dilatancy. The literature gap lies in the absence of a closed-form, first-principles extension that makes these mechanisms transparent and usable in everyday engineering practice.

5 Research Methodology
Analytical derivation from first principles, supported by force-logic diagrams and geometric (pi-tensor) mappings. Validation is achieved through direct comparison with existing coefficient-based solutions and established structural behaviour.

6 Expected Results / Outputs

The augmented hoop-stress equation incorporating ring-tension effects.
A coherent pi-tensor geometric framework.
Quantitative evidence of material efficiency gains (approximately 18–20% in relevant cases) alongside improved visibility of safety factors.
Force-logic diagrams, pi-tensor mappings and supporting technical notes will form part of the portfolio submission.

7 Research Plan and Timeline
Core derivations and mappings substantially complete (2012–2025). Refinement, documentation and preparation of theoretical outputs: 6–9 months from registration.

8 Conclusions
This project provides the original theoretical core of the portfolio. It fills the mechanistic gap identified in Project 1 and supplies the transparent geometric tools that are tested and applied in Project 3.

9 References
(As per Project 1, supplemented by selected recent papers on first-principles approaches and confinement in structural mechanics.)

Project 3: Application to Sustainability, Safety & Experimental Validation (Prospective)

1 Title of the Research Project
Application of Lewe Disc Geometry to Sustainable Concrete Design and Critical Infrastructure – Experimental Validation of Geometric Confinement

2 Introduction
This project applies the geometric framework developed in Project 2 to practical questions of sustainability and safety in civil engineering, with particular attention to critical structures such as containment vessels. It addresses the potential incompleteness in current risk assessment arising from limited first-principles visibility and proposes a clear, falsifiable experiment to test the predicted geometric behaviour.

3 Research Aim and Specific Objectives
Aim: To demonstrate the practical benefits of the geometric framework for sustainable design and to provide empirical validation through a targeted, falsifiable experiment.

Objectives

Quantify potential material and carbon savings and improvements in safety factor visibility for cylindrical structures.
Develop a risk-assessment perspective relevant to high-consequence applications such as nuclear containment.
Design and execute a proof-of-concept experiment to test whether the predicted pulsatile/geometric behaviour occurs under external elastic confinement.

These objectives are specific, measurable through calculations and experimental data, achievable in staged laboratory work, relevant to both sustainability and safety priorities, and time-bound within the registration period.

4 Literature Review
Extensive experimental literature exists on external confinement of concrete cylinders (particularly FRP wrapping), demonstrating improvements in strength and ductility. However, there is no published open testing of the specific geometric confinement and pulsatile response predicted by the Lewe Disc extension, nor its application to the risk assessment of existing or new containment assets. This represents a clear gap that the proposed experiment directly addresses.

5 Research Methodology
The methodology combines analytical application of the geometric framework with a staged experimental programme.

Phase 1 (Proof-of-Concept) uses a super-thin steel cylinder (approximately 0.1–0.3 mm wall thickness). The cylinder is initially held in perfect circular form by a rigid internal former. High-strength elastic bands are then applied under controlled tension in a 3-6-9 harmonic pattern. Once tensioning is complete, the former is removed, leaving the shell held in cylindrical geometry purely by external elastic confinement. Instrumentation will include strain gauges, radial displacement sensors and high-speed video. Controlled internal pressure and low-amplitude excitation will be used to observe any pulsatile response.

Subsequent phases can progress to scaled concrete specimens as confidence in the geometric principle is established. The approach is justified as a low-risk, low-cost method of isolating and testing the core geometric mechanism before more complex materials are introduced.

6 Expected Results / Outputs

Quantified sustainability benefits (material reduction in the order of 18–20% with maintained stability).
A risk-assessment perspective highlighting the value of geometric first-principles visibility for critical structures.
A documented experimental protocol, model design, instrumentation plan and initial test data from Phase 1.
Refined design recommendations for cylindrical structures.
These outputs will form a key part of the portfolio submission.

7 Research Plan and Timeline
Analytical application work is substantially complete (2020–2026). Experiment design, model construction and Phase 1 testing: 6–18 months from registration. Analysis and integration into the portfolio: Year 2.

