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.

No Title

 
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 -> Past Discussions Year 2004
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Guest
Guest





PostPosted: Thu Apr 24, 2008 3:01 am    Post subject: No Title Reply with quote

ARC
----- Original Message -----
From:
To:
Sent: Friday, January 23, 2004 11:27 PM
Subject: Bam - BAMBAY


Quote:
I agree with Dr. Jain that new constructions should be made seismically
safe.

One more point which should be noted is sometimes because of the byelaws /
relaxtion of byelaws produce inefficient structural system.

I will give an example, Bombay Municipal Corporation (BMC) permitts
balcony
Quote:
area to be enclosed during the construction by paying a premium to be BMC,
it sound good as instead of people enclosing the balconies later (which is
a
Quote:
common practice in Mumbai) it is done at the stage of design and
construction. But there is a catch the column should not come out upto
the
Quote:
edge of the balcony, because according to BMC the building line is not the
outer edge of the balcony but the inner edge of the balcony.

The balcony portion even if it is a part of the room has to be designed as
a
Quote:
cantilever and since it is the part of the room there cannot be a beam
running thro from column to column. Now you have a balcony area which is
resting on a cantilever beam and futher the cantilever beams carry a edge
beam. Further to add agony to the structures architects have slab
projecting
Quote:
out by 600 to 750 mm with brickwalls on the edges of these cantilever
chajja
Quote:
projections for the so called ELEVATION_TREATMENT.

Overall now we have a loaded cantilever coming out of the building with
about 900 to 1200 mm for the balcony with live loads + 600 to 750mm for
the
Quote:
chajja with closely spaced brickwalls as elevation treatment.

As we are aware cantilevers are not good for structures in siesmic zones,
these building structures turn out to be quite inefficient structurally.

Why can the building byelaws simply add a statement that in case the
balcony
Quote:
is a part of the room the column can be taken at the outer edge of the
balcony. By this simple statement the structure could be safe and
efficient
Quote:
too.

Vijay Patil



----------------------------------------------------------

----------------------------------------------------------
From: vandana_bimal@eth.net
Subject: Malay's question and answer
Date: 25/01/04
Time: 19:45:17
----------------------------------------------------------
Dear Malay and Bina

regarding expansion joints in the lateral directions in a building, I may remind you that it is predominantly for temperature stresses. The temperature effects are always on the periphery of the building. Especially, the plan area gets heated up and expands. The same effect is not seen on the columns. Hence, the provision is there for expansion joints only in the plan dimensions and not in the vertical direction. One more point to be remembered is that we have a rcc slab element in plan which is directly affected by the heat. In the vertical direction, we do not have any such continuum structural element.

Bimal Shah
M.S.U., Baroda


From: bina@ccsl.com.np
Subject: Expansion Joints In Buildings.
Date: 24/01/04
Time: 17:00:15
----------------------------------------------------------
I guess its because there is no restrictions on expansion in the vertical direction whereas in the horizontal direction the support system does not allow the structure to deform thus introducing thermal stresses.
----------------------------------------------------------

----------------------------------------------------------
From: malay.kumar@total-environment.com
Subject: Expansion Joints In Buildings.
Date: 24/01/04
Time: 17:52:11
----------------------------------------------------------
I was discussing this with one of my colleague & I am quite convinced by his
reply . Columns or vertical RCC members are subjected to heavy Axial loads
(always) , which acts downwards , so there is no question of Columns
expanding in Vertical direction. Whereas in Beams of Slabs it's not the
case. In case of horizontal members the RCC components can expand or
contract with rise & fall in temperature.
But still there are some minor dimensional changes due to potential impact
of temperature , which can be overcome by appropriate design methods , as we
do while designing Concrete Arch (supporting huge concentrated loads). In
fact in Arch design this temperature effect caters for Major Moments.
Correct me if I am wrong.

Regards
Malay


----------------------------------------------------------

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 -> Past Discussions Year 2004 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