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.

LIMITATIONS OF RESPONSIBILITY OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS (Doc. No.: SSD II/06(19914) July 2022)
Goto page 1, 2  Next
 
This forum is locked: you cannot post, reply to, or edit topics.This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies. Thank Post    www.sefindia.org Forum Index -> E-CONFERENCE on SSD-II 06(19914) REQUIREMENTS FOR STRUCTURAL DESIGN
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
SGS
SEFI Member
SEFI Member


Joined: 22 Jul 2014
Posts: 4

PostPosted: Mon Aug 29, 2022 4:30 am    Post subject: LIMITATIONS OF RESPONSIBILITY OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS (Doc. No.: SSD II/06(19914) July 2022) Reply with quote

Dear Sir / Mam,I would like to suggest, that the following clauses need to be incorporated into the proposed IS Code 19914.

In case an owner or a builder deviates in implementing excess area of construction than approved or if violates by building additional floors than the specified/approved drawings, may lead to crack propagation in structures or structure fails partially or catastrophic collapse of structure may occur. 


Hence in such a situation, the principal structural design consultant and the proof-checking structural consultant shall not be held responsible for such damages anticipated. It is to be made mandatory in the proposed IS Code by a very explicit clause, that both the structural engineers' team are not responsible for such failures.


Also, It is the duty of the town/country/municipal planning authority to close monitoring who approves the drawings of proposed structures for the respective FSI (Floor Space Index) or FAR (Floor Area Ratio) as well as to meet other norms of municipal bylaws, while in the progress of proposed structure and shall ensure no deviation or violation in the structure shall take place than originally approved. 


In case, if failure of structure happened because of deviation/violation of the structure, there should be another clause that needs to be implemented in the code, very explicitly, that the planning /approving authority shall be made fully responsible for such structural failures and not the structural Engineers. 
If there is no explicit clauses, there are chances that the clever advocates will take the advantages of it and will argue against the Structural Engineers and made them victim for none of their faults in the Court of Law when the dispute is referred to Court of Law in future.
Thanks.
With Regards,
S.Gnanasekaran, BE, FIE, FIV,
Chartered Engineer,
Former DGM (Civil) of ONGC Ltd,

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


Joined: 26 Jan 2003
Posts: 4

PostPosted: Mon Aug 29, 2022 4:46 am    Post subject: LIMITATIONS OF RESPONSIBILITY OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS (Doc. No.: SSD II/06(19914) July 2022) Reply with quote

Under such circumstances the structural engineer should clearly mention that there is violation in design at site. Structural engineer should also visit site whether his design is being implemented or else

Sent from my iPhone

Quote:
On 29-Aug-2022, at 10:06 AM, SGS <forum@sefindia.org> wrote:

 Dear Sir / Mam,I would like to suggest, that the following clauses need to be incorporated into the proposed IS Code 19914.

In case an owner or a builder deviates in implementing excess area of construction than approved or if violates by building additional floors than the specified/approved drawings, may lead to crack propagation in structures or structure fails partially or catastrophic collapse of structure may occur.


Hence in such a situation, the principal structural design consultant and the proof-checking structural consultant shall not be held responsible for such damages anticipated. It is to be made mandatory in the proposed IS Code by a very explicit clause, that both the structural engineers' team are not responsible for such failures.


Also, It is the duty of the town/country/municipal planning authority to close monitoring who approves the drawings of proposed structures for the respective FSI (Floor Space Index) or FAR (Floor Area Ratio) as well as to meet other norms of municipal bylaws, while in the progress of proposed structure and shall ensure no deviation or violation in the structure shall take place than originally approved.


In case, if failure of structure happened because of deviation/violation of the structure, there should be another clause that needs to be implemented in the code, very explicitly, that the planning /approving authority shall be made fully responsible for such structural failures and not the structural Engineers.
If there is no explicit clauses, there are chances that the clever advocates will take the advantages of it and will argue against the Structural Engineers and made them victim for none of their faults in the Court of Law when the dispute is referred to Court of Law in future.
Thanks.
With Regards,
S.Gnanasekaran, BE, FIE, FIV,
Chartered Engineer,
Former DGM (Civil) of ONGC Ltd,








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


Joined: 10 Jun 2016
Posts: 1

PostPosted: Mon Aug 29, 2022 8:30 am    Post subject: LIMITATIONS OF RESPONSIBILITY OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS (Doc. No.: SSD II/06(19914) July 2022) Reply with quote

