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.

Clause no. 3.1.2.2 of draft IS:800

 
This forum is locked: you cannot post, reply to, or edit topics.This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies.    www.sefindia.org Forum Index -> E-Conference 23rd Sept 2003
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
SKSNL at ltecd.ltindia...
Guest





PostPosted: Wed Oct 08, 2003 6:37 am    Post subject: Clause no. 3.1.2.2 of draft IS:800 Reply with quote

I understand, what Jignesh wanted to say was that the subject clause in
its present form would create confusion and controversy, especially with
the projects involving peer review. I think just a slight re-wording of
the clause will not solve the problem. The phrase "conveniently adopted"
may see varied interpretation by different agencies and engineers.

Instead, the choice of adopting WSD or LSM should be clearly given to
the purchaser. When purchaser do not specify anything, the right of
choice should remain with the design engineer.

At this juncture, when both the design methods are retained, I feel,
code should not exhibit a bias towards any particular method.

For example, API-650 (Welded steel tanks for oil storage) stipulates
two methods for design of shell. Here the right is given to the
purchaser to decide which method he wants to be adopted. Similarly, AISC
has got two parallel documents for ASD and LRFD. But AISC does not
advocate for either of these.


Respectfully,

Subhamoy Kar

----------------------------------------------------------
prabh@mantraonline.com wrote:

Subject: E-conference on IS:800 Draft (LSM)
Date: 07/10/03
Time: 21:33:05


Dear Structural Engineers,

I would like to write the following observations on the draft code
which
may be considered by the code committee:

1. Clause 3.1.2.2 in page 28 may be reworded as follows:

"Where the Limit State Method cannot be conveniently adopted, Working
Stress Method (Section 11) shall be used.


Yours truly,

N. Prabhakar
Chartered Structural Engineer
404 Star View Aptmnts
Sion Trombay Road at Chembur
Mumbai 71

Posted via Email
Back to top
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.    www.sefindia.org Forum Index -> E-Conference 23rd Sept 2003 All times are GMT
Page 1 of 1

 

 
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 can 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