www.sefindia.org

STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING FORUM OF INDIA [SEFI]

 Forum SubscriptionsSubscriptions DigestDigest Preferences   FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups  RegisterRegister FAQSecurity Tips FAQDonate
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log in to websiteLog in to websiteLog in to websiteLog in to forum 
Warning: Make sure you scan the downloaded attachment with updated antivirus tools  before opening them. They may contain viruses.
Use online scanners
here and here to upload downloaded attachment to check for safety.

Do Read-Sub-Standard Tall Building Design In Australia-Welcome to the Faulty Towers state, where any mug's an engineer
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next
 
Post new topicReply to topic Thank Post    www.sefindia.org Forum Index -> SEFI General Discussion
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
bsec
Bronze Sponsor
Bronze Sponsor


Joined: 26 Jan 2003
Posts: 202

PostPosted: Wed Jan 30, 2019 7:30 pm    Post subject: Do Read-Sub-Standard Tall Building Design In Australia-Welcome to the Faulty Towers state, where any mug's an engineer Reply with quote

Dear Alpa

Thanks for sharing this story about the sub-standard works in Australia. I have read through this piece written by sydney based columnist and author, Ms Elizabeth Farrelly, who also happens to be a PhD in Architecture. I think the article is written like a fiction, with less of substance and more of sensational journalism, ridiculing the engineering class and painting a very gloomy picture about the building habitat. I believe, being an architect by education, she has a natural hatred against the engineering fraternity and she did not loose the opportunity to use her skill in journalism to the fullest, to demean and insult the structural engineers in this case by saying "where any mug's an engineer...".


I wish you could also upload the actual report by the team of expert, so that readers could get the total picture. I have broadly seen the interim report in this case presented by Prof. John Carter and Mark Hoffman. A full copy of the interim report is available at: https://www.planning.nsw.gov.au/interimopalreport


Report is quite impressive according to me. For those interested in Forensic Structural Engineering, the report can teach them many lessons. In India, I am yet to see such candid reports in public domain. This interim report says that "The building is overall structurally sound and not in danger of collapse, but significant rectification works are required to repair and strengthen damaged hob beams and in some cases panels that rest on them.Further information is required to ascertain the relative materiality of these issues to the cause of damage".


Best Wishes


Alok Bhowmick





On Tue, Jan 29, 2019 at 1:01 PM alpa_sheth <forum@sefindia.org (forum@sefindia.org)> wrote:

Quote:
           Dear All:
Am sharing this story about the state of structural engineering in Australia! As a converse to "there is treasure everywhere", "there also is s*** everywhere".
best regards,
Alpa Sheth




***********
Welcome to the Faulty Towers state, where any mug's an engineer
]https://ci4.googleusercontent.com/proxy/BKRBbAyc43q19tzlJWw2Tyt9WSFp-tsIziURxrjtKTMrFuv8CLFAy6C9--fRdoDJqQybMg0yJdXHjlraeM--JjWG_ZIgC2jVQ3eXucxlp0Gq4RO687KzFRGFmvkP4fRef0CgaK6LBV-BJEkC_KWOwgEM4X1yYr4v-foPVSxDevVY6sRQTQQr4d6tdGD03rcKH-CdSzZ__mI=s0-d-e1-ft#https://static.ffx.io/images/%2C/t_crop_fill/t_sharpen%2Cq_auto%2Cf_auto/f599a63250636446e6354614cd78884cd247a65e"> By Elizabeth Farrelly 18 January 2019 4:00pm







I'm sorry, run that by me again? We don't require engineers to be licensed, qualified or registered? So the hundreds of shonky-looking resi-towers newly metastasising across our city don't just look like slums-in-waiting but may have no structural or fire integrity to speak of because anyone, including my great aunt Cecily's dog Tozer, can sign their engineering certificates. Seriously?



Illustration: Simon LetchCREDIT:

Tuesday's interim report on the twice-evacuated Opal tower, by engineering professors Hoffman, Cart and Foster, tells us the building is structurally sound, in that it (probably) won't fall down, but has major damage. Two causes are pinpointed: faulty design, using lower-than-required safety factors, and poor construction, deviating from both design and good practice.
The building, as you know, is pretty ornery to look at. A green glass faceted triangle far taller than any neighbours, its look of soulless oppression is relieved only by a number of tall "slots" or "vertical gardens", walled in six-storey pre-cast load-bearing concrete. It's in these walls, and the beams supporting them, that the damage has principally occurred.
But what's fascinating about this appalling concatenation of errors and deceits is the degree to which it is systemic. We don't know how widespread building disasters are because no-one is collecting data, but as the UNSW City Futures Research Institute recently wrote, our "system allowing defective apartment buildings" creates huge social and economic risks for the new compact city.


In our world, building is driven by profit. Beneath that, three systems intersect: legal, planning and engineering. If I owned a new Sydney apartment  which thank God I don't  all three would be keeping me awake at night.
One, the legal situation. Although Opal may not collapse, the hundreds of owners currently embarking on a "no win no fee" class action may yet wish it had. At least then they'd be covered.
You buy an apartment trusting it to be sound, waterproof and safe. But the odds heavily are against you. Not only do studies show that almost three-quarters of apartment buildings have owner-reported defects (the figure rises to 85 per cent for buildings built after 2000) but the owners' capacity to claim against the builder/developer is restricted to near-futility.
In 2015, amendments to the NSW Home Building Act reduced the standard seven-year liability period to six years for "major" defects  defined as a fault in a major element such as a roof or load-bearing structure that prevents a building being lived in  and a mere two years for everything else. Ostensibly, this was about reducing red tape, but those with a mere hundred-litre stormwater dam in their living room or a rotting front door had better be quick.
Any boom encourages fly-by-night developers, tempting them with quick bucks to employ underqualified and inexperienced architects, builders and subbies, who are more available and cheaper. Look around. Anyone with half an architectural eye can see defects everywhere  roof, window, balustrade and wall-capping details that invite water entry; structural sizings that are self-evidently inadequate; stuck-on plastic claddings. Such defects are often "latent"  which is to say they may not present for years and may take further years to diagnose. At least if your building collapses you have six years, not two.