If structural engineer design for working drawing rather to sanction plan..then if no deviation from working plan one case..and deviation in working plan 2nd case....for your further continuation of noble cause..thank youSridhara SAssistant Professor
Dayananda Sagar Academy of Technology & Management
Civil department 
Bangalore-560082
+91 9743378667
+91 9448045935
sridharasid@gmail.com
sridharas@dsatm.edu.in (sridharas@dsatm.edu.in)










On Mon, Aug 29, 2022 at 10:09 AM SGS <forum@sefindia.org (forum@sefindia.org)> wrote:

Quote:
           Dear Sir / Mam,I would like to suggest, that the following clauses need to be incorporated into the proposed IS Code 19914.

In case an owner or a builder deviates in implementing excess area of construction than approved or if violates by building additional floors than the specified/approved drawings, may lead to crack propagation in structures or structure fails partially or catastrophic collapse of structure may occur. 


Hence in such a situation, the principal structural design consultant and the proof-checking structural consultant shall not be held responsible for such damages anticipated. It is to be made mandatory in the proposed IS Code by a very explicit clause, that both the structural engineers' team are not responsible for such failures.


Also, It is the duty of the town/country/municipal planning authority to close monitoring who approves the drawings of proposed structures for the respective FSI (Floor Space Index) or FAR (Floor Area Ratio) as well as to meet other norms of municipal bylaws, while in the progress of proposed structure and shall ensure no deviation or violation in the structure shall take place than originally approved. 


In case, if failure of structure happened because of deviation/violation of the structure, there should be another clause that needs to be implemented in the code, very explicitly, that the planning /approving authority shall be made fully responsible for such structural failures and not the structural Engineers. 
If there is no explicit clauses, there are chances that the clever advocates will take the advantages of it and will argue against the Structural Engineers and made them victim for none of their faults in the Court of Law when the dispute is referred to Court of Law in future.
Thanks.
With Regards,
S.Gnanasekaran, BE, FIE, FIV,
Chartered Engineer,
Former DGM (Civil) of ONGC Ltd,
     



     




Posted via Email
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
vishnu75
SEFI Member
SEFI Member


Joined: 25 Sep 2008
Posts: 4

PostPosted: Mon Aug 29, 2022 8:53 am    Post subject: LIMITATIONS OF RESPONSIBILITY OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS (Doc. No.: SSD II/06(19914) July 2022) Reply with quote

One of my fellow structural engineers was even blacklisted by a local authority for deviation in dimension. No structural failure and nothing of that sort.

On Mon, Aug 29, 2022 at 10:06 AM SGS <forum@sefindia.org (forum@sefindia.org)> wrote:

Quote:
           Dear Sir / Mam,I would like to suggest, that the following clauses need to be incorporated into the proposed IS Code 19914.

In case an owner or a builder deviates in implementing excess area of construction than approved or if violates by building additional floors than the specified/approved drawings, may lead to crack propagation in structures or structure fails partially or catastrophic collapse of structure may occur. 


Hence in such a situation, the principal structural design consultant and the proof-checking structural consultant shall not be held responsible for such damages anticipated. It is to be made mandatory in the proposed IS Code by a very explicit clause, that both the structural engineers' team are not responsible for such failures.


Also, It is the duty of the town/country/municipal planning authority to close monitoring who approves the drawings of proposed structures for the respective FSI (Floor Space Index) or FAR (Floor Area Ratio) as well as to meet other norms of municipal bylaws, while in the progress of proposed structure and shall ensure no deviation or violation in the structure shall take place than originally approved. 


In case, if failure of structure happened because of deviation/violation of the structure, there should be another clause that needs to be implemented in the code, very explicitly, that the planning /approving authority shall be made fully responsible for such structural failures and not the structural Engineers. 
If there is no explicit clauses, there are chances that the clever advocates will take the advantages of it and will argue against the Structural Engineers and made them victim for none of their faults in the Court of Law when the dispute is referred to Court of Law in future.
Thanks.
With Regards,
S.Gnanasekaran, BE, FIE, FIV,
Chartered Engineer,
Former DGM (Civil) of ONGC Ltd,
     



     




Posted via Email
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
ajay2612
SEFI Regulars
SEFI Regulars


Joined: 14 Oct 2013
Posts: 32

PostPosted: Mon Aug 29, 2022 3:30 pm    Post subject: LIMITATIONS OF RESPONSIBILITY OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS (Doc. No.: SSD II/06(19914) July 2022) Reply with quote

Merely designing without supervision and task execution shall not be attracted for punishing.



