www.www.buonovino.com

[roark.sol1]

Hello All,

Copied below is the edited text of a posting I had made on the general
discussion forum on March 17, which will be more topical in this
e-Conference :
*******************

1) A lot of clauses in the Indian codes in general and 1893:2002 in
specific, are ambiguous and open ended which lead to multiple
interpretations. I do not know, why this is so, but it is a very undesirable
situation, and should be dealt with head on (in no ambiguous terms). One of
the objectives of this forum is to
facilitate this process, firstly by providing a platform to discusss the
different views & interpretations with the aim of acheiving a convergence of
the same, and secondly to form an effective pressure group to acheive the
implementation of the converged views & interpretations.

2) In cases of ambiguity, the general response in most of the cases is to
nterpret it towards the CONSERVATIVE side, without application of either
rational & scientific thought process or effort to discuss with peers. This
seems to have become an underlying definition of a structural engineer. I
know that this phenomenon is due to poor economic compensation for their
time & efforts, but it will ultimately lead to increasing marginalization of
the structural engineer in todays fast developing world and thus increasing
reduction in the compensation. If safety & conservatism is the only
principle on which to operate, then we will not be needed, because our need
to the society is governed by our ability to "optimize between safety &
economy", and I see the current trend leading more & more towards safety
leaving economy to the winds. A classic case is this topic of load
combinations. If we consider the UBC 1997, we will see that all the load
combinations given (clause 1612.2.1, page 2-4, vol II) are far less
conservative than those given in Indian codes, and the reason being that
they are far more scientifically rational & logical, and not based on an
irrational fear for "lack of safety".

3) Our codes are pathetically lacking the adequacy to meet the requirements
of the new millenium. They seem to have an ostrich like attitude towards
computerized calculations and their ability to provide optimizations in a
short time frame. Just because ALL of us in India do not have the means to
have the right tools or are not ready to apply their minds & efforts, should
not be a reason for a penalty to those who have the tools and are
effectively using them to create a more rational & economical structural
system. The present day formulations, clauses & guidelines of the Indian
codes DO put such a penalty, specially in the cases of peer review &
checking by government engineers. Again a classic case is the emperical
formulae for time period of the building "WITHOUT infill panels" as given in
IS:1893:2002 opposed to the results you get by ANY software. "WITH the
panels" case may be debatable to some extent, but "WITHOUT the panels" case
has no justification of being so outrightly unconservative in the year 2002.

I sincerely hope that this forum will be instrumental in addressing these
issues and in finding solutions to the inadequacies we currently face.

********************
Regards

Pankaj Gupta

Posted via Email

[roark.sol1]

Dear Alpa,

Comments on 2 of your points