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.

Daily Digest Sun Oct 17 23:00:03 2004

 
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
ajjjay2001 at yahoo.com
Guest





PostPosted: Thu Nov 04, 2004 8:52 am    Post subject: Daily Digest Sun Oct 17 23:00:03 2004 Reply with quote

--- general@sefindia.org wrote:
----------------------------------------------------------
Quote:
Message From  sidhudaljeet@yahoo.com
Subject: Pozzolana cement
Date: 17/10/04
Time: 00:49:47

----------------------------------------------------------
Quote:





Hello every body

It is pozzolana cement that is confusing me from
last several years, can any one tell what is the
reality, is it merely big margin for cement
companies or it is really better than OPC  


From an article:

“A series of investigations carried out by CECRI,
(the results of which have been confirmed by the
National Building Organisation, New Delhi, and the
Central Building Research Institute, Roorkee) show
that Indian Pozzolana cements offer less protection
to steel subjected to aggressive conditions. Some
recent foreign publications also suggest a cautious
approach in using different pozzolanic cements. The
durability factor for PPC is found to be 0.5 when
compared to the OPC concrete. But if the use of PPC
cannot be avoided the "Inhibitor"
formulation developed by the CECRI may be used to
improve the resistance of PPC concrete to a
considerable degree”.

Views of cement manufacturing companies:

Pozzolana cements are much more durable, corrosion
resistant and has every (best possible) things in
their Pozzolanic cement products. And trying to get
the approval from government to use the PPC in
government projects.

Please put some light on this topic please

Daljeet



__________________________________________________

Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam
protection around


----------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------
Quote:
Message From  ibarua@deguild.com
Subject: Daily Digest Wed Oct 13 23:00:03
2004
Date: 17/10/04
Time: 07:52:17

----------------------------------------------------------
Quote:

17 October, 2004

Re.: Change of "Z" factors depending on soil
conditions

--------------------------------------------------
Prof. A R Chandrasekaran has rightly pointed out the
legal problems that may arise out of increased base
shears due to change in "Z" factors. The BIS
should protect those engineers who have designed a
structure that may fail despite having been designed
correctly according to the existing Codes. The BIS
may also remember that retro-fitting is very costly
and time consuming.

However, the really good thing about microzonisation
is that the locations of pockets of liquefiable
soils will be identified and thus, knowledge about
liquefiable soils will be widely disseminated. I
stress this point as many structural engineers, and
indeed, so called geo-technical experts seem to be
blissfully unaware of the dangers posed by
liquefiable soils. As an example, I may quote the
instance of a Central University being built on the
north bank of the river Brahmaputra in Assam in
seismic zone V. The site is ringed by a number of
known epicentres of earthquakes of maginitude 5.5 to
8 on the Richter scale at a distance of 25 to 50 km.
When I happened to be at the project site as a
casual visitor, a mere visual inspection of the
excavation in the foundation of a building was
enough to tell me that the soil at the site could be
prone to liquefaction. The soil was cohesionless and
fine grained, and appeared to be unconsolidated. A
perusal of the soil investigation reports of the
site elicited not even a whisper about liquefaction.
I conveyed my apprehensions to the project
authorities, who, at my suggestion, commissioned a
detailed investigation to determine the possibility
of liquefaction or rule it out. This investigation
confirmed my worst fears: the foundation soil was
indeed prone to liquefaction, which could be
triggered at contact pressures as low as 3 t per
sq.m. While the soil could be reconditioned for
future construction, buildings already constructed
are sitting on dangerous ground. I also saw fr
the Government of India under construction in a
nearby area. As far as I know, the project
authorities there are unaware of the dangers lurking
beneath their buildings.  

It is perhaps not entirely coincidental that in both
these projects, the consultants were chosen on the
basis of the "lowest tender".  Who will
educate the owners and builders of such multi-crore
projects?

Indrajit Barua.
Guwahati, Assam.
(ibarua@deguild.com)

On Wed, 13 Oct 2004 general@sefindia.org wrote :


---------------------------------------------------------
Quote:
--
Message From  for_prof_arc@hotmail.com
Subject: Should "Z" factors
change
depending on Soil conditions
Date: 13/10/04
Time: 17:03:13


---------------------------------------------------------
Quote:
--
Message From  Prof. A R Chandrasekaran, FNAE
To: All Concerned

I have recently raised some concerns about
outcome of
research on
Microzonation. It appears that, from the
private
corrspondence I am having
with various persons, Microzonation studies
would
indeed indicate that soil
sites may attract forces by several orders of
magnitude
greater than as
compared to rock sites.

I feel that IS:1893 Committee should
immediately debate
about this issue
without delay as it will be a disaster if
engineers are
told later that all
their design, executed faithfully and honestly

according to IS:1893-2002 is
wrong if located on soil sites and now require

retro-fitting.

The BIS should protect the engineers from any
legal
tangle later on, if in
future, recommendations for increased forces
in soil
sites take place.

May be I am crying "Wolf" now, but it
is always
better be fore-warned.





----------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------
Quote:
Message From  sidhudaljeet@yahoo.com
Subject: So Called Geo Tech Engineers
Date: 17/10/04
Time: 15:37:37

----------------------------------------------------------
Quote:

During the casual visit of Multistory shopping
complex at Ludhiana (Punjab).from the ground floor I
saw a beam of extra ordinary size (1000x1000 &
16 M Long), I thought it must be box beam but my
friend told it is solid beam, there is a column at
mid point that would go through all the remaining 7
stories. I was shocked to know. It was not enough in
basement the footings and columns were being
strengthened all though the joints at ground floor
first


________________________________________________________________________
Yahoo! India Matrimony: Find your life partner online
Go to: http://yahoo.shaadi.com/india-matrimony

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