Even so, your chances of legal remedy are remote. The 2014 High Court finding in the case of Brookfield Multiplex v Owners Corporation Strata Plan followed serious defects in a Chatswood resi-tower. The High Court found that, even with a building rendered uninhabitable, the developer-builder owed no duty of care to purchasers, who apparently should have been able to negotiate protections into their original contract. This, combined with the excruciating cost of litigation, helps explain why so few such cases go to court and why, although it's manifestly unfair, most owners end up footing ongoing rectification costs themselves.
Then there's the planning system. Opal Tower, designed by Bates Smart, looks cheap. It wasn't, a one-bedroom apartment selling off the plan for $720K, but it has the mean, undernourished look of the badly detailed and existentially insecure. So I was staggered to learn both that it had been approved as a State Significant Development and had achieved several storeys over the local height limit due to "design excellence".
State Significant? Design Excellence? How could a private residential tower amid a record building boom be state significant? And how could a nasty concoction of green glass and faceted spandrels be "design excellence"? The answer lies wedged into the chasm between rhetoric and motive.
SSD pretends to stop cowboy councils playing silly buggers with development but actually delivers the unfettered ministerial discretion necessary for rampant cronyism. With no requirement for ministers to justify the "state significant" designation, SSD enables an asset-stripping government to slide all crown and public lands under its own jurisdiction, then frantically up-zone for maximum profit.


Right now, this includes the Bays Precinct, Darling Harbour, Honeysuckle, Luna Park, Fox Studios, Taronga, Redfern-Waterloo, Barangaroo, the Rocks, the 17-storey Parramatta Eels hotel now proposed on crown land at Parramatta Park and  surprise  Olympic Park.
A developer need only propose something sufficiently gargantuan on public land and, presto!  straight to Minister Lunchalot. Said minister, if questioned, will likely point to the "Design Excellence" process that purports to ensure such outsize buildings are at least well designed. Except, well, Opal.
But by far the scariest of this week's Opal revelations is the fact that  excepting Queensland  Australia's engineers are entirely unregulated. Engineers Australia is the professional body. "Anyone can claim to be an engineer, provide engineering services and use it in their marketing without any regulation," its website says. The only register is voluntary. If EA strikes someone off for shonky practice, they can self-resurrect the next day, no questions asked.
This is nuts. Engineers  fire, structural and civil  we trust with our lives. In boom situations, where local firms are routinely swallowed by international conglomerates (such as WSP which engineered Opal), where the market is flooded with shonky materials and practices are self-certified, unregulated engineering makes sense like unregulated brain surgery. Welcome to Faulty Towers.
Source: https://www.smh.com.au/national/welcome-to-the-faulty-towers-state-where-any-mug-s-an-engineer-20190117-p50s14.html


]https://ci4.googleusercontent.com/proxy/BKRBbAyc43q19tzlJWw2Tyt9WSFp-tsIziURxrjtKTMrFuv8CLFAy6C9--fRdoDJqQybMg0yJdXHjlraeM--JjWG_ZIgC2jVQ3eXucxlp0Gq4RO687KzFRGFmvkP4fRef0CgaK6LBV-BJEkC_KWOwgEM4X1yYr4v-foPVSxDevVY6sRQTQQr4d6tdGD03rcKH-CdSzZ__mI=s0-d-e1-ft#https://static.ffx.io/images/%2C/t_crop_fill/t_sharpen%2Cq_auto%2Cf_auto/f599a63250636446e6354614cd78884cd247a65e">
  • https://www.google.com/url?q=https%3A%2F%2Ftwitter.com%2Femfarrelly%3Flang%3Den&sa=D&sntz=1&usg=AFQjCNGYGGvACPoHh7DUDd9Qa3rHB6zErQ][/url]


Elizabeth Farrelly is a Sydney-based columnist and author who holds a PhD in architecture and several international writing awards. A former editor and Sydney City Councilor, she is also Associate Professor (Practice) at the Australian Graduate School of Urbanism at UNSW. Her books include 'Glenn Murcutt: Three Houses', 'Blubberland; the dangers of happiness' and ‘Caro Was Here', crime fiction for children (2014).
     



     



Posted via Email
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
sangeeta_wij
...
...


Joined: 21 Apr 2016
Posts: 54

PostPosted: Thu Jan 31, 2019 7:30 am    Post subject: Do Read-Sub-Standard Tall Building Design In Australia-Welcome to the Faulty Towers state, where any mug's an engineer Reply with quote

Dear Alok
I am surprised at your attempted defence of the engineering fraternity, as the Report does clearly show a lot of possible goof ups, in design, detailing and construction quality. I hope to receive more information and go into more details soon to learn more facts of the matter, but the story seems to be the same everywhere…. A mix of recklessness and disregard of best practices and sound engineering principles




Best Regards
Sangeeta Wij
President,WISE India
Managing Partner
SD Engineering Consultants LLP
Vice President(North),Indian Association of Structural Engineers,
Fellow and Chartered Engineer, Institution of Engineers
H333 New Rajinder Nagar(Lower Ground Floor),
New Delhi-110060
Ph:9811776210;01145128530