From: "SGS" <forum@sefindia.org>
Sent: Mon, 29 Aug 2022 10:08:52 GMT+0530
To: econf@sefindia.org
Subject: [ECONF] LIMITATIONS OF RESPONSIBILITY OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS (Doc. No.: SSD II/06(19914) July 2022)




/* The original subSilver Theme for phpBB version 2+ Created by subBlue design http://www.subBlue.com NOTE: These CSS definitions are stored within the main page body so that you can use the phpBB2 theme administration centre. When you have finalised your style you could cut the final CSS code and place it in an external file, deleting this section to save bandwidth.*/ /* General page style. The scroll bar colours only visible in IE5.5+ */body {     background-color: #E5E5E5;     font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;     font-size: 11;     color: #000000;}/* General font families for common tags */font,th,td,p { font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif }p, td          { font-size : 11; color : #000000; }a:link,a:active,a:visited { color : #006699; }a:hover          { text-decoration: underline; color : #DD6900; }hr     { height: 0px; border: solid #D1D7DC 0px; border-top-width: 1px;}h1,h2          { font-family: "Trebuchet MS", Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size : 22px; font-weight : bold; text-decoration : none; line-height : 120%; color : #000000;}/* This is the border line & background colour round the entire page */.bodyline     { background-color: #FFFFFF; border: 1px #FFFFFF solid; }/* General text */.gen { font-size : 12px; }.genmed { font-size : 11px; }.gensmall { font-size : 10px; line-height: 12px}.gen,.genmed,.gensmall { color : #000000; }a.gen,a.genmed,a.gensmall { color: #006699; text-decoration: none; }a.gen:hover,a.genmed:hover,a.gensmall:hover     { color: #DD6900; text-decoration: underline; }/* Forum title: Text and link to the forums used in: index.php */.forumlink          { font-weight: bold; font-size: 12px; color : #006699; }a.forumlink      { text-decoration: none; color : #006699; }a.forumlink:hover{ text-decoration: underline; color : #DD6900; }/* The content of the posts (body of text) */.postbody { font-size : 12px; line-height: 18px}a.postlink:link     { text-decoration: none; color : #006699 }a.postlink:visited { text-decoration: none; color : #5493B4; }a.postlink:hover { text-decoration: underline; color : #DD6900}/* Quote & Code blocks */.code {     font-family: Courier, 'Courier New', sans-serif; font-size: 11px; color: #006600;     background-color: #FAFAFA; border: #D1D7DC; border-style: solid;     border-left-width: 1px; border-top-width: 1px; border-right-width: 1px; border-bottom-width: 1px}.quote {     font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 11px; color: #444444; line-height: 125%;     background-color: #FAFAFA; border: #D1D7DC; border-style: solid;     border-left-width: 1px; border-top-width: 1px; border-right-width: 1px; border-bottom-width: 1px} -->

     

     Dear Sir / Mam,I would like to suggest, that the following clauses need to be incorporated into the proposed IS Code 19914.



In case an owner or a builder deviates in implementing excess area of construction than approved or if violates by building additional floors than the specified/approved drawings, may lead to crack propagation in structures or structure fails partially or catastrophic collapse of structure may occur.





Hence in such a situation, the principal structural design consultant and the proof-checking structural consultant shall not be held responsible for such damages anticipated. It is to be made mandatory in the proposed IS Code by a very explicit clause, that both the structural engineers' team are not responsible for such failures.





Also, It is the duty of the town/country/municipal planning authority to close monitoring who approves the drawings of proposed structures for the respective FSI (Floor Space Index) or FAR (Floor Area Ratio) as well as to meet other norms of municipal bylaws, while in the progress of proposed structure and shall ensure no deviation or violation in the structure shall take place than originally approved.





In case, if failure of structure happened because of deviation/violation of the structure, there should be another clause that needs to be implemented in the code, very explicitly, that the planning /approving authority shall be made fully responsible for such structural failures and not the structural Engineers.

If there is no explicit clauses, there are chances that the clever advocates will take the advantages of it and will argue against the Structural Engineers and made them victim for none of their faults in the Court of Law when the dispute is referred to Court of Law in future.

Thanks.

