Arvind Jaiswal [Fri Aug 30 00:05:01 2002]
Arvind Jaiswal [Fri Aug 30
00:06:59 2002]
Arvind Jaiswal [Fri Aug 30
00:07:03 2002]
Arvind Jaiswal [Fri Aug 30
00:07:06 2002]
Arvind Jaiswal
[Fri Aug 30 00:08:00 2002]
Arvind Jaiswal
[Fri Aug 30 00:08:03 2002]
Arvind Jaiswal [Fri Aug 30 00:08:07 2002]
Arvind Jaiswal
[Fri Aug 30 00:08:10 2002]
Alpa Sheth [Fri Aug 30
08:41:01 2002]
Gayatri Kharel
[Fri Aug 30 08:45:01 2002]
Sanjeev
Hanumant Mangoli
[Fri Aug 30 08:45:04 2002]
J. S. Sondhi
[Fri
Aug 30 08:45:08 2002]
Chirag A. Akruwala
[Fri Aug 30 09:18:00 2002]
Dr.
S.K.Bhattacharyya
[Fri Aug 30 09:38:02 2002]
Vikram Mehta [Fri
Aug 30 09:44:01 2002]
Rajiv Sharma [Fri
Aug 30 09:46:01 2002]
Mahesh Shah
[Fri Aug
30 10:10:01 2002]
Narendra Pal Singh
[Fri Aug 30 11:21:01 2002]
Suryanarayana
Saripalli
[Fri Aug 30 11:54:01 2002]
Narayanan S [Fri Aug
30 11:56:05 2002]
Vipul Mehta [Fri Aug
30 12:44:00 2002]
Dhirendra Tripathi
[Fri Aug 30 13:06:01 2002]
Chitra N. Javdekar
[Fri Aug 30 13:24:00 2002]
Sudhir Jain
[Fri Aug
30 15:01:01 2002]
D. G. Bhagwat [Fri
Aug 30 15:01:05 2002]
Arvind
[Fri Aug 30
15:35:01 2002]
Arvind [Fri Aug 30
15:35:05 2002]
Ashok Yog [Fri Aug 30
15:42:00 2002]
Shirish Patel [Fri
Aug 30 15:58:00 2002]
Datta Kare [Fri Aug 30
16:07:01 2002]
Viral Jasubhai
[Fri Aug 30
16:08:01 2002]
Hemant Vadalkar
[Fri Aug 30 16:18:00 2002]
Mahendra Raj [Fri
Aug 30 16:29:01 2002]
Dr V V Nori [Fri Aug
30 16:56:02 2002]
D. G. Bhagwat [Fri
Aug 30 16:58:01 2002]
Sivakumar K [Fri Aug
30 16:59:01 2002]
Kiran Akella
[Fri
Aug 30 17:17:01 2002]
M. Hariharan
[Fri
Aug 30 17:31:01 2002]
M. Hariharan [Fri
Aug 30 17:43:01 2002]
Amod Mani Dixit
[Fri Aug 30 17:52:00 2002]
Mahendra Raj [Fri
Aug 30 17:52:04 2002]
Prof Mahesh Tandon
[Fri Aug 30 17:52:08 2002]
K. N.
Chandrashekaran [Fri Aug 30 19:08:01 2002]
Alpa Sheth [Fri Aug 30
19:08:04 2002]
Amod Mani Dixit
[Fri Aug 30 19:43:01 2002]
Amod Mani Dixit
[Fri Aug 30 20:23:01 2002]
Shekhar Ghate [Fri
Aug 30 20:24:01 2002]
Shekhar Ghate [Fri
Aug 30 20:24:05 2002]
Verma, Navin [Fri
Aug 30 20:52:00 2002]
N. N. Javdekar
[Fri Aug 30
20:54:00 2002]
Arvind [Fri Aug 30
20:54:04 2002]
M. Hariharan [Fri
Aug 30 22:51:01 2002]
M. Hariharan [Fri
Aug 30 22:51:05 2002]
M. Hariharan [Fri
Aug 30 22:51:08 2002]
Sameer Sajjad
[Fri
Aug 30 22:51:12 2002]
Arvind
[Fri Aug 30
22:53:01 2002]
G. C. Oak [Fri Aug 30
23:44:01 2002]
Arvind Jaiswal [Fri Aug 30 00:05:01 2002]
Dear Sri Gupta,
I like the spirit behind
"Why worry about
multinationals coming to India, and taking our work (as some people had
complained)? Lets beat them at their own game, and benefit ourselves, and
our economy in the process."
With warm regards......Arvind
back to top
Arvind [Fri Aug 30 00:06:59
2002]
Dear Dhirendra Tripathi,
Your comment:
" 2. If licensing is implemented structural engineers should be required to
renew the license every 5 years or so, to make sure their knowledge / skill
remains at acceptable levels."
You are right about this but all countries give lifetime licensing to you, by
virtue of your educational qualification (which is your life time achievement!)
and experience criteria, with a condition that it has to be revalidated every 5
years or so, by personal interviews and aptitude tests, just to keep you on toe
and not to misuse the same and keeping you to be update in your subject!
Your comment about "Cost Reduction" I would like to with CAUTION as this is one
of the major culprits which was responsible for the Ahmedabad episode. Instead I
would propose "Cost for achieving durable and functional Structure"
With warm regards......Arvind
back to top
Arvind [Fri Aug 30 00:07:03
2002]
Dear Dr Sudhir Jain,
Your small goals are really facinating and achievable!
With warm regards......Arvind
back to top
Arvind [Fri Aug 30 00:07:06
2002]
Dear Rajeev,
I remember the period for fresh engineer to complete as apprentice was
originally proposed as 7 years!
Another suggestion, No one should be given license unconditionally in any
circumstances, it should be only after veryfying laid down norms.
"Dr. Jain has suggested that professional engineers should devote some time in
training of younger people."
My comment:
It is true that younger generation are future and we should invest in them, but
the costs also have to be taken into account, and the affort cannot be
responsibility of only self declared ones, but should come from all engineering
fraternity as their payback to the society from here they have risen to the
present status.
With warm regards......Arvind
back to top
Arvind Jaiswal
[Fri Aug 30 00:08:00 2002]
Dear
Chitra Javdekar,
I will love to know the details, please.
With warm regards......Arvind
back to top
Arvind Jaiswal
[Fri Aug 30 00:08:03 2002]
Dear
Alpa Sheth,
Municipal Carporation of Hyderabad has already registered various firms
for licencing as suggested by you. Another comment by you "Another suggestion
put forward was that for a firm to be registered as Consulting Engineers, a
majority of the partners/directors have
themselves to be certified Professional engineers"
needs a little caution in a sense - where are "Professional Engineers?"
Till the "Engineer's Bill" is passed no engineer is recognised, let
alone calling one "professional" - LEGALLY I mean!!
With warm regards......Arvind
back to top
Arvind Jaiswal
[Fri Aug 30 00:08:07 2002]
Dear
Rajeev,
" Regading the quality at design level I want to suggest one thing. Why not
the fresh engineers/graduate enginners should take the help of established &
competant
structural engineers like Shirish patel (bombay), VMS (ahmedabad) & many
more in designing the
stuctures at conceptual level ? Their drawings can bear the names of those
leading engineers alongwith
their own names. Leading engineers can get royalty out of this ! Of course
the liability lies with the engineers
who take help from leading engineers."
Very dangerous suggestion indeed and I agree with you that this should and
should not be resorted to at any stage of time.
With warm regards......Arvind
back to top
Arvind Jaiswal [Fri Aug 30 00:08:10 2002]
Dear
Jitendra Bothra,
Nice to hear from you again after the first e-conf.
Your comment:
"May be we need Engineers' Law or Charted Engg.
Law. As far as it is learned from on going conference, it does not seem a
easy task"
I would like to give you a background on this Engineer's Bill.
Since 10 years Association of Consulting Enginers under the leadership of
Sri Mahendra Raj was fighting with Government of India with a Writ filed in
Supreme Court of India and this writ was in favour of Engineers Bill.
Association wanted Supreme Court to direct the Government of India to take
up the "Engineers Bill". Unfortunately this did not happen for so many
years and the case was dismissed in favor of Government of India.
Now after the Bhuj Earthquake, Government of India took a very positive step
to take up the "Engineers' Bill". But this could not happen as most of the
Engineering Institutes were not willing to compromise and come to a common
platform, hance it was decided to form the Engineering Council of India
first and then bring all the Associations under one umbrella and make them
sit and accept and achieve one common goal.
This step has also been achieved very nicely. Now ECI is trying to study
earlier proposed Engineer's Bill and formulate a final proposal. This may
take some time but it is not at all difficult.
We all feel very much exicited by the recent events and see that it may be
possible for us to have a bill in near future.
What is required - more and more awareness among the fellow engineers,
mobilisation of opinions and forwarding same to the political parties. It
is an accepted fact that politicians value mandate and public opinion!
This
is what we need and we are sure we will get it.
Regarding Nepal model I would not like to comment as it ruled by Monarch and
not by parliament, hence differences are bound to be there, and every
country will have starting trouble during implimentation stages, and we
should be prepared for it.
With warm regards......Arvind
back to top
Alpa Sheth [Fri Aug 30
08:41:01 2002]
Dear All
We have had a whole lot of very good suggestions regarding small beginnings that
could be made.
It is heartening to note that many people are already involved in issues of
training and committees and some have already been conducting small
initiatives in their own parts of the country and are sharing them with us.