From: bsec [mailto:forum@sefindia.org]
Sent: 31 January 2019 01:27
To: general@sefindia.org
Subject: [SEFI] Re: Do Read-Sub-Standard Tall Building Design In Australia-Welcome to the Faulty Towers state, where any mug's an engineer



Dear Alpa

Thanks for sharing this story about the sub-standard works in Australia. I have read through this piece written by sydney based columnist and author, Ms Elizabeth Farrelly, who also happens to be a PhD in Architecture. I think the article is written like a fiction, with less of substance and more of sensational journalism, ridiculing the engineering class and painting a very gloomy picture about the building habitat. I believe, being an architect by education, she has a natural hatred against the engineering fraternity and she did not loose the opportunity to use her skill in journalism to the fullest, to demean and insult the structural engineers in this case by saying "where any mug's an engineer...".


I wish you could also upload the actual report by the team of expert, so that readers could get the total picture. I have broadly seen the interim report in this case presented by Prof. John Carter and Mark Hoffman. A full copy of the interim report is available at: https://www.planning.nsw.gov.au/interimopalreport


Report is quite impressive according to me. For those interested in Forensic Structural Engineering, the report can teach them many lessons. In India, I am yet to see such candid reports in public domain. This interim report says that "The building is overall structurally sound and not in danger of collapse, but significant rectification works are required to repair and strengthen damaged hob beams and in some cases panels that rest on them. Further information is required to ascertain the relative materiality of these issues to the cause of damage".


Best Wishes


Alok Bhowmick





On Tue, Jan 29, 2019 at 1:01 PM alpa_sheth forum@sefindia.org (forum@sefindia.org))> wrote:
--auto removed--

Posted via Email
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
sktrisal
SEFI Regulars
SEFI Regulars


Joined: 05 Apr 2016
Posts: 26

PostPosted: Sun Feb 03, 2019 12:30 am    Post subject: Do Read-Sub-Standard Tall Building Design In Australia-Welcome to the Faulty Towers state, where any mug's an engineer Reply with quote

The shape of the building in plan is not suitable for multistoreyed construction.It is not symmetrical in plan on both axis.
Any separation joints are not distinctly shown.
This is a problem essentially expansion .contraction stresses building up.and the cracks appear Where ever there is change of cross section.i believe rings of prestressd wires at intervals going around the structure may help.
Sktrisal
9910416668


On Sat, 2 Feb 2019, 23:19 sangeeta_wij <forum@sefindia.org (forum@sefindia.org) wrote:

Quote:
           Dear Alok
I am surprised at your attempted defence of the engineering fraternity, as the Report does clearly show a lot of possible goof ups, in design, detailing and construction quality. I hope to receive more information and go into more details soon to learn more facts of the matter, but the story seems to be the same everywhereâ€. A mix of recklessness and disregard of best practices and sound engineering principles




Best Regards
Sangeeta Wij
President,WISE India
Managing Partner
SD Engineering Consultants LLP
Vice President(North),Indian Association of Structural Engineers,
Fellow and Chartered Engineer, Institution of Engineers
H333 New Rajinder Nagar(Lower Ground Floor),
New Delhi-110060
Ph:9811776210;01145128530


From: bsec [mailto:forum@sefindia.org (forum@sefindia.org)]
Sent: 31 January 2019 01:27
To: general@sefindia.org (general@sefindia.org)
Subject: [SEFI] Re: Do Read-Sub-Standard Tall Building Design In Australia-Welcome to the Faulty Towers state, where any mug's an engineer



Dear Alpa

Thanks for sharing this story about the sub-standard works in Australia. I have read through this piece written by sydney based columnist and author, Ms Elizabeth Farrelly, who also happens to be a PhD in Architecture. I think the article is written like a fiction, with less of substance and more of sensational journalism, ridiculing the engineering class and painting a very gloomy picture about the building habitat. I believe, being an architect by education, she has a natural hatred against the engineering fraternity and she did not loose the opportunity to use her skill in journalism to the fullest, to demean and insult the structural engineers in this case by saying "where any mug's an engineer...".


I wish you could also upload the actual report by the team of expert, so that readers could get the total picture. I have broadly seen the interim report in this case presented by Prof. John Carter and Mark Hoffman. A full copy of the interim report is available at: https://www.planning.nsw.gov.au/interimopalreport


Report is quite impressive according to me. For those interested in Forensic Structural Engineering, the report can teach them many lessons. In India, I am yet to see such candid reports in public domain. This interim report says that "The building is overall structurally sound and not in danger of collapse, but significant rectification works are required to repair and strengthen damaged hob beams and in some cases panels that rest on them. Further information is required to ascertain the relative materiality of these issues to the cause of damage".


Best Wishes


Alok Bhowmick





On Tue, Jan 29, 2019 at 1:01 PM alpa_sheth forum@sefindia.org (forum@sefindia.org) (forum@sefindia.org (forum@sefindia.org)))> wrote:
--auto removed--
     



     



Posted via Email
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
nagendrababudesu
SEFI Member
SEFI Member


Joined: 15 Dec 2018
Posts: 2

PostPosted: Tue Feb 05, 2019 5:30 pm    Post subject: Do Read-Sub-Standard Tall Building Design In Australia-Welcome to the Faulty Towers state, where any mug's an engineer Reply with quote

Dear All,
I hope this situation will not change, until unless strict inclusion of financial institutions, to insist on quality parameters and funding, as well as in valuing the properties!. I believe structural engineering parameters are missing in the fields like funding and valuation of these man made disasters.



God save this planet!