8 Conclusions
This project translates the theoretical contribution of Project 2 into practical sustainability and safety outcomes. The proposed experiment provides a clear, falsifiable route to empirical validation of the geometric principles. Together, the three projects form a coherent portfolio that restores a neglected foundational theory, develops it rigorously, and subjects it to practical testing — delivering an original contribution to geometric mechanics for concrete shells with direct relevance to sustainable and safe civil engineering practice.

9 References
(To be compiled. Relevant confinement/FRP experimental studies, nuclear containment and risk assessment literature, plus core Lewe and geometric mechanics sources.)

Received…

PUBLIC / CYHOEDDUS

Well received, I just came back from my annual leave. I will review it and get back this week as soon as possible.

Cofion gorau/Kind regards,

Jiping Bai, MEng(StructEng) MSc(Computing) PhD SFHEA

Now things get confusing. My ‘application’ is the publishing of the projects, as above from Prof Bai. Anyway, Teams meet set 5th August…

PUBLIC / CYHOEDDUS

Hi Martin,

How are you doing with your application? I think we need a meeting to discuss our SNZB project start up. I will schedule a meeting for next week.

Regards,

Jiping

Prof sends me some info of possible relevance…

PUBLIC / CYHOEDDUS

Hi Martin,

As promised, please find the attached two papers relevant to your work, not exactly, but take them as reference or example. Let me know what you think.

If I find more, I will pass them over.

Have a good weekend,

Jiping

Professor

Please see attached draft of project 1 – history of theory and restoration of reference.

Please can you review in preparation for publication.

I am really keen to publish as soon as you feel it is ready. What timescale is possible? Could it be this week?

Also I have now recommenced the translation of the 3 Lewe documents, a task which I had put down some time ago, and which will take a little time to get into order. I have referred to the translations in the text but I think they are not necessary to the core of the paper, so would not want to delay publishing to complete the translation task.

Let me know what you think.

Regards

Prof goes to check…

PUBLIC / CYHOEDDUS

I will get back after checking with the university to see if I can collaborate as co-author. Just want to avoid creating a potential conflict-of-interest issue for future supervision.

Regards,

Jiping

Request for references…

PUBLIC / CYHOEDDUS

Hi Martin,

Do you have copies of those references? Could you send them over so I can have a look?

Regards,

Jiping

and also in meantime great feedback…

PUBLIC / CYHOEDDUS

Hi Martin,

Thank you for sending the draft of the paper on the historical development of Viktor Lewe’s thin-shell analysis and its connection to modern circular concrete tank design.

I enjoyed reading it. It is an interesting and valuable piece of scholarship, particularly in the way it reconstructs the historical reference chain and highlights the contribution of Lewe’s work to contemporary practice. The effort invested in tracing the original sources and documenting the evolution from graphical methods to coefficient-based design tables is evident.

I would like to provide some feedback and suggestions for update / revision. The idea was develped well and the novelty of this draft lies in restoring the “missing reference chain” between Viktor Lewe’s foundational 1915 thin-shell analysis and the tabulated coefficients still used in modern circular reinforced concrete tank design. While Lewe’s theoretical contributions were historically significant, his name is currently absent from modern design guidance, such as that provided by the Portland Cement Association (PCA).

Overall, I believe the draft has strong potential, but there are several areas where the academic presentation, structure, and supporting arguments could be strengthened further.

To improve the draft, you should strengthen the theoretical link between Lewe’s 1906 natural science dissertation on “momentary forces” and his later 1915 engineering shell analysis, as this connection is currently asserted rather than demonstrated. Furthermore, while the documentation of the methodological shift from geometric charts to scalar tables is robust, the current conclusion that returning to geometric methods will inherently enhance load-path transparency and material optimisation should be more explicitly framed as a conceptual suggestion for future research, as it currently extends beyond the empirical historical evidence provided. Ensuring a more consistent distinction between the demonstrated historical provenance and these suggested practical implications will provide a more logically rigorous foundation for the final conclusions.

Kind regards,

Jiping Bai, MEng(StructEng) MSc(Computing) PhD SFHEA

I supply requested info…

Professor

See attached references for 4, 5, 7, 8 and 10. I have a hard copy of 9. Gray from which I copied the quote, and the handbuch file 6. is too big to email but if you need it specifically to help move towards publication, I will sort that out. The remainder should be widely available.

