www.www.buonovino.com

[jaswant_n_arlekar]

Dear Colleagues:

Welcome to the e-conference for Discussion on New BIS document SSD-II 06 (19914) : REQUIREMENTS FOR STRUCTURAL DESIGN AND PROOF CHECKING CONSULTANCY SERVICES FOR STRUCTURES.


The topic of this thread is:
Legal implications for BIS and users of the code

BIS documents become legally binding and mandatory only on incorporating in a multi-party contract.

Should this standard be subjected to legal scrutiny, to be complete, similar to GPEA, 2006?

Should the code spell out corrective measures in case of non-compliance and/or design failure?



I will be moderating the discussions of this topic/thread. I request you to send/post inputs as close as possible to the topic/thread. This will help in the final compilation and consolidation of the discussions.�


Thank you, and looking for a spirited and effective e-conference.


Jaswant N. Arlekar�
(Moderator)�

Posted via Email

[Rakhra associates]

Respected Sir/Members,my view is to add a role of structural engineer at every concreting stage of a structure , so that structure can be checked at every stage which may benefit the proper working of the building as well as may highlight the role of structural engineer in society as the municipal authorities and development should have a RFI format as a government form to be submitted by the structural engineer a every stage of the structure

For example
In Today's Practise -
Structural engineers role is only at the starting of the project for the submission of drawings and design that too only for the scaled projects not even for the 500 sq.yards projects .
但是如果他们是提出了一个射频识别系统d make a govt document to be signed and submitted by structural engineer at every stage of construction and for every single project whether a 500sqyrds project or 50000 sqyrds project , The role of structural engineer will increase and make the presence/role important.
Which can lead to generation of work and better role of structural engineers .


In Addition to this, also their should be submission of analysis /stadd/etabs file to be submitted for every single project which is submitted in municipal authority ,


May be this practise is already working in metro cities but a city like chandigarh is not working on this practise and even not in punjab ,haryana , himachal pradesh , Uttarakhand and rajasthan or maybe in other states too ,
If this policy is raised in NBC or IS codes this may lead to highlight the role of structural engineers ,


Sincere Thanks and regards

Regards
ER.SHERRY RAKHRA
M.E.STRUCTURES (GOLD MEDALIST)
M.I.E. ,M.I.S.E. ,M.I.O.V. ,M.I.C.I. ,
CONSULTING ENGINEER
RAKHRA ASSOCIATES
"WE SOLVE THE UNSOLVABLE"
A : #2500, GROUND FLOOR, Sector-40,C ,Chandigarh
P ;- +0172 - 291-0955 M:- +91 99 888 09055 , +91 99 882 09055

[mdshameer]

Dear Friends,
My views on the subject are summarized as follows:

1. The draft Code should study the different types of error possibilities in designs and address each type separately. For example, in my experience, the outcome of structural design review can be categorized into following types:
   
   
   1. Missing detail: A detail such as a bar mark, or a cross section or a connection or bolt designation may not be found in the drawing. Sometimes grades of concrete, steel and important specifications and notes may be missing. This results in time consuming technical queries (TQ).
      
   2. Mismatch of details: A detail shown in one part of drawings may be different from the one shown in another. For example, mismatch between longitudinal section and cross section or between plan and elevation. This also results in time consuming technical queries (TQ).
      
   3. Incorrect detail: A wrong value, depiction or text may be shown on the drawing. It could be a human typo-error, it could be that the detail was not updated during a revision. It could also be that the detail was copy-pasted from the details of a project of different Code, different geographical region or different exposure condition. An incorrect detail may result in rework that increases cost, causes delay and depreciates quality.
      
   4. Infringing details: These are cases where a design requirement directly antagonises another design requirement or site condition. For example, a foundation may be placed over a drainage alignment or there is no sufficient space to run a cable routing. Infringing details discovered at later stages of construction ends in redesign and rework.
      
   5. Non-constructable details: These are cases where a design requirement cannot be constructed due to a constraint. Such constraints include access and approach, safety concerns, material or workmanship availability, contractual measurability and billability etc. Constructability issues causes redesign and sometimes scope creep and contract disputes.
      
   6. Unclear details: Sometimes details are open-ended or ambiguous. For example, a drawing may specify that the two parts may be welded but welding method or specifications may not be prescribed. Whereas a missing detail is resolved through queries, unclear detail results in disputes over contractual obligations. Similarly, designers may themselves place disclaimer notes that waive off responsibilities.
      
   7. Conflicts with contractual obligations: Contract agreements, specifications and scope of work may sometimes stipulate special requirements of the project, such as specific materials for masonry, loads of specific equipment, or specific techniques of fixing. Some details may not be in accordance with those requirements, although these are not in violation of Code provisions or sound engineering principles. These issues result in contract disputes.
      
   8. Code violations or insufficient provisions: These are details that do not satisfy a Code provision and hence unsafe. This may result in severe impact when discovered after or during construction, and furthermore severities in case of any failures. Although these issues are relatively rare, as both designer and checker are guided by sound engineering knowledge and experience, it can happen because of human error, document control or incorrect judgement, both at the design stage and at drawing stages.
      