Warm Regards,

Nagendra babu Desu,
M.Tech (Structures) IIT-G, M.I.E, F.I.V, C.Eng(I)

Vijayawada, AP,
8123558148.


On Sat, 2 Feb 2019 at 23:19, sangeeta_wij <forum@sefindia.org (forum@sefindia.org)> wrote:

Quote:
           Dear Alok
I am surprised at your attempted defence of the engineering fraternity, as the Report does clearly show a lot of possible goof ups, in design, detailing and construction quality. I hope to receive more information and go into more details soon to learn more facts of the matter, but the story seems to be the same everywhereâ€. A mix of recklessness and disregard of best practices and sound engineering principles




Best Regards
Sangeeta Wij
President,WISE India
Managing Partner
SD Engineering Consultants LLP
Vice President(North),Indian Association of Structural Engineers,
Fellow and Chartered Engineer, Institution of Engineers
H333 New Rajinder Nagar(Lower Ground Floor),
New Delhi-110060
Ph:9811776210;01145128530


From: bsec [mailto:forum@sefindia.org (forum@sefindia.org)]
Sent: 31 January 2019 01:27
To: general@sefindia.org (general@sefindia.org)
Subject: [SEFI] Re: Do Read-Sub-Standard Tall Building Design In Australia-Welcome to the Faulty Towers state, where any mug's an engineer



Dear Alpa

Thanks for sharing this story about the sub-standard works in Australia. I have read through this piece written by sydney based columnist and author, Ms Elizabeth Farrelly, who also happens to be a PhD in Architecture. I think the article is written like a fiction, with less of substance and more of sensational journalism, ridiculing the engineering class and painting a very gloomy picture about the building habitat. I believe, being an architect by education, she has a natural hatred against the engineering fraternity and she did not loose the opportunity to use her skill in journalism to the fullest, to demean and insult the structural engineers in this case by saying "where any mug's an engineer...".


I wish you could also upload the actual report by the team of expert, so that readers could get the total picture. I have broadly seen the interim report in this case presented by Prof. John Carter and Mark Hoffman. A full copy of the interim report is available at: https://www.planning.nsw.gov.au/interimopalreport


Report is quite impressive according to me. For those interested in Forensic Structural Engineering, the report can teach them many lessons. In India, I am yet to see such candid reports in public domain. This interim report says that "The building is overall structurally sound and not in danger of collapse, but significant rectification works are required to repair and strengthen damaged hob beams and in some cases panels that rest on them. Further information is required to ascertain the relative materiality of these issues to the cause of damage".


Best Wishes


Alok Bhowmick





On Tue, Jan 29, 2019 at 1:01 PM alpa_sheth forum@sefindia.org (forum@sefindia.org) (forum@sefindia.org (forum@sefindia.org)))> wrote:
--auto removed--
     



     



Posted via Email
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
N. Prabhakar
General Sponsor
General Sponsor


Joined: 25 Apr 2009
Posts: 474

PostPosted: Wed Feb 06, 2019 2:30 pm    Post subject: Do Read-Sub-Standard Tall Building Design In Australia-Welcome to the Faulty Towers state, where any mug's an engineer Reply with quote

Dear Ms Alpa Sheth,

Thank you for sharing an article about sub-standard Tall Building Design in Australia. The scenario in India is not far different which is really scary. It is time to look at our own mal-practices in the design and construction of tall buildings. I would like write the following matter on this subject.
In the past two decades or so, many tall residential and commercial buildings, in the region of 20-30 storeys, have been built in the metros of our country in the private sector. Construction of these buildings start with a developer or builder who engages the services of an architect for getting approval of layout drawings from municipal authorities, and the services of a structural engineer for preparation of reinforced concrete design and drawings, directly or through the architect. The architect and the structural engineer are always in an ever pressing demand for elegant low-cost solutions within a pricing system, due to which the quality of construction becomes secondary at many times. Under these conditions , structural members designed, using the minimum grade of M15 concrete, are to be very thin and slender, and the reinforcement quantity has to be as minimum as possible. For commercial viability, the developers know by a thumb-rule how much quantity of concrete and reinforcement is required per square metre of floor area.
The municipal authorities who give approval of layout drawings look into the aspects of clear space around , floor space index, minimum floor heights, lifts and staircases, fire safety, etc. as per the municipal regulations, but the structural design aspects are not thoroughly looked into. Finally, what matters to the municipal authorities is a completion certificate from the structural engineer for the building stability. In some municipal authorities, a certificate from a licensed construction supervisor is taken to ensure quality construction. It should be mentioned that both the structural engineer and the licensed construction supervisor are appointed and paid for by the developer only, and they are doing evaluation of their own work while giving the certificate. There is no third party check or technical audit done on both design and construction which are very much essential for the stability of the building and also to safeguard the interest of the buyer.
In the structural analysis of tall buildings, using computer programs, several assumptions are made, particularly of the support conditions of the columns and their effective length considered in design. In some computer programs, there is no scope to give these parameters as inputs and the program considers default values built in the program which may result under-design of columns.  
Regarding reinforcement detail drawings for the buildings, the common practice among many structural consultants in the country is to prepare the drawings in a schedule table giving details of top and bottom bars in beams and slabs, number of bars in columns, and spacing of links/stirrups, etc. without showing reinforcement details in plan or elevations and sections of structural members. The dangers of this method are that, firstly, many site engineers and bar benders or fixers do not know much about design aspects of the building. Secondly, the time normally devoted by a structural engineer when he/she visits the site to check the reinforcement that is placed, just before placing the concrete, is not sufficient to do justice to the checking work. Any rectification of the reinforcement that is placed is also difficult to do at that construction stage. If it is not done in a systematic manner, it may lead to inadequate bar anchorage at supports, under reinforcement at few places, curtailment and lapping of bars at wrong locations, particularly for ductile detailing as per seismic code, etc. This method falls very much short of the standard practice of showing all the details of reinforcement including bar bending schedule with bar marks given for every bar shown the drawing.
Soil investigation report of the site must be made mandatory which must be prepared by a recognized institute / firm / laboratory. This procedure will reduce the risk due to foundation failures.
I have highlighted above only a few important points on this matter, but there are still many other points which are equally crucial in the safety of tall buildings, like structural forms, considering right imposed loads, fire resistance, responsibility of developer and builder, observation of defects, and maintenance of building.
With best wishes,
N. Prabhakar, BE CEng(I) MIStructE (UK) MIE (Ind)
Chartered Structural Engineer
Vasai (E), Pin 401 208