Please keep me updated.

References

Kurrer, K.-E. (2018) The History of the Theory of Structures: Searching for Equilibrium. Berlin: Ernst & Sohn.
Domel, A.W. and Gogate, A.B. (1993) Circular Concrete Tanks without Prestressing. Portland Cement Association, Illinois (First published 1942/3, 2nd ed. 1965).
Love, A.E.H. (1892) A Treatise on the Mathematical Theory of Elasticity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Viktor Lewe Birth and Death Certificate, No. 111/1936.
Lewe, V. (1906) Die plötzlichen Fixierungen eines starren Körpers: Ein Beitrag zur vektoranalytischen Behandlung der Dynamik der Momentankräfte. Buchdruckerei R. Noske.
Lewe, V. (1915) ‘Einfache Formeln und Kurventafeln zur Berechnung zylindrischer Behälterwände mit verschiedenem Wandquerschnitt’, in Emberger, F. & Lewe, V. (et al.) Handbuch für Eisenbetonbau, 2nd revised edition, Heft IV u. V. Berlin: Ernst & Sohn.
Lewe, V. (1915) Die Berechnung durchlaufender Träger und mehrstieliger Rahmen nach dem Verfahren des Zahlenrechtecks. Borna-Leipzig: R. Noske.
Carpenter, H. (1927/1929) ‘The Calculation of Cylindrical Tanks with Rectangular, Triangular or Trapezoidal Wall Sections’, Concrete and Constructional Engineering, Vol. 24, pp. 345–353 (and related 1927 article).
Gray, W.S. (1942) Reinforced Concrete Reservoirs and Tanks, 2nd edition. London: Concrete Publications Ltd.
Salter, G.S. (1940) ‘Design of Circular Concrete Tanks’, Transactions of the American Society of Civil Engineers, Vol. 105, pp. 504–532 (discussion of original paper in Vol. 59).

Receipt confirmed…

PUBLIC / CYHOEDDUS

I will have a look at them once I have your update following my comments.

Kind regards,

Jiping Bai, MEng(StructEng) MSc(Computing) PhD SFHEA

prof sends me a paper for interest, but I am keen to pursue towards publish Project 1 reference restoration

Professor Bai,

Thank you for sending the 1996 paper by R.D. Anchor. I have reviewed it carefully.

It’s a useful comparative note on national recommendations for liquid-retaining structures as they stood in the mid-1990s, and it clearly illustrates the practical variations that existed between codes at that time but doesn’t inform the reference-chain restoration that is the focus of Project 1.

What it does show, interestingly, is the situation that arises when the theoretical foundation is no longer explicit: design rules become a matter of accumulated experience and national consensus rather than transparent first principles. This is consistent with the observation made by W.S. Gray in the early literature ‘there is a great lack of agreement between the methods used by different designers…’

I have kept Project 1 tightly focused on the documentary restoration of the Lewe–Carpenter–PCA chain, in line with your earlier comments. Project 2 develops the geometric implications separately.

I believe Project 1 is now in a strong position and would welcome your view on the next step toward publication.

Regards,

Martin

I chase…

Professor, hope all is well

I am really keen to get Project1 published, I believe it is now ready; could we publish this week? I’m hoping that process will be straightforward? Can you confirm timescale?

Give me a call if need anything

Martin

…and it’s all over. The professor and I had a very frustrating phone call, for me, then I received this email

PUBLIC / CYHOEDDUS

Hi Martin,

Good speaking with you this afternoon. I thought we had a productive discussion and that we now have a clearer understanding of the way forward. Please feel free to proceed with the publication without including me as a co-author. I am confident that your work will receive the recognition it deserves. In the meantime, please do not hesitate to get in touch if you think I can be of any assistance.