   9. Uneconomical designs: Uneconomical design detail provides for much more than what is required by the Code and engineering practice. It may be applicable both for numerical calculations or in selection of suitable structural system for the contingent loading and functional requirement. Uneconomical designs do not have considerable impact in Type II project delivery of the draft Code, where design is responsibility of contractor. However, it is of considerable importance in case of re-measurable contracts.
      
   10. Judgements & assumptions not covered by Code:结构中,最强大的问题来解决ctural design review is when Code is not specific about certain design aspects. In such cases, the designers and reviewers may be guided by opposing view-points based on their experience. It must be noted that neither Codes nor literature are specific about many trivial considerations and design is subject to discretion and judgement of designers.
       
   11. Architectural and Functional requirements: When provisions given by a designer (such as position or orientation of a column) are not according to an architectural or functional requirement or a revision thereof, reviewer may point out the same. It is common complaint that these revisions happen much later after detail designs or even part of construction has been completed.
       
   12. Clarifications:大多数观测设计cl的评论家arifications seeking the basis of using or providing a certain value. These may be an input from a vendor or a design assumption or a step of calculation or a justification. It may include request to make a submission complete with additional information. Unless a clarification transforms into another kind of observation, it does not have any impact.
   
   
2. 代码只大致概括了responsib草稿ilities of PDC (Principal Design Consultant) and PC (Proof Checker). It is necessary to keep in mind that PDC is the primary agency that creates and manages all the information with respect to design. PDC should also be given sufficient freedom in design. Most PDC are unable to share all spreadsheets and native files used for calculations with PC (as required by Category 1 proof checking of draft code). This is because these tools are created and evolved after strenuous development efforts internally by PDC. Only sample calculations for typical items are provided in design submissions. It is impractical for PC to redo and verify all calculations, and independently arrive at same results as PDC, as envisaged in Category 2 proof checking. Therefore, the primary responsibility of design especially calculation errors should vest on the PDC. For the types of issues with drawing, following responsibility structure is suggested:
   
   
   1. Joint: Missing details, mismatching details, incorrect details, infringements, constructability issues, unclear details, uneconomical designs, judgements and assumptions.
      
   2. PDC only: Standard violations and insufficient provisions in calculations that are not submitted with PC in case of Category 1 proof checking
      
   3. PC only: Conflicts with contractual obligations, architectural and functional requirements of the client.
   
   
3. Stagewise reviews are useful to expedite the design reviews. Architectural or functional requirements are to be reviewed first followed by design criteria, analytical models (with framing plans), calculations and then detail drawings in that order. Involvement of PC early-on in the design stages along with the PDC team
   
4. Resolution of difference of opinion between PDC and PC with third party view has been very well covered in the draft Code.

[va]

Dear All,It is not clear whether appointment of Proof Consultant by the Owner is optional or mandatory. For small project owner many not go for proof consultant.
Regards.
Hemant Vadalkar
Consulting Engineer Mumbai.

[vikram.jeet]

BIS Codes can be treated as Law of Land

This Standard , once compiled and printed out from BIS , shall be treated as other standards I.e having same Authority as other standards in India.


Once a Standard comes into existence question of Non compliance shall not arise.
Also standard cannot recommend any corrective measures on design failing , that needs to be covered in totally separate Standard. P or may be in Part 2.

[nurat]

Dear Sir,In my opinion Vetting of design is must for PUBLIC BUILDINGS and BRDGES and for all other Structurs it should optional and left to Client depending on the cost of project. It is just like Factor of Safty directly proportional to the Cost/Importance.

[vikram.jeet]

Geo tech / Soil Consultant

Prime geotech Consultant - to carry out Testings ( field and lab) , prepare Soil report giving recommendations .

Also during start of execution Prime geo tech Consultant will visit to site to fix founding level in presence of PDC ( I e Prime str er)

REVIEW GEO TECH CONSULTANT - Will act as inspector during testing dates ( both at field and laboratory) and finally review the soil report


As already highlighted elsewhere, that role of above two shall be included in the Code on str design and its proof checking for very pertinent reasons ss under:



I) it will stop cooking of results at field as well at laboratory
(ii) Soil report computations and recommendations got vetted thru other geo expert
( iii) This will avoid shabby Soil reports as this has very high impact on str design I.e safety and economy.

[Ravichandran_Ramachandran]

Proof Consultants are always employed all Public Sector undertakings as well as large industries. If it is to be adopted for small projects, it may not be economically feasible for them. Some of them are not even to pay for the PDC themselves.

Thanks & regards,


R.Ravichandran

[hemraj chanchal]

Hello

Greetings of the day
Agreed and attending.
Hemraj Chanchal
Hc constructions & consulting engineers


On Thu, 1 Sept 2022 at 06:12, va forum@www.buonovino.com)> wrote:

[quote]Dear All,It is not clear whether�appointment of� Proof Consultant by the Owner is optional or mandatory. For small project owner many not go for proof consultant.
Regards.
Hemant Vadalkar
Consulting Engineer Mumbai.


On Mon, Aug 29, 2022 at 4:07 PM jaswant_n_arlekarforum@www.buonovino.com (forum@www.buonovino.com))> wrote:

--auto removed--

Posted via Email