Some thoughts:
a) Training of Engineers : It would be beneficial to conduct a Training
Needs assessment and identify what courses are most needed to be conducted
across the country (such as earthquake course, a geotechnical course and so on)
in continuing education programs to bring our engineers to capacity. As has been
brought out, several academic institutions and professional bodies have been
conducting training programs. However, we need a lot more continuing education
activity. For introductory courses, one could perhaps prepare training modules
(via Power Point presentations, Videos and so on), which can be distributed
all over the country.- Professionals can prepare modules while in their own home
or office and perhaps help in conducting the first one. Local chapters of ACCE(I),
ICI, ISSE, IE(I), etc could then take over. For specialized courses, the
existing mechanism (at resource institutes and colleges) can still be retained.
b) Conferences, Camps and Workshops: As has been suggested, there should
be more workshops and conferences to discuss technical issues on specific
subjects and also build the fraternity. Also, annual camps for younger
professionals conducted over several years can prove very effective in the long
run. A good example is the summer camp for civil engineering students at IITK
for the last two years: details at
http://home.iitk.ac.in/~cvrm.
Will some organization volunteer to undertake
a similar camp for the young structural engineers? e-conferences are a very
effective communication means as is evident by the present one. Which means we
should discuss the possible topic and dates for the next one before the end of
this e-conf!!! And perhaps someone (other than NICEE) can volunteer to host it.
Someone could also volunteer to organize e-committees to formulate specific
proposals and documents on professional
matters.
c) Licensing of Engineers There was wonderful feedback today on this. Mr Rajeev
Sharma, Mr. P K Singh, Mr. Suren Vakil and others have spelt out some finer
points of licensing. These need to be debated more vigorously.
d) Professional Practice as Consultants As Mr. Arvind Jaiswal and others have
discussed, we need to strengthen and consolidate our position vis-a-vis the
architects and ensure that we are allowed to continue functioning as prime
consultants on projects. A lot of work, it seems, is already being done by
some of the professional bodies in this matter. We would welcome some more input
on the present status and what more needs to be done to consolidate our rights.
e) Mentorship We would appreciate if senior professionals on this e-conf come
forward and volunteer to keep aside some hours every month for young engineers
and offer their help and guidance to them.
f) Upgradation of Teaching Institutes India has a very large number of
engineering colleges. But, shocking as it may seem, too few of engineering
colleges are up to capacity. Upgradation of such colleges is a huge task and
needs to be taken up at the government level. However, we can still make
tremendous contributions at our level through a variety of ways: delivering
lectures on real-life projects, sometimes teaching full courses, guiding
projects, offering opportunities for summer training of students, and
sponsorship of many other student activities.
g) Resource Database for Engineers A resource website, an e-group, and a
bulletin board can be formed up which can be used for sourcing out
information and sharing ideas on all issues of structural engineering. Sudhir
Badami, are you listening?
Some of these initiatives require funds but many of them require our time. It is
for us to introspect as to what and how much we wish to give our profession for
community based projects. After all, our own standing as professionals and our
self-esteem depend on such projects. Are there some volunteers?
Have a nice day!!!
Alpa Sheth and Sudhir Jain
back to top
Gayatri Kharel [Fri Aug
30 08:45:01 2002]
Dear Participants,
It is very nice to go through the mails of everyone with different issues. I
completely agree with what Ms. Seth has written. I come from a small place and
not many people in that area are aware of the engineering practices and many
people do not even know that there is a specialized field called Structural
Engineering. There are many people who cannot afford to go an engineer to get
the structural design for their houses to be constructed. At the most they can
go to someone who can draw few structural details like foundation so that they
can take that to the local authorities to get permission to build their house.
After this most of the houses are built according to the design of masons. I
have even seen same footing details copied and submitted for completely
different structures to get permission for building. I do not know in what way
the plans and structural details are checked before it is given permission for
building. I think it is very important to work out something on how we can talk
to local authorities on this issue.
There are some researches going on in different parts of the world on how
indigenous materials can be used to make houses in seismically active areas. I
am presently working on this issue and Dr. Jain has been helping me on this. I
have been getting very good response from many researchers from around the
world. In India we have many areas where locally available materials are used
for building houses but they are not used properly and the consequence of that
is dreadful. But the same thing used in a proper way can be very good and
an example of that is Assam type house. I think it will be very helpful if
we can prepare a report as well as guide on how locally available materials can
be used in proper way to build houses. I will be very happy to volunteer to work
on this issue.
Gayatri Kharel
back to top
Sanjeev
Hanumant Mangoli [Fri Aug 30 08:45:04 2002]
Dear Fiends,
There is this news that recently the government has released the new IS. I
believe that it is IS 1893. Now There is one building which has already been
constructed as per the old code which was applicable few days back and the
construction is over till the roof slab now becasue of this new code the
authority is insisting that it need be implimented. Hence now they are
strengthening all the columns from base ment. I will give the exact details of
this building etc in my next mail. But can any one tell if this new code is
really implemented and released?
Thanks
Sanjeev
back to top
J. S. Sondhi [Fri Aug 30
08:45:08 2002]
Dear All:
Structural Issues.
Yes In INDIA we do need a distinctive change from the Present System for
Improvement of System
Presently in Malaysia- Due to Rules & regulations of Board of Professional
Engineers- Only Engineers certified by this Board can authorise Construction
drawings. this has helped the Engineers community here- No Foreign Consultant
Engineer can effectively practise even the country encourages foreign
participation. They have to hire a local approved Engineer to sign off the
drawings. in the process the Local Engineering lot have been upgraded to
International Stds in the last ten years, For Example: As an Indian Railway
Design/ management company tried to enter Malaysia as Designers but could not
get direct Consultancy, have to work in background due to the Professional Board
of Engineers regulations. The business pattern thus developed helps the Local
fraternity.
Hence- the System of Professional Licensing and its practise deligently for
approving drawings for Construction is the Right step. It initiates learning in
Individuals for getting PE license.Plus an overall control over the Industry is
maintained.
After all the Talking Lets put things in ACTION. Some one in Malaysia remarked-
Indians are good in Technical- but don't take Final Action. India needs to build
atleast 20 times of the Infrastructure Malaysia has made.
Best Wishes and Good Luck to the Endeavour
- JS Sondhi
back to top
Chirag A. Akruwala
[Fri Aug 30 09:18:00 2002]
Hi
everybody!
There is this discussion about having a professional organisation for Civil
Engineers similar to other professional bodies like COA or IIA. I think such a
licencing authority is necessary to reduce the number of malpractitioners and
quacks in the industry. Such an organization can help a layman differenciate
between the qualified engineer and the self styled structural designer. This is
all the more necessary in the present context when the level of engineering
education has declined. I think the role of this organization should be to
educate the common layman who wants to get a house built. The role of this
institution should be to educate the society into correct building practices and
points to look out for. Such a body can communicate with government and
semi-government authorities to change their policy of awarding work to the
lowest bidders. Resorting to legal action on unqualified people does not help
improve the standards of construction. We live in a society where even draftsmen
and masons practice architecture and civil engineering. Because of the expenses
involved and the time taken in judicial procedures, it is not possible to take
action against all illegal practitioners. In the seven years that I have been a
member of Council of Architecture and the Indian Institute of Architects, I have
seen 2-3 cases being resolved legally and in both cases the professional bodies
had to bear heavy expenses for judicial proceedings. Only public awareness can
help reduce this problem.
With regards,
Chirag A. Akruwala
back to top
Dr.
S.K.Bhattacharyya [Fri Aug 30 09:38:02 2002]
Dear Friends
A wonderful deliberations through e-conferencing is on. Prof. Jain's suggestion
of devoting some time to train and educate our younger engineers is well taken
and arrangements can be made towards that.
However, we should not forget that finally the execution of civil engineering
structures is accomplished through a group of workers, who are mostly illiterate
and do not understand the implication of several aspects of civil engineering
such as 'implication of water-cement ratio in concrete' etc. Unless, we can
educate these people to make them understand, the effects of water on concrete,
usage of good quality material, effectiveness of lap length of bars etc., it is
difficult to improve situation, no matter how much pain we take to come up with
accurate, economic structural design.
My suggestion is, along with the development of good structural design practice
through conferences, discussions etc., we should enforce to have well trained
(may be with trade license) working personnel (masons, labours etc.). Also
regular training programmes of these personnel through video demonstration (to
demonstrate the implication of good and bad practices), on-site demonstration
etc. are essential to improve the quality of
construction.
The supervision of construction has to be very strict. No compromise should be
made with the quality of construction materials. The supervisors should be
courageous enough to 'Reject' material at site if they are not of acceptable
quality.
Regards.
S.K.Bhattacharyya
back to top
Vikram Mehta [Fri Aug 30
09:44:01 2002]
Hi
Alpa,
I completely endorse the view that the firm must be registered as 'Profesional
Engineers', rather than the individual designer. This will be a big step
forward.
Regards,
Vikram Mehta
back to top
Rajiv Sharma [Fri Aug 30
09:46:01 2002]
Hello:
Mr. Gandhi's suggestion of asking help from senior engineers prompted me to
think more deeply in the matter. Even after completing several years in design
work an engineer may still need an opinion from others. Now the question is how
he can get it? To whom he should approach if he doesn't know any Big Daddy of
the profession?
I think the answer is to have a dedicated web site where anybody can post
his query. It is believed that he will get some solutions or hints to solve his
problem by discussing with other fellow engineers.
There are many sites on web where such discussions take place but I believe an
Indian site with an emphasis on Indian Codes will be more helpful. I feel
perhaps NICEE is the right place for starting such a discussion group. How do
you feel about that I will certainly like to hear from you.
Regards
Truly
Rajiv Sharma
back to top
Mahesh Shah [Fri Aug 30
10:10:01 2002]
Dear All,
Many thanks for the organizers for the conference.
