www.sefindia.org

[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:


Clause-wise inputs


The draft document has clauses 1 to 10. BIS prefers clause-wise inputs, with the modification to the clauses and the justifications.

Please use this thread to post/discuss specific clauses, with the recommended change and the justifications for the same. Any specific recommendations for a new clause, with justifications may also be posted here. If possible, please try to make the clause compact, using language similar to the other clauses of the document. 


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


Jaswant N. Arlekar 
(Moderator) 

Posted via Email

[vsanthoshbabu]

Dear EngineersAs per clause 9.2.1  followed by Note  instead of owner may decide  it may be amended as : Structural Engineer with Masters degree are required for structures designed against earthquake, cyclone etc. With regards Santhosh

[kkahmad]

Dear All,

I have few observations:


1. I am not able to relate the last para on page 1 with this standard.
2. How the project management consultancy will fit in the proposed arrangement.
3. There should be some qualification criteria and nos. of engineers for the constructor team also,based on type of structure.
4. I think the minimum qualification for a PDC team leader should be M.tech with some experience.




Regards,

Khaliqe Ahmad







On Mon, Aug 29, 2022 at 4:36 PM jaswant_n_arlekar <forum@sefindia.org (forum@sefindia.org)> wrote:

[hemraj chanchal]

Dear All
The following points shall be included in discussions..
1.     All the designs shall be relevant Indian Standard Codes.
2.     All the designs shall be relevant specified software.
3.     Design output should be in specific software.
3.     All the specific drgs shall be in millimeters.    


Hemraj Chanchal 







On Tue, 30 Aug 2022 at 14:23, kkahmad <forum@sefindia.org (forum@sefindia.org)> wrote:

[quote]            Dear All,

I have few observations:


1. I am not able to relate the last para on page 1 with this standard.
2. How the project management consultancy will fit in the proposed arrangement.
3. There should be some qualification criteria and nos. of engineers for the constructor team also,based on type of structure.
4. I think the minimum qualification for a PDC team leader should be M.tech with some experience.




Regards,

Khaliqe Ahmad







On Mon, Aug 29, 2022 at 4:36 PM jaswant_n_arlekar forum@sefindia.org (forum@sefindia.org))> wrote:

      --auto removed--

Posted via Email

[va]

Dear All,
I have following points clause wise -


Clause 1  Scope
 
Clause 2 Terminology
1.     There is no mention of Peer review in the entire document. Proof consultant can also do peer review or another category of peer review consultant can be created for broader review of project design by expert.
 
Clause 3 Requirements and services
Clause 4 Appointment of PDC
In the present practice, PDC is appointed by the architect in most of the cases and gets very less fees. Now it is to be appointed by Owner or Constructor. This is a welcome step.
 
Clause 5 Appointment of PC
1.     Clause says Owner may appoint PC. It is not clear whether PC is to be appointed for all projects small or big? Or it is optional due to the word “ owner mayâ€� ?
2.     As per category 1 or 2 for proof checking, PC has to put in equal efforts similar to PDC. So whether owner will  be ready to pay sufficient fees to two consultants PDC and PC?
 
Clause 6 Model of appointment of PDC and PC
Clause 7 Scope and Responsibilities
1.     Clause 7.1e  : If there is a disagreement between PDC and PC which could not be resolved then what is the way out?
2.     Scope and responsibility of Peer Review consultant can be defined which will be limited to broader review and expert advise only with no responsibility.
3.     In Clause 7.2 Responsibility is attached to  PDC. If Owner / Constructor is forcing his own requirements through Architects which are not in line with code or good engineering practices like Irregular geometry, odd framing, floating columns and walls, loose mass for elevation treatment etc who will be responsible for such bad structure? What is the way out? Can the responsibility be attached to respective agency like Owner / Architect/ MEP or PDC shall mention all these points in DBR and exclude it from his responsibility.
4.     If Owner is a Govt Body who is very rigid to accept new materials and specifications or insisting on old tender inferior specifications. How this could be addressed?  For example some bodies are still specifying use of OPC ( which is not good for durability), use of clay bricks and not allowing AAC, using poor site made concrete cover blocks rather than factory made products etc
 
 
 
Clause 8 Category of Proof Checking
1.     Under clause 8 Categories of Proof checking, Category 3 can be created for Peer Review. This will include broader review of DBR, Over all concept checking, framing plan review and sample design cross check on important structural elements. Peer reviewer need not sign any document but provide their expert views and suggestions for improvement if any. PDC will carry all the design responsibility.
 
Clause 9 Support /  Minimum Qualification and experience of PDC and PC
1.     Who will verify the minimum qualification of PDC and PC for building and special structures and who will maintain registration of PDC and PC at state or national level?
2.     What will be the mechanism to judge the experience in special structures and who will certify it?
Clause 10 Owner Satisfaction
1.     It will be more important  that design basis report prepared by PDC should be signed by all parties including Owner, Architects, MEP, PDC, PC, so everyone will be on the same page and design parameters will be frozen.  Satisfaction certificate owner may or may not give.   
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
 Regards.
Hemant Vadalkar
Consulting Engineer,  Mumbai.



On Tue, Aug 30, 2022 at 2:20 PM kkahmad <forum@sefindia.org (forum@sefindia.org)> wrote:

[quote]            Dear All,

I have few observations:


1. I am not able to relate the last para on page 1 with this standard.
2. How the project management consultancy will fit in the proposed arrangement.
3. There should be some qualification criteria and nos. of engineers for the constructor team also,based on type of structure.
4. I think the minimum qualification for a PDC team leader should be M.tech with some experience.




Regards,

Khaliqe Ahmad







On Mon, Aug 29, 2022 at 4:36 PM jaswant_n_arlekar forum@sefindia.org (forum@sefindia.org))> wrote:

      --auto removed--

Posted via Email

[er_jna]

Adding inputs from SEFI user "drbodigece"

[er_jna]

---

Cl. 5.1
The owner may appoint a PC for proof checking of the structural design of the structures prepared by PDC.

---

This clause says that the owner may appoint a PC, and can be interpreted as it is owner's decision to get a PC on board.

Following is a note under Cl. 9.2.1:

---

NOTE — The owner may decide the additional qualification for PDC or PC based on the type of structure, health, safety and disaster (like earthquake, cyclone, etc.) vulnerability requirements.

---

I am interpreting this as follows:
1. Appointment of a PC is completely the owner's decision.
2. The code is NOT making a PC compulsory.
3. The owner may decide additional qualifications.

The question that we need to address is:
1. Requirement of PC is to be decided by the owner - in the current setup, the owner consults his own team and decides whether a PC is required, and also decides the qualifications for the PC.
Why is such a basic code (which in fact is just Table 1) necessary?


Jaswant N. Arlekar