On Wed, 6 Feb 2019 at 07:42, nagendrababudesu <forum@sefindia.org (forum@sefindia.org)> wrote:

[quote]            Dear All,
I hope this situation will not change, until unless strict inclusion of financial institutions, to insist on quality parameters and funding, as well as in valuing the properties!. I believe structural engineering parameters are missing in the fields like funding and valuation of these man made disasters.



God save this planet!


Warm Regards,

Nagendra babu Desu,
M.Tech (Structures) IIT-G, M.I.E, F.I.V, C.Eng(I)

Vijayawada, AP,
8123558148.


On Sat, 2 Feb 2019 at 23:19, sangeeta_wij forum@sefindia.org (forum@sefindia.org))> wrote:

      --auto removed--

Posted via Email
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
rajesh modi
SEFI Member
SEFI Member


Joined: 29 Mar 2016
Posts: 14

PostPosted: Wed Feb 06, 2019 5:30 pm    Post subject: Do Read-Sub-Standard Tall Building Design In Australia-Welcome to the Faulty Towers state, where any mug's an engineer Reply with quote

Informative interaction on important subject,thank you for all of you for this.

Sent from RediffmailNG on Android




From: "N. Prabhakar" <forum@sefindia.org>
Sent: Wed, 6 Feb 2019 21:13:42 GMT+0530
To: general@sefindia.org
Subject: [SEFI] Do Read-Sub-Standard Tall Building Design In Australia-Welcome to the Faulty Towers state, where any mug's an engineer

           Dear Ms Alpa Sheth,

Thank you for sharing an article about sub-standard Tall Building Design in Australia. The scenario in India is not far different which is really scary. It is time to look at our own mal-practices in the design and construction of tall buildings. I would like write the following matter on this subject.
In the past two decades or so, many tall residential and commercial buildings, in the region of 20-30 storeys, have been built in the metros of our country in the private sector. Construction of these buildings start with a developer or builder who engages the services of an architect for getting approval of layout drawings from municipal authorities, and the services of a structural engineer for preparation of reinforced concrete design and drawings, directly or through the architect. The architect and the structural engineer are always in an ever pressing demand for elegant low-cost solutions within a pricing system, due to which the quality of construction becomes secondary at many times. Under these conditions , structural members designed, using the minimum grade of M15 concrete, are to be very thin and slender, and the reinforcement quantity has to be as minimum as possible. For commercial viability, the developers know by a thumb-rule how much quantity of concrete and reinforcement is required per square metre of floor area.
The municipal authorities who give approval of layout drawings look into the aspects of clear space around , floor space index, minimum floor heights, lifts and staircases, fire safety, etc. as per the municipal regulations, but the structural design aspects are not thoroughly looked into. Finally, what matters to the municipal authorities is a completion certificate from the structural engineer for the building stability. In some municipal authorities, a certificate from a licensed construction supervisor is taken to ensure quality construction. It should be mentioned that both the structural engineer and the licensed construction supervisor are appointed and paid for by the developer only, and they are doing evaluation of their own work while giving the certificate. There is no third party check or technical audit done on both design and construction which are very much essential for the stability of the building and also to safeguard the interest of the buyer.
In the structural analysis of tall buildings, using computer programs, several assumptions are made, particularly of the support conditions of the columns and their effective length considered in design. In some computer programs, there is no scope to give these parameters as inputs and the program considers default values built in the program which may result under-design of columns.
Regarding reinforcement detail drawings for the buildings, the common practice among many structural consultants in the country is to prepare the drawings in a schedule table giving details of top and bottom bars in beams and slabs, number of bars in columns, and spacing of links/stirrups, etc. without showing reinforcement details in plan or elevations and sections of structural members. The dangers of this method are that, firstly, many site engineers and bar benders or fixers do not know much about design aspects of the building. Secondly, the time normally devoted by a structural engineer when he/she visits the site to check the reinforcement that is placed, just before placing the concrete, is not sufficient to do justice to the checking work. Any rectification of the reinforcement that is placed is also difficult to do at that construction stage. If it is not done in a systematic manner, it may lead to inadequate bar anchorage at supports, under reinforcement at few places, curtailment and lapping of bars at wrong locations, particularly for ductile detailing as per seismic code, etc. This method falls very much short of the standard practice of showing all the details of reinforcement including bar bending schedule with bar marks given for every bar shown the drawing.
Soil investigation report of the site must be made mandatory which must be prepared by a recognized institute / firm / laboratory. This procedure will reduce the risk due to foundation failures.
I have highlighted above only a few important points on this matter, but there are still many other points which are equally crucial in the safety of tall buildings, like structural forms, considering right imposed loads, fire resistance, responsibility of developer and builder, observation of defects, and maintenance of building.
With best wishes,
N. Prabhakar, BE CEng(I) MIStructE (UK) MIE (Ind)
Chartered Structural Engineer
Vasai (E), Pin 401 208


On Wed, 6 Feb 2019 at 07:42, nagendrababudesu <forum@sefindia.org (forum@sefindia.org)> wrote:

Quote:
           Dear All,
I hope this situation will not change, until unless strict inclusion of financial institutions, to insist on quality parameters and funding, as well as in valuing the properties!. I believe structural engineering parameters are missing in the fields like funding and valuation of these man made disasters.



