|
View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
dcrai E-Conference Moderator
Joined: 26 Jan 2003 Posts: 9
|
Posted: Sat Aug 14, 2004 8:11 am Post subject: Response to comments/suggestions and more comments ... |
|
|
Dear Participants,
During the last few days of the e-conference some very insightful comments and useful suggestions for improvement have come forth. I am really thankful to all the discussers for taking time to read the long document and post their views on the e-conference.
In general, most comments are directed to the lack of adequate details in strengthening/retrofitting portion of the draft code. This was very much expected and we were very much aware of this discrepancy while drafting the code. It is primarily due to the non-availability of the reliable code-like provisions for most of the strengthening options. As a result, not only in this draft code but in other international codes also, very little is mentioned about the specifics. Often the reference to specialist literature is sought.
Such codes for existing buildings lay most of the emphasis on the systematic evaluation of the available resistance of the structure and identification of deficiencies and their effect. A study of many strengthening projects indicates that a variety of strengthening options are generally employed to correct different types of deficiencies. Considering vast differences across various buildings, it is not prudent to specify a unique strengthening scheme. Therefore, individual description of strengthening option appears to be more logical and it is left to the designer/engineer to combine them to develop a strengthening solution for each building project. In other words, the tailor-made approach is preferred over a readymade, one-fits-all approach.
Further, it has been rightly pointed out that many strengthening alternatives have not been included; for example, fibre-wrapping for column jacketing. The reason is once again the lack of code-like provisions. If the Indian design community feels that this is the most attractive option, then the efforts should be taken up to develop a consistent and reliable design methodology.
Field test are encouraged by the draft code for the reliable estimate of the available capacity/strength of the existing structure, as it has direct bearing on the future strengthening costs. In-place shear and deformability tests have been recently developed for reliable prediction of strength/stiffness of the existing masonry. Only with more tests, uncertainty about the strength/capacity and, therefore, subjectivity regarding the value of ‘mk’ can be reduced. Suggestion to expand the section on field tests is certainly most welcome. Also, as suggested, a general form or check-list can be prepared for collecting information about the building.
I once gain thank you for your keen participation and useful discussion.
Durgesh Rai
Posted via Email |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
|
|
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
|
|
|
|