I agree with the concerns raised by Dr. Hari Kumar about the rural India. In
this regards I would like to suggest that Geodesic dome structures (refinement
of Lamella Domes) could be a cost-effective solution for rural population in
earthquake prone areas in India. At C-DAC, we had carried
out the earthquake analysis using SAP. The more information on
this is available ith me and I will be glad to interact with
others on this.
Best regards,
Mahesh S. Shah
back to top
Narendra Pal Singh
[Fri Aug 30 11:21:01 2002]
Hi
everybody!
There is immediately need of having a professional organisation for Civil
Engineers similar to other professional bodies like COA or IIA. I think such a
licencing authority is necessary to reduce the number of malpractitioners and
quacks in the industry. Such an organization can help a layman differenciate
between the qualified engineer and the self styled structural designer. This is
all the more necessary in the present context when the level of engineering
education has declined. The role of this institution should be to
educate the society into correct building practices and points to look out for.
Such a body can communicate with government and semi-government authorities to
change their policy of awarding work to the lowest bidders. Resorting to legal
action on unqualified people does not help improve the standards of
construction. We live in a society where even draftsmen and masons practice
architecture and civil engineering. Because of the expenses involved and the
time taken in judicial procedures, it is not possible to take action against all
illegal practitioners.
Regards
Narendra
back to top
Suryanarayana
Saripalli [Fri Aug 30 11:54:01 2002]
WE
HAVE WORKERS /AND ENGINEERS-TRAING CENTERS FOR MANAGEMENT WE DONOT HAVE
AMERICAN/GERMAN SYSTEM OF VOCATIONAL TRAING AFTER 10 TH PASS OR FAIL IN
DRAWING/BUILDING CONSTRUCTION/ROAD CONSTRUCTION/PLUMBING/SURVEYING-WHICH WE ARE
NOW TEACHING IN ETIOPIA. ALSO WE HAVE REASERCH CENTERS FOR WATER RESOURCES-DAMS-STRUCTURES,BUT
NOT INSOILMECHANICS AANDFOUNDATION ENGINEERING
SURYA.S.N.
back to top
Narayanan S [Fri Aug 30
11:56:05 2002]
Dear Prof.Sudhir Jain and others,
It is indeed a stupendous effort to organise this econf.on good practices of
structural engineering, construction methods, updating of knowledge,licensing
issues of practicing engineers etc. The response from different sources has been
overwhelming.Though some of the suggestions are repititive it may be posiible to
collate them and summarize and forward to the Engineering Council of India
for possible implementation and follow up action.Definitely the proceedings of
this conference would lead to a better awareness of the importance of safety
considerations especially in aseismic design of structures amongst the
structural engineering community.
S.Narayanan.
back to top
Vipul Mehta [Fri Aug 30
12:44:00 2002]
to
everybody,
it was big manhunt for the structural engg. whose bldgs. were COLLAPSED &
COMPLAINED but what about
remaining bldgs. in india(may be in range 70%to 90%??? very rough estimation)
which is NOT DESIGENED FOR QUAKE & WAITING FOR COLLAPSED IN NEXT QUAKE. what
should be criteria to FRAME structural engg.?
vvm
back to top
Dhirendra Tripathi
[Fri Aug 30 13:06:01 2002]
Dear Mr. Arvind Jaiswal,
Comment interspersed below.
Arvind wrote:
Your comment about "Cost Reduction" I would like to with CAUTION as this is one
of the major culprits which was responsible for the Ahmedabad episode. Instead I
would propose "Cost for achieving durable and functional
Structure"
I too believe undue cost cutting is a major cause for structural deficiency. On
the other hand the building industry continues to look for cheaper ways to do
things.
Right now cost cutting is being done hap hazardly by builders and errant
structural engineers with potentially disastrous results. The attempt to cut
costs cannot be snuffed out. Under the circumstance if it must be done it should
be done by those who are qualified to do it that is the structural engineers. In
cases where no costs are left to cut a structural engineer can put his foot
down.
I know the argument assumes a problem ( industries penchant for cost cutting )
not made by the Str. Eng.s , but they seem the best hope of curtailing the
damage it causes. For this the structural engineers shall have to ensure they
are aware of the totality of the project rather than only what directly concerns
them.
For instance in Ahmedabad a building Sangemarmar collapsed in the quake of 2001.
As the name suggests it was an opulent building all done up in marble.
Unfortunately enough was not spent on having a seismically safe structure.
Clearly cost cutting was done by uniformed persons with tragic consequences.
On the positive side if builders begin to have hope that the str. eng. will help
to reduce costs safely then they shall respect their skills more.
You are right about being cautious, yet we do need to address the issue becasue
there is no escaping it.
regards,
Dhirendra Tripathi
back to top
Dileep
G. Bhagwat [Fri Aug 30 13:24:00 2002]
Hello
All:
This is Dileep G. Bhagwat from AFCONS Infrastructure Ltd, Mumbai responding
on Chitra Javdekar's msg excerpted below -
"
* The Financing/Mortgage Institutions e.g. HDFC,ICICI,SBI Home finance
* General Insurance Companies that insure buildings
* Banks and other lending bodies who grant loans against
housing/buildings
can be encouraged to seek a SIGNED AFFIDAVIT from the structural
designer, clear documentation/records regarding:
1. BIS codes adopted for the design and drawings of the foundations and the
structures
2. Design loads and other assumptions
3. BIS codes adopted for the structural materials ( cement ,
concrete,steel,wood etc . )
4. Standards for testing & acceptance of all structural work,
including the foundations
5. Other Job-specific special precautions advised during construction
They can also seek an affadavit from the Architect who certifies 'Commencement &
Completion' stating that these have been duly observed.
In my line (onshore marine structures and special foundations, which is
quite different from the scenario under discussion) we, as design-construct contractors, submit a "DESIGN BASIS NOTE" to the
clients/consultants/owners, which is supposed to be approved prior to the stating of the detailed design
proper. This, treated appropriately, may create a lot of dispute at the outset, but avoids all the later
problems. This could be included as a vital record in the general procedure for all
works so that everybody knows (including self) what a structural engineer is committing to do in his/her design.
It is a pity, however, that (as our experience shows) nobody who matters takes the necessary interest in the
document when they should and raises a hue & cry only afterwards.
On other matters, I am a silent member of the audience of the conference.
D. G. Bhagwat
back to top
Sudhir Jain [Fri Aug 30
15:01:01 2002]
Dear Colleagues:
Suren Vakil has raised a very important point: that most consulting firms in
India do not offer management share to its engineers. I have often observed that
a bright young engineer after working for a few years with an established firm
starts itching to open his own office. The result is that very bright young
persons with sound technical and managerial skills leave the established firms.
This results in leadership vacuum. I hear of many reputed structural firms of
yesteryears which no longer exist because the owner left profession or died.
I have often wondered if structural firms could be run more professionally in
india, wherein a competent employee-engineer after a few years starts feeling a
sense of ownership for his firm, and hence, is bringing more business for the
firm rather than going through the hassle of starting his own consulting office.
Any thoughts?
Sudhir Jain
back to top
D. G. Bhagwat [Fri Aug
30 15:01:05 2002]
We
are all talking about formation of various types of organizations and passing of
legal bills. This is valuable and needs to be done, but alas, is not entirely
within our hands and means. But we can still start off an internet
interest/discussion group of structural engineers. I have looked hard & could
not find any in India.This forum should be free from all
political/commercial/etc. interests & could be hosted by some public spirited
structural engineer(s) at a low cost. (Again, no need to start a fund-raising
activity)
It
could cater for the following
1. specific structural design problems & comments/suggestions
2. sub-groups for e.g. buildings, bridges, port structures, foundations,
retaining and sheet-pile walls, etc.
3. organizational discussions (as in this e-conf)
4. suggestions for codal revisions and comments on specific clauses and problems
caused by them
5. voting on various issues and other points that occur.
If conducted efficiently, impartially and honestly, the forum would gain stature
and grow up into a formidable association that will be able to put its power to
any worthy cause as, when and where required. I see all around on the web,
important initiatives that have been established through similar processes. If
nothing else, this would, at the least, give a place where we can continuously
interact with each other. I, personally, have been longing for such a forum
since years.
D.G. Bhagwat
back to top
Arvind [Fri Aug 30 15:35:01
2002]
Dear Vipul Mehta,
Majority of structures which did not collapse can be categorised into following
groups:
1. Government Buildings: These did comply in most of the
cases with the codal provisions, hence not to worry.
2. Private buildings which complies with codal provisions-
also need not worry.
3. Private buildings which did not comply with codal
provisions:
a. without soft story- Hence should be checked for structural
soundness.
b. with soft story- should also be checked for structural
soundness.
One
CAUTION should be born in mind that just because the structure has not got
damaged, does not certify that it is EQ Resistant. Methodical checking has
to be done.
With warm regards......Arvind
back to top
Arvind [Fri Aug 30 15:35:05
2002]
Dear Dr. S.K.Bhattacharyya
National Academy of Construction at Hyderabad does have one such institute
called "Workers' Training Institute" which caters for the exact requirements
listed and desired by you.
Now what is required, the same model can be duplicated in other states.
Political will and mandate only can make the things happen.
With warm regards......Arvind
back to top
Ashok Yog [Fri Aug 30
15:42:00 2002]
Dear distinguished participants of
the Conference,
Had been going through the
proceedings of the e-conf. Lots of useful suggestions and plenty of repitition-some
pertinent and lots are about the sharing of the individual's miserable
experiences with other felllow participants.
Let's draw an action plan. However,
before the action plan we have to have clear objectives- or if it is difficult
to do so, lets have an expert volunteer or even paid expert of universal
repute as it is an specialst's job and cannot be any body's whims and fancies.
However a few things are clear:
1. We need to do some thing to
improve the lot of Civil Engg professionals.