Kind regards,

Jiping

Dr J Bai, MEng(StructEng) MSc(Computing) PhD SFHEA

Associate Professor | Athro Cysylltiol

Lead, Engineering Research and Innovation Group | Arwain, Grwp ymchwil ac arloesi (Peirianneg)

Lead Consultant, USW Commercial Services (Structures and Materials Testing and Assessment, UKAS Accredited)

Faculty of Computing, Engineering and Science | Cyfadran Cyfrifiadureg, Peirianneg a Gwyddoniaeth

University of South Wales | Prifysgol De Cymru

Pontypridd, Cymru, CF37 1DL | Pontypridd, Wales, CF37 1DL

as a PS, I sent this email but am not anticipating a response. Note I have now told the professor about ICE confirmation but I anticpate there will be nothing further from Professor Bai. Shame…

Completed portfolio for engineering peer review – Geometric ring tension in cylindrical concrete shells and restored Lewe reference chain

Dear Professor Bai

Thank you so much for all your assistance to date. The process of working together has been valuable to development of theory. Now that I am not seeking your academic supervision, I would be grateful for your engineering feedback on the portfolio published on my website, based on our discussions about the potential for new ways of working, particularly in Nuclear Containment and material savings. Please see that some progress has been made since your decision not to proceed with publishing, with ICE confirming the reference chain.

Project 1 (COMPLETE) restores the historical reference chain from Viktor Lewe’s 1915 thin-shell analysis through Carpenter (1927) into the current Portland Cement Association publication Circular Concrete Tanks without Prestressing. The Institution of Civil Engineers has confirmed both the reference chain and that the PCA document itself contains no direct citation of Lewe.

Project 2 derives, from first principles, a geometric ring-tension term that remains invisible under the classical mono-stable assumption and examines its implications for the design of cylindrical concrete shells. The theoretical foundation is set out in Appendix C (Rest Time origin); the continuum resolution of the Navier–Stokes equations appears in Appendix A; and engineering control of the term via Bessel-function zeros is given in Appendix B.

The portfolio consists of:

Project 1 – Restoration of the historical reference chain from Viktor Lewe’s 1915 thin-shell analysis to the PCA coefficient tables still used for circular concrete tanks.
https://ace-consultancy.uk/phdh-restoring-the-reference-chain-viktor-lewes-1915-thin-shell-analysis-and-the-provenance-of-coefficient-tables-in-the-design-of-circular-concrete-tanks/
Project 2 – First-principles derivation of a geometric ring-tension term that is invisible under the classical mono-stable assumption, together with its implications for cylindrical concrete shell design.
https://ace-consultancy.uk/phdi-first-principles-geometric-ring-tension-in-cylindrical-concrete-shells-making-the-invisible-term-visible/
Appendix A – Bistable continuum resolution of the Navier–Stokes equations that supplies the continuum foundation for the ring-tension term.
https://ace-consultancy.uk/phdk-appendix-a-project-2-navier-stokes-solution/
Appendix B – Engineering control of the geometric ring-tension term via the zeros of Bessel functions.
https://ace-consultancy.uk/phdl-appendix-b-engineering-control-of-geometric-ring-tension-via-bessel-function-zeros/
Appendix C – Rest Time Origin https://ace-consultancy.uk/phdm-appendix-c-inertial-frame-declaration-rest-time-origin/

Primary translations of Lewe’s 1906 and 1915 works are also available on the same site.

My sole request is that the work be examined by engineers prepared to apply critical scrutiny and, where possible, to attempt falsification. I am not seeking co-authorship, supervision, or institutional endorsement—only a fair technical reading of the evidence and the derivations.

Should any part of the portfolio fall outside your immediate expertise (particularly the continuum-physics foundation in Appendix C), I would be grateful if you would forward the material to a colleague in the appropriate academic discipline.

Thank you for your time. I look forward to any comments, criticisms, or suggestions for formal peer-review routes.

Yours sincerely,
Martin Reynolds BEng
Ace Consultancy

martin reynolds	13 Aug 2026, 15:38 (13 days ago)
to Jiping

martin reynolds	15 Aug 2026, 22:35 (11 days ago)
to Jiping

martin reynolds <walnuttreejunction@gmail.com>	Tue 25 Aug, 10:54 (1 day ago)
to Jiping

Llinos Spargo	Tue 21 Apr, 08:45
to me

martin reynolds	22 Apr 2026, 12:37
to jiping.bai

martin reynolds	Thu 30 Apr, 11:04
to jiping.bai

Jiping Bai	Fri 1 May, 09:36
to me