God save this planet!


Warm Regards,

Nagendra babu Desu,
M.Tech (Structures) IIT-G, M.I.E, F.I.V, C.Eng(I)

Vijayawada, AP,
8123558148.


On Sat, 2 Feb 2019 at 23:19, sangeeta_wij forum@sefindia.org (forum@sefindia.org))> wrote:

      --auto removed--
     



     



Posted via Email
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
nagendrababudesu
SEFI Member
SEFI Member


Joined: 15 Dec 2018
Posts: 2

PostPosted: Thu Feb 07, 2019 1:30 am    Post subject: Do Read-Sub-Standard Tall Building Design In Australia-Welcome to the Faulty Towers state, where any mug's an engineer Reply with quote

Dear Mr. Prabhakar,


Thank you for the actual scenario shared by you. Situation is 100% correctly articulated. I believe, Only education to public may help in solving thisproblem. If public aware of the condition, they will try to correct naturally. But nature starts educating public on this matter!!!


I think, One Bollywood movie can educate millions of people! But needs one good love story! Let us try if have any contacts in Bollywood.



God save this planet!


Regards,
Nagendra babu Desu,
M.Tech (Structures) IIT-G, M.I.E, F.I.V, C.Eng(I)
Vijayawada, AP,
8123558148.




On Wed, 6 Feb 2019 at 21:14, N. Prabhakar <forum@sefindia.org (forum@sefindia.org)> wrote:

Quote:
           Dear Ms Alpa Sheth,

Thank you for sharing an article about sub-standard Tall Building Design in Australia. The scenario in India is not far different which is really scary. It is time to look at our own mal-practices in the design and construction of tall buildings. I would like write the following matter on this subject.
In the past two decades or so, many tall residential and commercial buildings, in the region of 20-30 storeys, have been built in the metros of our country in the private sector. Construction of these buildings start with a developer or builder who engages the services of an architect for getting approval of layout drawings from municipal authorities, and the services of a structural engineer for preparation of reinforced concrete design and drawings, directly or through the architect. The architect and the structural engineer are always in an ever pressing demand for elegant low-cost solutions within a pricing system, due to which the quality of construction becomes secondary at many times. Under these conditions , structural members designed, using the minimum grade of M15 concrete, are to be very thin and slender, and the reinforcement quantity has to be as minimum as possible. For commercial viability, the developers know by a thumb-rule how much quantity of concrete and reinforcement is required per square metre of floor area.
The municipal authorities who give approval of layout drawings look into the aspects of clear space around , floor space index, minimum floor heights, lifts and staircases, fire safety, etc. as per the municipal regulations, but the structural design aspects are not thoroughly looked into. Finally, what matters to the municipal authorities is a completion certificate from the structural engineer for the building stability. In some municipal authorities, a certificate from a licensed construction supervisor is taken to ensure quality construction. It should be mentioned that both the structural engineer and the licensed construction supervisor are appointed and paid for by the developer only, and they are doing evaluation of their own work while giving the certificate. There is no third party check or technical audit done on both design and construction which are very much essential for the stability of the building and also to safeguard the interest of the buyer.
In the structural analysis of tall buildings, using computer programs, several assumptions are made, particularly of the support conditions of the columns and their effective length considered in design. In some computer programs, there is no scope to give these parameters as inputs and the program considers default values built in the program which may result under-design of columns.
Regarding reinforcement detail drawings for the buildings, the common practice among many structural consultants in the country is to prepare the drawings in a schedule table giving details of top and bottom bars in beams and slabs, number of bars in columns, and spacing of links/stirrups, etc. without showing reinforcement details in plan or elevations and sections of structural members. The dangers of this method are that, firstly, many site engineers and bar benders or fixers do not know much about design aspects of the building. Secondly, the time normally devoted by a structural engineer when he/she visits the site to check the reinforcement that is placed, just before placing the concrete, is not sufficient to do justice to the checking work. Any rectification of the reinforcement that is placed is also difficult to do at that construction stage. If it is not done in a systematic manner, it may lead to inadequate bar anchorage at supports, under reinforcement at few places, curtailment and lapping of bars at wrong locations, particularly for ductile detailing as per seismic code, etc. This method falls very much short of the standard practice of showing all the details of reinforcement including bar bending schedule with bar marks given for every bar shown the drawing.
Soil investigation report of the site must be made mandatory which must be prepared by a recognized institute / firm / laboratory. This procedure will reduce the risk due to foundation failures.
I have highlighted above only a few important points on this matter, but there are still many other points which are equally crucial in the safety of tall buildings, like structural forms, considering right imposed loads, fire resistance, responsibility of developer and builder, observation of defects, and maintenance of building.
With best wishes,
N. Prabhakar, BE CEng(I) MIStructE (UK) MIE (Ind)
Chartered Structural Engineer
Vasai (E), Pin 401 208


On Wed, 6 Feb 2019 at 07:42, nagendrababudesu forum@sefindia.org (forum@sefindia.org))> wrote:

Quote:
           Dear All,
I hope this situation will not change, until unless strict inclusion of financial institutions, to insist on quality parameters and funding, as well as in valuing the properties!. I believe structural engineering parameters are missing in the fields like funding and valuation of these man made disasters.