2. The problem has several aspects
and needs to be addressed globally-technical excellence, social recognition,
legal framework conducive to achieving the desired objectives related to the
Civil Engg. profession etc... etc..
3. There is a dire need to define
an Engineer- ie a professional engineer.A person who aquires a degree-may be a
graduate or a master's or even a Ph.D., cannot be termed an engineer for the
rest of his life, if he does not keep him/her self abreast with the developments
in the field.After spending 42 years with the profession, I can state that 99%
of beaurocrat- so- called-engineering govt. officers are not engineers in the
real sense and it is these ,who are responsible for the evils of the profession,
which is almost dead outside the premises of Tech. Institutions.And ,I may be
pardoned for being impertinently truthful that the profession is decaying in
these institutions also because of the the absence of the fresh air which is
available only in the field and real life applications. I know and you know
that what is the truth in the above statement.
4. So, a cadre , some thing like
that of chartered engineer's in 'real sense' to be instituted with ruthless
selection of members from within ourselves. If we are not ready to succumb to
this self purging, not much can be achieved. Let it be a small group but with
the un parallelled diginity and reputation through engineering feats, which
nobody should be able to or can question.
5. If the above process can be
accepted by us unanimously [democratically], we can have some hope for the
future. B'cause only then we would start tackling and correcting the situation
on variuos fronts including legal, and disciplinary matters.These may also
include Public Interest Litigations. After all Civil Engg. can not turn his face
away from some thing giong grossly wrong involving his profession say buildings
and structures in earthquake prone zones or not keeping the revelant engineering
data from such a site which is a rare painful oppurtunity for any Civil
Engineer . This is necessary to have purposeful collective effort for achiving
the desired objective.
We must make this body so strong by
our collective effort that it can haul up the highest beaurocrat or even a
public figure-say minister in the interest of the profession and thus inthe
interest of the nation.After all Engineering is nothing but logic applied to the
benefit of the humanity.Civil Engg has to to take the lead in this regard as it
is their basis of existance.
6. And in doing so, I am afraid
that democratic processes, in the conventional sense, would not be of much
avail.A select group of practicing engineers who have personally contributed to
the profession's excellence or reputation, should be inducted at the first
stage.They have to be above political and other forces. And the whole community
should support them for everybody's[ie whole engg. community] bebefit. Indirect
benefit would accrue to even those having a engineering degree but not on the
list of chartered/registered members of practicing Civil Engineering
profession.
Once again I may request for being
pardoned for being critical.Humbly and, Sincerely
Ashok Kumar Yog
Retd.Addl. Director General,
RDSO,Minis. of Railways, Lucknow.
back to top
Shirish Patel [Fri Aug
30 15:58:00 2002]
Dear All,
A whole range of interesting issues has come up in these discussions. Let me add
my two bits:
1. On civil engineering, architecture, structural engineering, designer,
contractor: We tend to forget that two hundred years ago these were all one
single profession. The master builder conceived a design, worried about its
aesthetics as well its structural stability, and organised its construction. We
only have to look all around us, anywhere in the country, to see what wonders
they achieved. Craftsmen were recognised and honoured (they must have been,
otherwise how did they deliver such spectacular work?). The world has grown more
complex since then. With so much new technology in place, construction is now
too intricate to be masterminded by a single individual. But we should not
forget that each of us, with his particular expertise or specialisation, is a
member of a larger group that should work towards a common objective: excellence
in construction. We want excellence in conception, in design, in detailing and
in execution. To achieve this, it is particularly important that the leaders of
the team (the group that replaces the master builder) are individually skilled
not only in a particular expertise, but also have enough of a generalist's
background to understand and appreciate the work of all the other members. I am
appalled for example that the three most recent recruits to our office (all
engineering graduates, one of them with a Master's degree) do not know that in a
bathroom there are two separate waste pipes, one for sewage, one for sullage.
Nor could they, when they started, draw the simplest sketch: a plan of the room
they sleep in, more or less in proportion, with furniture shown. What is the use
of their expertise if their general knowledge of the building profession, and
their basic skills, are so dismal? Architects are encouraged to conceptualise
with no understanding of structural stability. Engineers are taught to compute
without developing any skills in conceptualisation. Unless each understands at
least something of the concerns and preoccupations of the other, and unless each
has at least some of the basic skills of the others, we will not build the
strong teams that excellence in construction requires.
2. Where do you see the best work happening: This topic has not come up in the
discussions, but I am adding it as relevant. The best work seems to occur when
architectural skills and engineering skills are closely integrated. Ove Arup is
an engineering firm with a strong architectural presence within it. In India
some of the most exciting structural engineering work is being done by Dhananjay
Dake, a structural engineer in Pune, running a firm where his brother is an
architect and his father is a contractor. Santiago Calatrava is a qualified
architect who has also qualified as an engineer and is producing some of the
most remarkable work around the world. The message is clear: to do good work,
you must re-integrate all those skills that modern technology has blown apart.
3. On who should be the project leaders: We work with architects, and in some
cases they take the lead role, in others we take the lead role. Sometimes on the
same project we reverse roles, depending on whether the architectural content or
the engineering content is more significant for a particular building. Very
often on such projects we share the fees half and half. On bridges we usually
have a consulting architect who plays a relatively minor role, but he is there.
So the leader should be whoever is best equipped to lead for that particular
project, and this will depend on the content of that project. There is one trend
however that we should note. Architects, in the course of their education, are
naturally led to think about broader issues than the specific project they are
working on. As a result, they engage more readily in civic issues. Civil
engineers less so, and Structural Engineers practically not at all. In that
case, is it surprising that leadership roles are more readily assigned by
society to architects?
4. On depending on architects for fees: We have long since stopped working for
architects who do not promptly remit to us our share of the fees they collect
from clients. Most often we ask for, and obtain usually without difficulty, a
direct appointment by the client, independently of the architect's appointment.
Our fees come from the client directly. This has the merit that we get our fees
when the structure is complete, and do not have to wait interminably for our
share of fees when our work was long since finished.
5. On the gap between education and professionals: This is sad and needs urgent
rectification. In medicine they have teaching hospitals, where teaching and
practical experience happen together. There are long periods of internship where
practical experience is added to taught knowledge. In the legal profession young
lawyers work as juniors in larger teams for many years before they have the
responsibilities of individual practice. In our profession we seem to feel that
education alone is enough to make someone a responsible practitioner--as if a
Master's degree alone, with no practical experience, were sufficient. Wherever
did we get this idea? We have Master's degree recruits in our office who are not
only incapable of drawing a simple sketch; they are incapable of visualising
simple details. I think there needs to be much more intensive interaction
between our Engineering colleges and our professional practitioners--after all,
the purpose of the education is to produce, at the end of it all, competent
working professionals. Which also requires continuing education, beyond the
original degree courses.
6. On tendering for design services: This has created havoc, as someone said.
Even the 80/20 system so commonly used, with 80% marks for technical evaluation
and 20% for fees quoted, does not work as intended. The reason is that the
technical evaluation is sub-divided into a number of different heads, and at the
end of the process all the firms that pass the minimum mark are ranged within a
fairly narrow band. The fee difference then determines who gets the job, and
even with a short list of invited tenderers, there will always be someone who
quotes ridiculously low to grab the work. How can anyone in his right mind
believe that the best service is also the cheapest? And it is obvious that the
cost of the service is a tiny fraction of the cost difference between a good and
an indifferent design. In the UK, where procurement of design services on the
basis of competitive bidding over the last 15 years has shown poor results, they
are thinking of going back to a scale-based procurement. The right approach was
formerly used in the World Bank until Indian Audit, that insidious, devastating
and destructive force, persuaded them to change their ways. This was to rank the
submissions in order of technical merit, and then open the financial bid of only
the highest ranked. This was followed by negotiation of the fee, and if this was
satisfactorily completed, the remaining financial bids were returned unopened.
If the negotiations with the highest ranked consultant were not successful, his
financial bid was set aside, and negotiations began with the second ranked
bidder. But you could not return to the first ranked, even if the second ranked
was costlier. The first offer was closed and could not be reopened. The essence
was to award work on merit, not on the basis of who quoted the lowest fee. Once
fees are reasonable you will find Consultants will be able to pay decent
salaries, better young people are attracted to the profession, time can be spent
in keeping oneself up to date--all the more essential since work is awarded on
merit--and time can be devoted to interacting with academia and to work on Codes
and Committees. The status of the profession inevitably rises.
7. On Values: In our office we follow a simple set of rules when we have to make
difficult decisions. The project comes first, you do what is best for the
project. Protecting and guarding the client's interests comes next, and by
client on public works we mean the public, the final users of the project, not
necessarily the officer we are currently dealing with. Then, the profession. And
finally, ourselves, and the prosperity of our own profit-sharing enterprise.
Unfortunately what we now see, increasingly, is so-called professionals (because
they have a degree) concerned primarily with themselves, with no consideration
for the profession, for the long-term welfare of the client, or for the fate of
the project. So we need to think through what we should do to turn this around,
and how to go about it, step by step.
Looking forward to more on these and other topics, & with regards,
Shirish Patel
back to top
Datta Kare [Fri Aug 30
16:07:01 2002]
Dear
Mr. Jaiswal and the moderators and all colleagues,
About the fees,
Undercutting is a problem in all professions and business. Perhaps market
forces, competition dictate (I agree with Mr. P. K. Singh, Director, ECI) but
the clients have to strike a balance between quality and value paid for the
services.
How does a government or semigovernment body select a consultant? Whom (firm)
they will appoint?