With Regards,

S.Gnanasekaran, BE, FIE, FIV,

Chartered Engineer,

Former DGM (Civil) of ONGC Ltd,

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


Joined: 13 Apr 2011
Posts: 16
Location: Mumbai

PostPosted: Tue Aug 30, 2022 8:30 pm    Post subject: LIMITATIONS OF RESPONSIBILITY OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS (Doc. No.: SSD II/06(19914) July 2022) Reply with quote

Dear Sirs/Madams,


As correctly pointed out by Shri. Gnanasekaran Ji, there must be a clause for fixing responsibility for failure due to unauthorised addition alteration by builder / constructor and Structural Engineers need to be indemnified thereby. But This responsibility should be fixed on builder / constructor only. Civic authorities can not keep 24 hours vigil on such constructions even if they wish to. No any engineer shall suffer either from consultancy side or civic administration for misdeeds of generally illiterate builder/constructor.


Regards.
Sachin K.

On Tue, 30 Aug 2022 at 7:55 PM, SGS <forum@sefindia.org (forum@sefindia.org)> wrote:

Quote:
           Dear Sir / Mam,I would like to suggest, that the following clauses need to be incorporated into the proposed IS Code 19914.

In case an owner or a builder deviates in implementing excess area of construction than approved or if violates by building additional floors than the specified/approved drawings, may lead to crack propagation in structures or structure fails partially or catastrophic collapse of structure may occur. 


Hence in such a situation, the principal structural design consultant and the proof-checking structural consultant shall not be held responsible for such damages anticipated. It is to be made mandatory in the proposed IS Code by a very explicit clause, that both the structural engineers' team are not responsible for such failures.


Also, It is the duty of the town/country/municipal planning authority to close monitoring who approves the drawings of proposed structures for the respective FSI (Floor Space Index) or FAR (Floor Area Ratio) as well as to meet other norms of municipal bylaws, while in the progress of proposed structure and shall ensure no deviation or violation in the structure shall take place than originally approved. 


In case, if failure of structure happened because of deviation/violation of the structure, there should be another clause that needs to be implemented in the code, very explicitly, that the planning /approving authority shall be made fully responsible for such structural failures and not the structural Engineers. 
If there is no explicit clauses, there are chances that the clever advocates will take the advantages of it and will argue against the Structural Engineers and made them victim for none of their faults in the Court of Law when the dispute is referred to Court of Law in future.
Thanks.
With Regards,
S.Gnanasekaran, BE, FIE, FIV,
Chartered Engineer,
Former DGM (Civil) of ONGC Ltd,
     



     



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


Joined: 01 Jul 2011
Posts: 54

PostPosted: Wed Aug 31, 2022 6:04 am    Post subject: LIMITATIONS OF RESPONSIBILITY OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS (Doc. No.: SSD II/06(19914) July 2022) Reply with quote

Excellent suggestions made  by 
Er. Sri S Gnanasekharan , to be incorporated in the codal provisions.


   Regards
Er. PVS RAO
  


On Wed, 31 Aug, 2022, 07:03 SGS, <forum@sefindia.org (forum@sefindia.org)> wrote:

Quote:
           Dear Sir / Mam,I would like to suggest, that the following clauses need to be incorporated into the proposed IS Code 19914.

In case an owner or a builder deviates in implementing excess area of construction than approved or if violates by building additional floors than the specified/approved drawings, may lead to crack propagation in structures or structure fails partially or catastrophic collapse of structure may occur. 


Hence in such a situation, the principal structural design consultant and the proof-checking structural consultant shall not be held responsible for such damages anticipated. It is to be made mandatory in the proposed IS Code by a very explicit clause, that both the structural engineers' team are not responsible for such failures.


Also, It is the duty of the town/country/municipal planning authority to close monitoring who approves the drawings of proposed structures for the respective FSI (Floor Space Index) or FAR (Floor Area Ratio) as well as to meet other norms of municipal bylaws, while in the progress of proposed structure and shall ensure no deviation or violation in the structure shall take place than originally approved. 


In case, if failure of structure happened because of deviation/violation of the structure, there should be another clause that needs to be implemented in the code, very explicitly, that the planning /approving authority shall be made fully responsible for such structural failures and not the structural Engineers. 
If there is no explicit clauses, there are chances that the clever advocates will take the advantages of it and will argue against the Structural Engineers and made them victim for none of their faults in the Court of Law when the dispute is referred to Court of Law in future.
Thanks.
With Regards,
S.Gnanasekaran, BE, FIE, FIV,
Chartered Engineer,
Former DGM (Civil) of ONGC Ltd,
     



     



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


Joined: 26 Jan 2003
Posts: 3869

PostPosted: Wed Aug 31, 2022 8:14 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Deviations in Buildings :

1.0 Regarding Nos of floors  / Stories
All foundation Plans (:str drgs ) clearly mention that Foundations are designed for ( Ground +  N ) Storeys .