God save this planet!


Warm Regards,

Nagendra babu Desu,
M.Tech (Structures) IIT-G, M.I.E, F.I.V, C.Eng(I)

Vijayawada, AP,
8123558148.


On Sat, 2 Feb 2019 at 23:19, sangeeta_wij forum@sefindia.org (forum@sefindia.org) (forum@sefindia.org (forum@sefindia.org)))> wrote:

      --auto removed--
     



     







Posted via Email
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
kedar_kavathekar
Bronze Sponsor
Bronze Sponsor


Joined: 06 Apr 2018
Posts: 4

PostPosted: Thu Feb 07, 2019 4:30 am    Post subject: Do Read-Sub-Standard Tall Building Design In Australia-Welcome to the Faulty Towers state, where any mug's an engineer Reply with quote

Respected all structural engineers,For above stated issue of substandard workmanship particularly in india, to dilute this problem at some extent, I would like to put my paractical thoughts which I am applying at my site works.
To ensure the following points at construction site, if we give proper training of following aspects to workers
1The proper placement of reinforcement
2 Lapping of bars
3 End anchorage
4 Splicing
5 Correct dimensions of given structural member etc.
6 Reading of structural plan and its details
If we can provide on site short term training programs to these bar benders and form work carpenters it helps a lot in practice.
I have started this at my level and found that If these actual working people on site, get aware of the importance of accuracy and quality of work for the stability and soundness of structure, then they give satisfactory quality results.
I think if this kind of skill development programs are arranged throughout India, I am sure we can have sound structures throughout the nation.


V P Kavathekar
Miraj Maharashtra.



On 06-Feb-2019 9:13 PM, "N. Prabhakar" <forum@sefindia.org (forum@sefindia.org)> wrote:
Quote:
           Dear Ms Alpa Sheth,

Thank you for sharing an article about sub-standard Tall Building Design in Australia. The scenario in India is not far different which is really scary. It is time to look at our own mal-practices in the design and construction of tall buildings. I would like write the following matter on this subject.
In the past two decades or so, many tall residential and commercial buildings, in the region of 20-30 storeys, have been built in the metros of our country in the private sector. Construction of these buildings start with a developer or builder who engages the services of an architect for getting approval of layout drawings from municipal authorities, and the services of a structural engineer for preparation of reinforced concrete design and drawings, directly or through the architect. The architect and the structural engineer are always in an ever pressing demand for elegant low-cost solutions within a pricing system, due to which the quality of construction becomes secondary at many times. Under these conditions , structural members designed, using the minimum grade of M15 concrete, are to be very thin and slender, and the reinforcement quantity has to be as minimum as possible. For commercial viability, the developers know by a thumb-rule how much quantity of concrete and reinforcement is required per square metre of floor area.
The municipal authorities who give approval of layout drawings look into the aspects of clear space around , floor space index, minimum floor heights, lifts and staircases, fire safety, etc. as per the municipal regulations, but the structural design aspects are not thoroughly looked into. Finally, what matters to the municipal authorities is a completion certificate from the structural engineer for the building stability. In some municipal authorities, a certificate from a licensed construction supervisor is taken to ensure quality construction. It should be mentioned that both the structural engineer and the licensed construction supervisor are appointed and paid for by the developer only, and they are doing evaluation of their own work while giving the certificate. There is no third party check or technical audit done on both design and construction which are very much essential for the stability of the building and also to safeguard the interest of the buyer.
In the structural analysis of tall buildings, using computer programs, several assumptions are made, particularly of the support conditions of the columns and their effective length considered in design. In some computer programs, there is no scope to give these parameters as inputs and the program considers default values built in the program which may result under-design of columns.
Regarding reinforcement detail drawings for the buildings, the common practice among many structural consultants in the country is to prepare the drawings in a schedule table giving details of top and bottom bars in beams and slabs, number of bars in columns, and spacing of links/stirrups, etc. without showing reinforcement details in plan or elevations and sections of structural members. The dangers of this method are that, firstly, many site engineers and bar benders or fixers do not know much about design aspects of the building. Secondly, the time normally devoted by a structural engineer when he/she visits the site to check the reinforcement that is placed, just before placing the concrete, is not sufficient to do justice to the checking work. Any rectification of the reinforcement that is placed is also difficult to do at that construction stage. If it is not done in a systematic manner, it may lead to inadequate bar anchorage at supports, under reinforcement at few places, curtailment and lapping of bars at wrong locations, particularly for ductile detailing as per seismic code, etc. This method falls very much short of the standard practice of showing all the details of reinforcement including bar bending schedule with bar marks given for every bar shown the drawing.
Soil investigation report of the site must be made mandatory which must be prepared by a recognized institute / firm / laboratory. This procedure will reduce the risk due to foundation failures.
I have highlighted above only a few important points on this matter, but there are still many other points which are equally crucial in the safety of tall buildings, like structural forms, considering right imposed loads, fire resistance, responsibility of developer and builder, observation of defects, and maintenance of building.
With best wishes,
N. Prabhakar, BE CEng(I) MIStructE (UK) MIE (Ind)
Chartered Structural Engineer
Vasai (E), Pin 401 208


On Wed, 6 Feb 2019 at 07:42, nagendrababudesu forum@sefindia.org (forum@sefindia.org))> wrote:

Quote:
           Dear All,
I hope this situation will not change, until unless strict inclusion of financial institutions, to insist on quality parameters and funding, as well as in valuing the properties!. I believe structural engineering parameters are missing in the fields like funding and valuation of these man made disasters.