Based on Engineers bill recommendations, say 'x' percentage is decided to be
paid (if engineers bill is enacted and at all speacks of fees & salaries, till
then let us base of COA guidelines)
A) With regards to a particular project, They prepare prequalifications with
regards to volume of work executed, educational qualifications, etc. Still there
will be quite a few with these prequalifications, How to select one?
B) Another method followed, Empanelment of consultants for various projects say
bridges, adm blds etc Still there will be quite a few empanelled with given
prequalifications, (I believe ranking amongst emplaned consultants is very
difficult, once they are empanelled they are at par) How to select one?
The recent confirmed trends in neighbourhood during selection of consultants in
these bodies:-
1) The government Engineers themselves in partnership or in dummy names gets
prequalified or empanelled and get their firm appointed at the beginning (any
way one firm has to be selected). The empanelment or prequalifications are
dissolved by the time the genuine consultants' turn comes up!
2) Kickbacks. The firm who is dynamic enough (Definitely not technically)
notches up the project (any way one firm has to be selected). The empanelment or
prequalifications are dissolved by the time the genuine consultants' turn comes
up!
3) The conditions are set to fit a particular firm.
Please suggest a methods for genuine selection.
If government prequalifies or empanels, say 5, based on conditions set, I think
they are at par. I think bidding is the only option left amongst the
prequalified or empaneled ones to avoid all the shady deals. Well, the clients
have to specify the quality of work expected from the consultants (Turn key
process projects specifies minimum the number of drawings to be issued, min
details expected, min number of site visits etc.)
Datta Kare
back to top
Viral
Jasubhai [Fri Aug 30
16:08:01 2002]
Dear All,
The deluge of email in this econf has been very heartening & enlightening.
I fully agree to the email of Alpa. We were one of the only firm in Ahmedabad
who had offered free services to all the frightened persons staying the
buildings in this city as well as in Gandhidham. A lot of the details of the
buildings such as Mansi & Shikhar were available to us & our findings were
shocking.
We need the Engineer Bill to be ratified & I have seem a lot of the mail which
makes me happy that we can expect positive action soon.
Regards,
Viral Jasubhai
back to top
Hemant Vadalkar [Fri
Aug 30 16:18:00 2002]
Dear professionals / consulting structural engineers ,
We have to find out the solutions to the problems faced by us and work
together to improve the situation.
1. Training to all civil engineers after graduation and continuous
training to professionals -
Medical professionals, Chartered Accountants can not practice on their
own unless they compete some kind of training for 2-3 years. This is true for
engineering consultants also.
For working professionals, updating knowledge on the latest materials and
latest software available is required.
2. One single body ( All India Level) should control the license and the
membership issue :
By conducting examinations and interviews, license can be granted in
different categories for individuals and firms based on experience and
resources available. This license should be valid all over India. There
can be Class A, B, C registration for firms. Fee structure for different
classes can be decided by the apex body. To some extend, this can avoid
unhealthy competition and cutting down fees to grab the job.
3. Standardization of stability certificate, design parameter sheets
& proof checking
ISSE has published the guidelines and formats to be used by the structural
engineers in this regard. Design parameters must be given in the
structural drawing which will be useful in future. Some standard format
for providing data for proof checking will be helpful. Local bodies can
appoint expert panel for randomly proof checking the design of
consultants. This will discourage cutting corners in the design, detailing and
code violation.
I hope something good can come out of this E-conference.
Hemant Vadalkar
back to top
Mahendra Raj [Fri Aug 30
16:29:01 2002]
Sub
: About Engineers’ Bill
In the emerging world scenario dignified existence of a developing country will
depend on the speed with which it catches on with developed countries.
This speed will depend on the strength and competence of the country’s
Scientific and Technological Base.
In India we have created a strong and competent Scientific Base. But,
somehow we have not been able to create a strong and competent Technological
Base. Whether it is creation of infrastructural facilities of setting up of
heavy industries or production of quality consumer goods, we still depend
heavily on technological input from the developed nations. A strong
Technological Base is formed by highly qualified, well trained and experienced
competent engineers.
We have set up academic as well as R & D institutions for producing highly
qualified engineers but we have not created a corresponding mechanism to
monitor, guide and regulate the training and experience of an engineer before he
reaches the decision making level in his professional career. This one
shortcoming is costing the nation heavily as it is impeding our rate of
development, and is coming in the way of our acquiring independence from foreign
technologies and technologists.
In this background, the then Association of Consulting Engineers (India) (Now
Consulting Engineers Association of India) drafted on Engineers Bill as in early
as 1990 and submitted the same personally to the then HRD Minister, Mr. Raj
Mangal Pandey. This was followed up by a series of meetings with senior official
(of HRD Ministry and Law Ministry; the then Engineer – MPs (incl. Maj Gen B C
Khanduri & Mr. Krishna Kumar); Successive President of Institution of Engineers
(India); AICTE; Mr. APJ Abdul Kalam (now Hon. President of India).
This draft Engineers’ Bill, proposes to set up a self-financing, self-regulatory
system to assess the quality of training and competence of a
graduate/post-graduate engineer and accord him a status higher than the
engineering degree thereby allowing him to practice the profession of
Engineering in India.
Salient Features of the Draft Bill
* An independent Board of Professional Engineers of proven
standing from different disciplines will be set up.
* The Board will be empowered to guide and assess training and
experience of an engineer.
* After graduation/post graduation, an engineer will be
registered as “Engineer-in-Training” and will acquire training in any accredited
organization.
* After completing the training period an Engineer-in-Training
will have to clear a test in his discipline and in his field of specialization
to acquire the status of Professional Engineer.
* During his professional career, a “Professional Engineer”
will have to update his knowledge through a monitored process of Continuing
Education.
* In Private Sector only a “Professional Engineer’ will be
licensed to practice the profession of Engineering.
* In Public Sector an engineer before reaching a specified
senior position will have to acquire the status of a “Professional Engineer”.
* In the event of indulgence in unethical, unprofessional, or
irresponsible behaviour, the status of Professional Engineer will be revoked and
he will not be allowed to pursue the profession of Engineering in a responsible
position.
Need for the Engineer’s Bill
* To create an environment in the country in which engineers
aspire to achieve a higher level of competence than they possess now.
* To create a strong Technological Base in the country, fully
equipped to meet the demands of the next century.
* To ensure that engineers pursuing the profession of
Engineering in India acquire such a high level of competence that they can
pursue their profession in any part of the world.
* To safeguard the Society from unethical and incompetent
engineers.
Objectives to be fulfilled by
* Monitoring and assessing the training and experience of a
graduate/post graduate engineers.
* After successful completion of this training and experience,
according him a status higher than the degree which only qualifies him to reach
a decision making level.
* Withdrawing this higher status in the event of
unethical, unprofessional and incompetent behaviour.
The Engineering Council of India, formed recently, has taken over the
responsibility of preparing a final draft of the Engineer Bill for consideration
of the Government.
back to top
Dr V V Nori [Fri Aug 30
16:56:02 2002]
Dear Colleagues,
My reponse will reach you at the best as the conference comes to an end.
For some reason ( non structural !!) I have been receiving views of participants
but am not able to send e mails. Perhaps the Almighty wants me to read
what other's say and not make colleagues read what I have to say. I do
agree with some of the reponses regarding sharing information and publishing
articles. In SPA we hane always believe in sharing information. When
invited we do deliver lectures which are mutulally beneficial. I do not
agree that to practice as a consulting
engineer you have to have a post graduate qualification. I would like to
say that it is more important to have the ability to make clear sketches and
appreciate construction problems. We are all civil engineers; When
we call ourselves as Sructural Engineers we should not forget that we are civil
engineers and should possess grip on all aspects of civil engineering which has
been taught to us at graduate level.
But my fundamental question is "Do we love and respect our profession ?"
V V Nori.
Dear Colleagues,
We civil engineers find ourselves in an appalling situation for which the blame lies squarely with us. I
would like to list the following points:
Over the years the we have lost the love for our profession. The very profession which has enabled to us to earn a livelihood.
There is no creativity left in our profession.
We do not put into practice even the " very little " that we have learnt in the engineering schools. For
instance there are many buildings in Mumbai designed by qualified engineers ( even foreign returned)
only for vertical loads.
We have become subservient to the Architects and Builders. And now
subservient to computers and software. To start a consulting practice it is enough if you know codes and familar with computer
software. In the course of reviewing I have come across very serious mistakes which might
never have occurred if a simple manual check was performed.
Only few of us are members of professional bodies and out these few most do not follow the guide lines
of the very bodies for which they are signatories.
We work in water tight compartments ( Design Engineers, Site Engineers, Geo technical Engineers ,
Contractors, Geo technical engineers Architects etc). We are not interested in the over all quality.
Even before globalisation Clients have a tendencey to prefer foreign
consultants. I have on more than one occassion come across very poor engineering solutions and reports emanating from foreign
consultants/specialists. This is not suggest that we have nothing to learn from foreign consultants. We
should look at the manner in which Chinese Civil engineers have forged way ahead of us.. It is a
matter of dedication,self belief and national pride.
Even the best of us seem to be satisfied when codal provisions have been complied with. We see very
little innovation emanating from Indian Consultants.
What then is the solution ?
It is very difficult to change old habits. But we have to change if we want to arrest the downward slide.
We should stop underselling ourselves.
We must not compromise on basic engineering principles that we have
learnt. We need to update our knowledge base. We should take interest in the over all quality of the construction.
We must give back something to the profession which has given us our livelihoods.
Our work should be creative. How many of us know about the life of Prof
Terzaghi, or Freyssinet
We should serously introspect individually first and perhaps collectively later.
Finally I would like to apologise if my commentrs appear arrogant to the
recepeients of this mail. I am only tryng to share some thoughts. I have held myself guilty for not having done enough for our
professiion which I consider to be a very noble one.