Hence why str engineers are apprehensive . An owner doing deviations will be held responsible , otherwise if he ask architect to supply Arch drgs for more floors which Arch  agrees then both will be responsible .

Now a days every drg supplied by SE is thru digital means and possibility of changing any thing is not there , I think.

2.0 Framed Structures - Buildings are mostly framed rcc and removing walls here and there may not affect . However if all partition walls are removed in a seismic zone , it will end up in soft storey . Str drgs must give bold notes to avoid this.

3.0 Load bearing  Brick structures
There is lot of problems for these strs , since there is tendency to remove load bearing walls during alterations . Such deviations shall not be permitted and Boxed notes to be given that all walls are load bearing walls and these walls or any portion of these cannot be removed at any place.

I do not know the legalities , but a str Er can only speak thru his drgs.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
b_banerjee
SEFI Member
SEFI Member


Joined: 08 Sep 2018
Posts: 4

PostPosted: Thu Sep 01, 2022 1:30 pm    Post subject: LIMITATIONS OF RESPONSIBILITY OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS (Doc. No.: SSD II/06(19914) July 2022) Reply with quote

With due regards I would like to draw your kind attn that the following para can be a discussion thread so that a solution can come up in the industry."


"No any engineer shall suffer either from consultancy side or civic administration for misdeeds of generally illiterate builder/constructor.


On Thu, 1 Sep, 2022, 3:00 AM sachin_k, <forum@sefindia.org (forum@sefindia.org)> wrote:

[quote]            Dear Sirs/Madams,


As correctly pointed out by Shri. Gnanasekaran Ji, there must be a clause for fixing responsibility for failure due to unauthorised addition alteration by builder / constructor and Structural Engineers need to be indemnified thereby. But This responsibility should be fixed on builder / constructor only. Civic authorities can not keep 24 hours vigil on such constructions even if they wish to. No any engineer shall suffer either from consultancy side or civic administration for misdeeds of generally illiterate builder/constructor.


Regards.
Sachin K.

On Tue, 30 Aug 2022 at 7:55 PM, SGS forum@sefindia.org (forum@sefindia.org))> wrote:

      --auto removed--

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


Joined: 26 Jan 2003
Posts: 297

PostPosted: Sat Sep 03, 2022 1:05 pm    Post subject: Re: LIMITATIONS OF RESPONSIBILITY OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS (Doc. No.: SSD II/06(19914) July 2022) Reply with quote

Structural engineers have a secret weapon at their disposal- The stability certificate. A structural engineer should withhold the certificate it the work is not upto standards and request rectification if required.
I believe that the structural engineer can only be held responsible for  adequacy of the design drawings issued by him/her and not what is built at site as he/she has not been contracted for site supervision or as PMC.
This should be incorporated in the template of a standard
agreement of structural engineers.

Regards,
Alpa

ote="b_banerjee"]With due regards I would like to draw your kind attn that the following para can be a discussion thread so that a solution can come up in the industry."


"No any engineer shall suffer either from consultancy side or civic administration for misdeeds of generally illiterate builder/constructor.


On Thu, 1 Sep, 2022, 3:00 AM sachin_k, <forum@sefindia.org (forum@sefindia.org)> wrote:

Quote:
            Dear Sirs/Madams,


As correctly pointed out by Shri. Gnanasekaran Ji, there must be a clause for fixing responsibility for failure due to unauthorised addition alteration by builder / constructor and Structural Engineers need to be indemnified thereby. But This responsibility should be fixed on builder / constructor only. Civic authorities can not keep 24 hours vigil on such constructions even if they wish to. No any engineer shall suffer either from consultancy side or civic administration for misdeeds of generally illiterate builder/constructor.


Regards.
Sachin K.

On Tue, 30 Aug 2022 at 7:55 PM, SGS 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:   
This forum is locked: you cannot post, reply to, or edit topics.This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies. Thank Post    www.sefindia.org Forum Index -> E-CONFERENCE on SSD-II 06(19914) REQUIREMENTS FOR STRUCTURAL DESIGN All times are GMT
Goto page 1, 2  Next
Page 1 of 2

 

 
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