God save this planet!


Warm Regards,

Nagendra babu Desu,
M.Tech (Structures) IIT-G, M.I.E, F.I.V, C.Eng(I)

Vijayawada, AP,
8123558148.


On Sat, 2 Feb 2019 at 23:19, sangeeta_wij forum@sefindia.org (forum@sefindia.org) (forum@sefindia.org (forum@sefindia.org)))> wrote:

      --auto removed--
     



     





Posted via Email
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
N. Prabhakar
General Sponsor
General Sponsor


Joined: 25 Apr 2009
Posts: 474

PostPosted: Thu Feb 07, 2019 5:30 am    Post subject: Do Read-Sub-Standard Tall Building Design In Australia-Welcome to the Faulty Towers state, where any mug's an engineer Reply with quote

Dear Er. Kedar_Kavathekar,


Your suggestion of training site staff and workers about placing of reinforcement to suit codal requirements is not practical or feasible, as the codal requirements are too complicated for the site staff who are not familiar with all the design aspects. The drawing is the language of engineers, and all the reinforcement details including the bar bending schedule, as I have mentioned in my previous posting, should be shown on the structural consultant's drawings only. The site staff will strictly following the drawings. There is no second alternative to it.


Withbest wishes,


N. Prabhakar






On Thu, 7 Feb 2019 at 10:15, kedar_kavathekar <forum@sefindia.org (forum@sefindia.org)> wrote:

[quote]            Respected all structural engineers,For above stated issue of substandard workmanship particularly in india, to dilute this problem at some extent, I would like to put my paractical thoughts which I am applying at my site works.
To ensure the following points at construction site, if we give proper training of following aspects to workers
1The proper placement of reinforcement
2 Lapping of bars
3 End anchorage
4 Splicing
5 Correct dimensions of given structural member etc.
6 Reading of structural plan and its details
If we can provide on site short term training programs to these bar benders and form work carpenters it helps a lot in practice.
I have started this at my level and found that If these actual working people on site, get aware of the importance of accuracy and quality of work for the stability and soundness of structure, then they give satisfactory quality results.
I think if this kind of skill development programs are arranged throughout India, I am sure we can have sound structures throughout the nation.


V P Kavathekar
Miraj Maharashtra.



On 06-Feb-2019 9:13 PM, "N. Prabhakar" forum@sefindia.org (forum@sefindia.org))> wrote:       --auto removed--

Posted via Email
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
sangeeta_wij
...
...


Joined: 21 Apr 2016
Posts: 54

PostPosted: Thu Feb 07, 2019 6:30 am    Post subject: Do Read-Sub-Standard Tall Building Design In Australia-Welcome to the Faulty Towers state, where any mug's an engineer Reply with quote

Dear Mr Nagendra Babu
I recommend everyone must read NDMA guidelines for lending institutions for approving Projects and has elaborate clauses related to structural safety as well as other parameters. Please also go through Hospital Safety Guidelines also, which is a must for all stakeholders designing Hospitals, noteworthy points being Immediate Occupancy Level design for all Critical units, NO to use of PEB, Precast ,Moment Frame or Flat Slab Construction, Floating Columns and NO to any vetting by Educational institutions(Bye Bye IIT Vetting??)

I would also like to share my experience with a site I’ve visited recently in NCR, a 11 year old society constructed by a reputed builder, profusely cracked and with corroded reinforcement and water flowing freely in all unwanted areas. Some of the columns and beams are close to complete failure. My heart goes out to hapless flat owners, who have nowhere to go as the Developer went missing after de monitisation and RERA happened. Their society of 13 acres, two large basements and 25+ storeyed towers needs extensive Audit,NDT and Retrofit, likely to run into a few crores at least(I doubt their corrosion will be completely eliminated even after spending this money).
Their Association is not in a position to raise this kind of money and really don’t know what the future holds for them. This is just one of the 13 odd societies we’ve visited in NCR in the last 5-6 months. What should the residents do, in such a scenario?




Best Regards
Sangeeta Wij
President,WISE India
Managing Partner
SD Engineering Consultants LLP
Vice President(North),Indian Association of Structural Engineers,
Fellow and Chartered Engineer, Institution of Engineers
H333 New Rajinder Nagar(Lower Ground Floor),
New Delhi-110060
Ph:9811776210;01145128530


From: nagendrababudesu [mailto:forum@sefindia.org]
Sent: 06 February 2019 07:41
To: general@sefindia.org
Subject: [SEFI] Re: Do Read-Sub-Standard Tall Building Design In Australia-Welcome to the Faulty Towers state, where any mug's an engineer



Dear All,
I hope this situation will not change, until unless strict inclusion of financial institutions, to insist on quality parameters and funding, as well as in valuing the properties!. I believe structural engineering parameters are missing in the fields like funding and valuation of these man made disasters.



God save this planet!


Warm Regards,

Nagendra babu Desu,
M.Tech (Structures) IIT-G, M.I.E, F.I.V, C.Eng(I)

Vijayawada, AP,
8123558148.


On Sat, 2 Feb 2019 at 23:19, sangeeta_wij forum@sefindia.org (forum@sefindia.org))> wrote:
--auto removed--

Posted via Email
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topicReply to topic Thank Post    www.sefindia.org Forum Index -> SEFI General Discussion All times are GMT
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next
Page 2 of 3

 

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum


© 2003, 2008 SEFINDIA, Indian Domain Registration
Publishing or acceptance of an advertisement is neither a guarantee nor endorsement of the advertiser's product or service. advertisement policy