V V Nori
back to top
D. G. Bhagwat [Fri Aug
30 16:58:01 2002]
I
have been working as a structural designer/engineer in AFCONS for the last 22
yrs in various capacities and am willing to volunteer for mentorship to be
provided to young engineers on the following analysis/design topics (details
could be discussed when an occasion arises) - Bored cast-in-situ piles
Precast+insitu superstructure Sheet pile walls, diaphragm walls Onshore marine
structures (jetties, quays, relieving platforms) Special foundations Temporary
steel structures
D. G. Bhagwat
back to top
Sivakumar K [Fri Aug 30
16:59:01 2002]
Dear Professor Sudhir K Jain, Ms. Alpa Sheth and all my eminent colleagues,
Good evening to all of you.
While we focus our efforts on getting the due recognition for our profession, it
is also imperative to update our knowledge of the technical advancements as
frequently as possible. At the time of renewal of professional license after a
certain period, it should be made mandatory that, the engineer should have
undergone certain number of short term training courses. The courses can be
conducted by reputed academic institutions and the same can be coordinated by
the Engineering Council of India. The quality of the structural professionals
can be assured to be the best thoroughly.
Regards.
K. Sivakumar
back to top
Kiran Akella [Fri Aug 30
17:17:01 2002]
Dear conference participants,
“Please Stop Young Engineer Bashing”
A lot of things are being said about the skills of new engineers coming into the
profession and the need for practical training. Though practical training is
necessary to some extent, what is more essential is a strong foundation of
theory. By bringing too much emphasis on practical training in engineering
education, the engineers coming out would be very specialised like welders or
crane operators and not those who could solve a variety of problems and play the
wider role that they are supposed to play. It should not annoy the experienced
structural engineers if the new entrants do not know details that there are two
outlet pipes in the bathroom. What they should look for is the capability of
understanding the system. It is not for specific knowledge that the engineering
education stands for, but to build the abilities to define and solve a problem
when one is encountered. A person with a reasonable aptitude can gain the
required specific knowledge anytime.
Engineers who have gained a few skills over 10-20 years of working in the
profession, should not use them to bully and discourage the youngsters, but
provide an environment that will allow lateral thinking, which comes so easily
to a fresh entrant. It’s a pity that most of the senior engineers are worried
about the young engineers not knowing specific provisions of the code or knowing
the cross-section area for a particular reinforcement diameter or ultimate
stress of pre-stressing steel, and not bothered about instilling proper ethical
values and leading by example.
Any opinions?
with warm regards,
Kiran Akella
back to top
M. Hariharan [Fri Aug 30
17:31:01 2002]
Regarding licensing issues...
The states in the US appear to have regulations in this regard. There are minor
differences between the rules of different states. A study of their rules may
give a good idea of how to get an Indian regulation, which has minimum problems.
M. Hariharan
back to top
M. Hariharan [Fri Aug 30
17:43:01 2002]
It
has been a pleasure going through the various correspondences. May I add my
input to some of the points mentioned? The post has become quite long!
1. There seems to be too much of discussion regarding building design and
construction, role of Engineer vs Architect etc. As one who is not directly
engaged in the conventional civil engineering projects, I would like to know the
reason for this. I could think of the following reasons:
- There are more engineers involved in building industry - The engineers in
building industry have more concerns (or problems) related to professional
issues. People in other industries (Transportation, power, irrigation etc,
Chemical, oil&gas, marine etc., which also employ a number of Civil / Structural
engineers) do not seem to be so vocal. Are they satisfied with their
professional career? Incidentally, I might be categorised under this category,
and I don't have much grudges.
2. Third Party Verification / Proof Consultant
It is a mandatory requirement in Offshore industry to have a third party
verification and certification (not only of the structure but the entire
facility) as a pre-requisite for insurance cover. Some organisations in India
have also gone for a similar check, and I think it is a good and required
practice.
There is a website: www.seaint.org (Structural Engineers Association
International) which contains a discussion forum similar to this one. Similar
topics are discussed there. All past discussions are archived.
There seems to be a standard verification and acceptance requirement and
practice in all city / county jurisdictions in USA for structures / buildings.
Similar requirement may exist all over the world. In India, I understand only
architectural plans are submitted for approval, no structural design
verification is performed. This needs to be changed.
It is not practical for the government / local authority to perform the
verification of design for all buildings. The easiest way of implementing the
requirements is to ask the owner to get a third party verification performed at
his cost and to submit the certificate of compliance to the approving agency.
All structural / architectural firms competent / registered within the city to
perform the original building design shall also qualify to perform the third
party review. Since the two organisations (designer and reviewer) are
competitors, generally errors will not be allowed to seep through, unless both
are incompetent. I have been functioning in an environment of third party
verification for the past 25 years, and the experience has been quite
satisfactory and positive. After it is accepted that such a review by a
competitor is a part of the profession, there will be no major hassles. This
exercise may be waived for buildings, whose size / dimensions / purpose are not
considered critical.
There could, of course, be instances like the experiences of Pankaj Gupta,
Chandrasekharan etc., but overall, it is better than no checking.
3. Architect vs Structural Designer
After the earthquake in Seattle a couple of years ago, the local TV station
showed the photographs of a few architects whose buildings survived the
earthquake, and gave cridit to their "design" for the survival of the buildings!
The entire structural engineering community was shocked and the e-mails in
SEAINT forum described their anger, the ignorance of public and the media etc.
The common man's understanding is that the architect designs buildings, the
engineer designs bridges, dams etc., (where the architect is not involved).
Mr. B. S. Mahmood wrote about Govt. ads:
" recently/normally we read about advertisements in the papers inviting
Quotations for the Proposed project and in the terms and conditions there will
be a point that the applicant should be an Architect registerd under the council
of Architects."
This point should certainly be taken up. The applicant, (particularly for a
high-rise building) could as well be a structural engineer, who can subcontract
architectural planning to an architectural firm. One may get more competitive
bids! Such combinations are permitted in other industries. Mr. Arvind Jaiswal
has suggested the proper wording:
"Yes, I agree with you on this point. That is why first step is not to use
title as Architect, try using `Project Consultant' or Consultant as title.
Second step is to educate the Govt departments that in a bid to call for
quotations they should mention `Architects / Consulting Engineers / Project
Consultants of repute and request them to delete the words `Registered with COA'
".
4. Fly ash
Mr. Shreekanta Rao has raised a very valid issue regarding use of fly ash for
construction. There is a National Fly Ash Mission set up by Govt. to propagate
the use of fly ash. They would provide requisite technical data and help.
5. Rural construction
Mr. Harikumar's concern regarding rural housing / construction is very valid. I
don't think adequate attention has been paid to this topic. I have seen
buildings on Himalayan slopes - Framed structures with walls made of cement
bricks. Inappropriate technology? Or, am I unaware of some recent developments,
which make the use of such bricks appropriate for the region? What about use of
local technology and materials for rural housing? people must have evolved some
local technologies which are appropriate and cost effective. Has any study been
performed to assimilate that knowledge and to refine it, if need be? Such
studies can be easily performed by the local engineering institutes with minimum
funds, and Ph. D's are not required, nor major analytical setup. Is there any
such study under way in any institute?
Dr. M. Hariharan
back to top
Amod Mani Dixit [Fri
Aug 30 17:52:00 2002]
Thank you, Dear Sudhir, for your mail.
I was following the conference off and on (several mails still to be read)
because of the irregularity of my health. But most of the time I was
appreciating the wonderful effort that you and your colleagues have put on
organizing this econf. What an idea! The last one you organized in 2001, and
this particular econf has given me so much of self-confidence to be working and
thinking the the field of earthquake risk reduction in Nepal. It is so nice to
see that there is a whole army of educated engineers in the subcontinent, who
not only carry with them the sophistication and wisdom expected of the people of
the region, but are sincerely trying to take the difficult path of trying to
implement solutions step by step and starting from small and do-able ones.
I am not a structural engineer, not even a civil engineer, and I don't havethe
rich experience in the field of construction like many of you have. So my
experience of working mainly in non-engineered informal construction may not be
of value. However, I felt that 1) there is a lack of dialogue between a
professional (civil engineer, structural engineer) and the user (comunity,
client); or between the professional and the decision/policy maker: either side
does not understand what the other side wants or what the other side can give,
2) there is a lack of understanding on the "possible harmful" effect of this
lack of dialogue or understanding, and 3) either there are no
institutions/mechanisms/strategies or the existing mechanisms do not have
enough motivation to facilitate this dialogue, and pre-empt the bad effect of
this lack of understanding. In such environment breed all the problems that the
econf is trying to address.
These problems are known since years. The solutions have largely been
identified. The econf is further trying identify many new solutions and putting
up new recommendations. But they will work only if put into practice.
Implementation is always difficult - be it professional exams, peer review
process, establishment of central governing organization, society of structural
engineers, better continual education, betterment of legal and policy
environement, and so on. We know that it will not be possible to solve the
problem at one go. We have to work step by step, doing the do-able, convincing
the convinceable, improving those aspects which are most likely to improve. But
act we must now. And act many times even outside the field of structural
engineering. Each act will take us closer to the desired goal.
When Anton Chekhov was saying that a human being must have everything beautiful,
he perhaps was emphasizing the need of comprehensiveness and totality in our
thinking. The problem of earthquake engineering is not any inherent controversy
between architects and structural engineers (look at the marvelous blend of the
two professions in all the cultural heritage site in the subcontinent!), but due
to the lack of working dialogue between not only the two professions but also
with those who hire the two professionals to get the construction designed and
constructed, and those who use the creations/work of all the three or more
professionals. Thus the problem covers more than the fields of structural
engineering or architecture - it goes into the areas of our (the whole
society's) behavior, our thinking, our attitude.
