www.www.buonovino.com

[Guest]

I craved strong sweets, but those
Seemed strong when I was young;
The petal of the rose
It was that stung.

Now no joy but lacks salt
That is not dashed with pain
And weariness and fault;
I crave the stain

Of tears, the aftermark
Of almost too much love,
The sweet of bitter bark
And burning clove.

When stiff and sore and scarred
I take away my hand

Posted via Email

[Guest]

The hurt is not enough:
I long for weight and strength
To feel the earth as rough
To all my length.

Posted via Email

[Guest]

You have given examples of the Tehri Dam, Narora Atomic Plant,
Brahmaputra Bridge and Bhakra Dam, these seem a bit out of place when we
are discussing high-rise buildings and to draw a comparison would be
futile.

You have also stated that "A value of 0.10g as the seismic coefficient
in the severest zone became a bench mark", I would say that in that case
we would be far from realty, it would be more prudent to draw our
conclusions from the peak ground accelerations observed in the recent
Gujarat/ Kashmir quakes.

I am happy that you share my concern when you say "may be 2002 version
itself is overdue for a revision" but the basis of revision should not
be the "demand as expressed by Mr. Shah and others" but the grave
mistakes contained in IS-1893 which have been brought to light now. In
case the decision makers so feel this may warrant an immediate response
from their end keeping the safety aspect in mind. Maybe an interim order
stating that all buildings 10 stories and higher should follow a
specialised performance based design approach should be the order of the
day.

You have stated that "a great majority of RC Buildings survived than
those that got damaged during the Jan 2001 event", my question is why
did so many of them collapse and even of those which remain standing
today, how much structural damage have they sustained? What is their
energy dissipation capacity as on date? Doesn't it make them many times
more vulnerable to any other future quake?

I am happy that you too have shared my concern about "Earthquake
Resistant" not being defined in the code, "Bye-Laws in most states or
NBC gives a wrong impression that we would have earthquake proof
structures and not earthquake resistant structures". This should be
taken up by the decision makers at priority and after deciding on the
definition the same should be given wide publicity.

You have stated that "A properly constructed RC Building [with ductility
规定适当的宽高比列dimensions, strong column-weak
beam and properly supervised for quality of concrete as assumed in
design and reinforcement not fudged] does not require to be designed for
earthquake forces in Zone II and I will stick my neck out even for Zone
III with some stipulations to consider only equivalent static lateral
forces", however mere statements do not prove their viability. Today the
technology exists that we can accurately model a building, accurately
model an earthquake and study building response, we do not have to wait
for a real-life earthquake to strike to know which building will fall
and which will not.

Your comparing the Seismic Code to the "NEW SARAL of IT" does leave a
smile on my face; however the new-age structural dynamics is a far far
more complex science than filling an IT return.

---
Sandeep Donald Shah
Taylor Devices (India)

C4C O73, Carlton-IV
DLF Phase-V, DLF City,
Gurgaon,Haryana,
Pin-122002
INDIA

tel: +91-124-4377411
mobile: +91-9810257911

email: info[AT]tay...
http://www.taylordevicesindia.com
---

Posted via Email