What you have suggested, Prof. Jain, is exactly what should be started! And
there could be so many more things to do, which at times depend upon local
situation also.
For example, last year NSET requested engineering colleges to involve their
students in our program of building inventory of Kathmandu. 100 students
participated during their vacation. About 1100 buildings were inventoried
within about two weeks time. Thanks to this work, now we have some semi-detail
knowledge about the building stock of Kathmandu (typology, materials, strengths,
weaknesses, vulnerability), and we can talk about vulnerability more confidently
than before when such knowledge did not exist. The students are happy that they
did something that not only fulfills part of academic requirement,but also gave
them knowledge that is not included in the curriculum. The engineering colleges
are happy that a very successful program of fieldwork has been implemented.
Everybody wants to continue this practice.
I look forward to learning more from this "e-shastrartha" in
structural/earthquake engineering. Thank you.
Amod Mani Dixit
back to top
Mahendra Raj [Fri Aug 30
17:52:04 2002]
A
lot of views have been expressed about the inter-relationship of
Architects and Engineers in a project. There are many misunderstandings and
misconceptions about their interaction. These can be better understood by
examining the present practice and its impact on the profession.
THE PREVALENT PRACTICE
The prevalent practice in the private sector is that the client selects an
architect and entrusts the entire project to him. If the client is knowledgeable
about the importance of contribution of other disciplines to the project he
participates in the selection of other consultants. If he is not, this
selection is left to the discretion of the appointed architect. In either case
the client enters into an agreement with only the architect and makes payment of
the professional fees to him. The architect in turn has agreements with all
other consultants and makes payment to them.
In the prevalent system the client trusts the architect implicitly and
completely. He transfers his own functions, his concerns, his headaches,
his responsibilities on to the architect. This in practice makes the
architect the de-facto client for the professionals of engineering disciplines.
This system supposedly avoids multiplicity of responsibility and saves the
client the trouble of dealing directly with a number of professionals.
Multiplicity of responsibility must be avoided. There are no two opinions
on its. The project must have a professional leader cum coordinator.
However, the prevalent system is based on the misconception that the function of
coordination is synonymous with the functions of designing and design synthesis.
DESIGN is the activity of professionals - engineering and architectural - who
together contribute to the evolution of a concept which is optimum for most of
the disciplines so that ultimately the project can be aesthetic, functional and
cost effective.
DESIGN SYNTHESIS is the activity of optimum integration of requirements of all
disciplines in the project.
CO-ORDINATION is the activity of ensuring and monitoring that requisite input of
various disciplines is received the project at different stages of work in
appropriate time.
Designing is an activity performed by an architect as well as all other
professionals of the engineering disciplines.
Design synthesis is an essential part of an architect's contribution to a
project, yet it is to be performed in consultation with and in complete
agreement of, professionals of engineering disciplines. That is, the
synthesis is the subject of decision of all members of the design team.
Coordination is a distinct and separate activity which can be performed by any
one member of the team of professionals who has the requisite experience and
maturity. By training and aptitude an engineer is more qualified for the
activity of co-ordination. As such, to avoid multiplicity of responsibility, it
is best for the client to hire and deal with all professionals separately and
yet make one of them the coordinator or the leader who is responsible to him to
get requisite and timely inputs from all professionals.
The lack of understanding of the three activities and entrusting responsibility
of proper performance of all the activities on the architect has led to
exploitation of the client as well as of professionals of engineering
disciplines.
PROBLEMS OF MAKING ARCHITECT THE DE-FACTO CLIENT
1. the client relinquishes his right to ensure that the project gets the most
competent professional input. He remains under the mistaken notion that once he
has selected an architect, it is the architect's headache and
responsibility to organize and provide best possible professional inputs. But
more often than not, this does not happen and, at times, the client is not even
aware of it.
2. The client does not know that 60 to 70% cost of the project is controlled by
engineering disciplines, and he that for the project to be functional and cost
effective it is essential that professionals (who control this large component
of the expenditure) are selected as carefully as the architect.
3. The tendency of the architect is to evolve a concept in isolation and get it
approved without involvement of other professionals.
4. Even when the architect hires the most competent professionals and even if
their involvement commences right from the conceptual stage, the client may not
receive the correct version of the advice and comments of all professionals.
5. Often the architect, in order to minimize his own input, tries to push and
sell a concept which does not necessarily have approval of other professionals.
6. Even when a knowledgeable client participates in selection of most competent
consultants, ensures their participation from the conceptual stage, interacts
with them directly, but if they are hired by the architect the chances are that
he does not get free, frank and unfettered advice from the professionals.
7. If the architect fails to organize and provide the most competent input of
other professionals at appropriate stages of work in the project, it amounts to
betrayal of the client's confidence in the architect and exploitation of the
client's ignorance by him.
8. The architect has a tendency to exploit all other professionals of
engineering disciplines in terms of their remuneration and recognition of their
contribution.
9. Since the architect decides on the remuneration of other engineering
disciplines., he overvalues his own contribution and undervalues the time and
contribution of other disciplines.
FEE DISTRIBUTION
The present free distribution is not compatible with the responsibilities
carried by professionals of different disciplines.
Magnitude of work to be put in by different professionals at different stages of
a project varies. The mode of payment of fees is not in conformity with
the proportion of work done by different disciplines at different stages of work
during planning as well as construction. As a result some of the
disciplines get compensated for their efforts after considerable delay.
For example before foundations are done the entire structural concept has to be
frozen after detailed investigation and analysis, but payment at that stage is
not commensurate wit the work done by the structural discipline. Similarly
the entire structure gets completed much before final completion of the building
with all the finishes and services. Yet payments of even structural
disciplines are linked to final completion of the building.
Payments related to suspension, postponement, or delays in completion of a
project and held back, affect even those disciplines which might have
successfully completed their entire work by that time.
Full and timely recovery of the fees by different consultants from an architect
is an exception rather than a rule.
The architect, by under payment of the dues of various professional engineering
disciplines inadvertently creates an interest free loan for himself which he
repays as and when it is suitable to him. This benefit he derives simply
by being the paying agent of the client for the services provided by other
professionals.
Dissatisfaction of the client with performances of an architect at times leads
to withholding his payment. As a result all professionals some of whom
might have completed their entire work do not get paid.
If payment of a professional is delayed or denied on the plea that the architect
himself has not received the payment there is no way the consultant can verify
this statement.
The system permits some of the architects to keep some professionals under a
perpetual bondage. A professional works on a project, completes it, does
not get paid and in the hope of recovering his payment works on the next project
and so on and eventually finds himself in the position of a "Bonded Slave".
At that stage if heprotests too much, the architect calmly drops him on one
pretext or another and finds another one to exploit similarly. The dropped
professional has no way of recovering his accumulated outstandings and has to
forget about them.
RECOGNITION OF SERVICES
In the prevalent system credit for projects is taken essentially by the
appointed architect. As such professionals of engineering disciplines do
not get known in the community of clients and it inhibits the growth of their
professional practice.
DIRECT APPOINTMENT OF PROFESSIONALS OF ENGINEERING DISCIPLINES
With direct appointment and direct payment of all professionals, one of whom is
designated as a leader-cum-coordinator it is ensured that :
- the most competent and suitable professionals for the
project get selected.
- the project receives proficient input from all
professionals at appropriate stages.
- the client has direct access to unbiased opinion of
all professionals.
- all professionals receive equitable compensation.
- payment received by each professional is commensurate
with the completion of his work.
- burden of errors and omissions of one professional has
not to be carried by other professionals.
- the profession of building engineering attracts good
engineers.
- all professionals get due recognition in the community
of clients.
back to top
Prof Mahesh Tandon
[Fri Aug 30 17:52:08 2002]
Dear Dr Jain,
Thank you for your invitation to participate in this econf. of vital interest to
the practicing professionals in the field of Civil Engg.
I wish to share the following ideas with co-participants:
(A) Qualifications and Duties of the Structural Engineer
The National Building Code of India (NBC) was published in 1970, and its first
revision in 1983. I understand that the publication of the second revision is
being planned now, some 20 years later.
The main objective of the NBC is the unification of building regulations
throughout the country for use by PWDs, Municipalities and other public bodies.
An area of considerable concern is the coverage given to qualifications and
perceived duties of the structural engineer in Part II (Administration) of the
NBC. The whole approach is geared towards a single person or agency being
responsible for design as well as construction, which would be applicable only
for very small projects. For present-day projects of some size the supervision
agency is usually different and in many cases is a firm of Construction
Management Consultants. This idea needs to be addressed clearly in the main text
and appendices of the NBC.
(B) Computer-Aided Structural Design
As in most spheres of human endeavour, computers have made a fundamental change
in the practice of structural engineering design. Before the era of computers,
individual steps in the design process were executed manually with a slide-rule
or calculator which carried the burden of arithmetical operations. Even today
the process of computer-aided design is essentially based on “computation by
parts” within an overall manual environment. However, as a result of the IT
revolution, we are hurtling towards a complete computerisation of the whole
process where the entire structural design will become one “seamless” digital
activity. Once the structural conception has been made and converted into a form
recognised by the computer, it can be prompted through the
intermediate steps by a single software
package to yield the final drawings for
execution at site. Without getting into the significant advantages of
computerisation and the impetus it has given to the rapid advancements in
structural design, let us look at the downside. Safe structural design in the
past has been a direct result of the skill and competence of the engineer. Today
excessive number-crunching and large inputs and outputs often obscure the
validity of the results. A loss of “structural feel” can lead to mistakes that
could yield structures whose safety and economy become unpredictable.
Guidelines for computer-aided design have become imperative to channelise
structural design efforts so that it becomes a safe and reliable professional
activity.
A protocol needs to be devised so that each of the four steps in the process i.e
conception, analysis, design and drawings becomes wholesome. The methodology to
be adopted for structural design as well as for peer review needs urgent
attention.
(C) Fire Resistance of Structures
A welcome addition in the new IS:456-2000 is a whole chapter on Fire Resistance,
wherein fire resistance (in hours) for different structural components have been
related to structural detailing of reinforced concrete.Additional measures
such as application of fire-resistant finishes and false ceilings have been
recommended to obtain the required fire rating.
Unfortunately the picture is rather dismal in the case of structural steel
buildings, which are being designed and constructed seldom catering to
fire-resistance. IS:800-1984 has only one sentence of significance in appendix G
wherein information relating to “grade of fire resistance appropriate to
the occupancy as maybe required” is recommended to be furnished to the steelwork
designer. Incidentally, these recommendations are not necessary for purposes of
compliance with the code. Also “steelwork designer” has been identified as an
individual different from the “building designer” of the project, without
defining what are the responsibilities of either of these two individuals.
Reverting back to the National Building Code, the fire resistance ratings
required for various building
components of a diverse nature of structures needs
to be defined more clearly than presently available in Part IV (Fire
Protection). The information given in Table 1 of the same needs to be reviewed
for roof construction as it gives the impression that there is no requirement of
fire resistance once the height exceeds 6.7m. As a consequence , even aircraft
hangars in structural steel housing assets worth millions are being designed and
constructed in India without any consideration of fire resistance.
As per modern day practice, the required fire rating of a structural component
is dependent on the provisions of fire suppression and fire alarm systems as
well as on the occupation and contents of the buildings. Comprehensive
guidelines dealing with design provisions relating to “fire engineering” of
structures, needs to be disseminated widely.
(D) Professional Indemnity
Structural Engineers are taking risks much beyond even their own comprehension.
Agreements with clients often carry caluses where the structural engineer is
fully responsible without limitation in every conceivable manner for
design defects and consequences thereof. Such eventualities can only be covered
by professional indemnity insurance.
It is a sad commentary when you look at what is available in India in this
regard. The private players have still not entered the field. The Government
through its nationalised companies has a standard format titled insurance for
"Architects, Interior Decorators and Consulting Engineers". Nothing of essence
is covered. It could be a dry cleaner's bill for all the value it holds for a
consulting engineer. Despite several attempts we have not been able to get
an actual policy in hand even when we have got the coverage done for a specific
project. However, they do part, very reluctantly with a receipt of the premium
paid.
Have any of the particpants better luck in this regard?
back to top
K. N.
Chandrashekaran [Fri Aug 30 19:08:01 2002]
I'm
having 26 years of post Graduate experience and am willing to offer such help to
any body wanting it!
K.N.CHANDRASHEKARAN
back to top
Alpa Sheth [Fri Aug 30
19:08:04 2002]
Dear Kiran and All,
That was a lovely email outlining what we should expect from young engineers.
Quite often in consulting firms there is simply no time for training engineers
and we, perhaps unfairly, expect them to know everything when they arrive fresh
out of school. I am guilty of that too and I think we need to introspect as
consultants and see how we can change this. Thanks for reminding us what
engineers colleges are for- "to build the abilities to define and solve a
problem when one is encountered." My only concern is that many colleges have
forgotten that themselves - ANd we end up having a stock of engineers who are
neither trained to do what you have articulated so well nor can they
attend to the day-to-day issues of structural engineering. That is what we
need to address.
Regards,
Alpa
back to top
Amod Mani Dixit [Fri
Aug 30 19:43:01 2002]
Dear all,
Fact 1
After 19 years of service with the government, and at the age of 47 years, I
continued to be regarded as "young" (and "enjoy" all the consequenses the
concept usually has in a developing country!). It was because I did not get
a promotion simply because there was no opening.
Some five years later, as a director of a private consulting firm, I found
myself negotiating with a MIT prof. who wanted to get one of his Master-level
students (preparing his thesis) on-board a project (for Nepal) that we were
designing (with our partners) in California. I was overwhelmed by the way
the professor (American) was making a case for his student (from Canada) to be
included into the project. The student was, no doubt, very smart, and there was
no reason for me to say "no" to his inclusion into the team. However, the more
the professor insisted, the more I started remembering some of the young
professionals in Nepal. Ultimately, we ended up taking in the Nepalese
professional, who did a wonderful job satisfactory to everybody. Currently, this
Nepali professional is a noted expert at home and abroad. The Canadian "student"
is now also an international expert (4 years after his Master's degree) who
works with a reputed international company.
I will never forget the way the MIT professor and the President of my partnering
American non-profit company encouraged (provided opportunities, fought for and
so on) the young engineer. It was really a great pleasure to see such approach.
Lesson: Learn from Professors of advance countries how to encourage young
engineers and create the right opportunities for them. It pays in the long run,
both ways.
Fact 2
Back in 1992, the Building Code Development Project of Nepal had the previlage
of spotting a young engineer, fresh form the institute, in the team of one of
the constituent consultants. This guy had all the potentials except that he did
not have much voice (not only because he was young, but also because he came
from a not-so-well to do and not - so - well -connected family. He had to
struggle hard, all himself, before he could get some opportunity to take some
deep breadth. Now he is one of the better-known structural engineers of Nepal
(but still has to go to a university to get a paper certifying that he knows
what he knows). We were so proud that Prof. Sudhir Jain appreciated the approach
of this "young" engineer from Nepal in his speech in a workshop dedicated to the
anniversary of the Bhuj Eq.
There are several other examples of young engineers of Nepal. In fact these are
the people who do the real work of NSET.
Lesson: Look down (and laterally, occasionally) for pearls; look up for garbage!
Bitter Fact 3
Want it or not, or accept it or not, quite some of the students in the
engineering classes yet till date belong mostly to the families who want their
wards to be the engineers (and not because he has an aptitude). These are
the guys who are "destined, in due course of time" to be the occupying the
principal positions, to make decisions, and even to push science & engineering
"forward"!. These are the people who are the sources of at least some of the
problems being discussed in this conference.
Lesson: Mr. Akela is right, so look into his suggestions seriously. But "Dokela"
may be deceiving! Curtail him!
I hope things make sense.
Regards,
Amod
back to top
Amod Mani Dixit [Fri
Aug 30 20:23:01 2002]
Dear all!
1) Faciliatate the young engineers.
2) Allow them an equal chance, in national or international market (we the
regioanl/national may not have the equal chance, though), and see how they
marvel!
2)
Give them some time, some opportunity, some training, some education, and
strictly demand results. They will give you something more than you could expect
or anticipate, or manage, and hence, they are, perhaps, better than we
guys were!
Can we get a national consensus on this issue?
Regards,
Amod
back to top
Shekhar Ghate [Fri Aug
30 20:24:01 2002]
Dear Bhagawat
Mr Oak has developed web site for struct engrs for ISSE. FORTNIGHTLY QUIZ has
also started. even general Q/A re relevant struct/civil engg problems /issues
also were started unfortunately v. few were aware of this. & still v. few hit
the site.
REGARDS
SHEKHAR GHATE
back to top
Shekhar Ghate [Fri Aug
30 20:24:05 2002]
Dear M r Ghosh
Yr suggestion re." young engineers meet once in a year in a
friendly environment so that they can share their work experience. is v. good. i
would like try arrange similar 1 in bombay. thru Instt of Engrs / ISSE. i would
appreciate if u give some more info.
regards
Shekhar Ghate
back to top
Verma, Navin [Fri Aug 30
20:52:00 2002]
Dear Friends,
I have been following the proceedings of e-conference off and on. It was
heartening to see email of Kiran Akella and I fully agree with him. I am also a
young structural engineer with little more than 1 year experience. Presently, I
am working in United States. I am not too aware of structural engineering work
environment in India / bashing of young professionals. But, its little different
here. First year of your job is more of a training ground / gestation period and
your mistakes are full ignored and what is given importance is your willingness
to learn, take initiatives and problem solving approach. We all understand that
structural engineering, by its virtue, cannot be learnt in schools and requires
training, which can only come by experience. We young people are ready to learn
from experiences of senior people. But what I have felt in last year is
sometimes senior people develop ways of doing things in their own way and thus
obstruct free thinking. If you approach them with a problem, the answer is more
like "DO THIS IN THIS PARTICULAR FASHION", instead of provoking you to think
after giving some directions / guidelines. I agree that project schedules might
force to finish a job quickly at times but this doesn't do any good to us.
As far as training is concerned, I feel our analysis and design courses are
adequate to give the fundamental tools to handle any problem. But I do see a
need for a course on "construction practices" and "connection design". But
this can be accomplished as a continuing education course / some seminars in the
company.
Moreover, as has been pointed out by several people about using computer tools /
techniques. I don't see any problem in using them as long as we make use of
computers as a tool and not as a black box with "garbage in, garbage out" kind
of thing. And, I have to say that with the increasing emphasis on computer
literacy in engineering curriculum, we young people are much better in utilizing
computer tools efficiently / quickly. So our senior fellows should be ready to
make use of these skills of ours in the best execution of a project.
Thanks
Navin Verma
back to top
N.
N. Javdekar [Fri Aug 30 20:54:00
2002]
Dear Dr Jain,
The e-conference ,your brainchild is proceeding very well, with each participant
getting an opportunity to put forth one's views. I feel a consensus is emerging
that a "TQM" approach is needed where,
1]Top Level commitment,
2]Total involvement at all levels, &
3]Continuous training , are the main requirements.
With several stakeholders in the process of the business of Civil Engineering
/Built Environment {the owner-architect-engineer[structural/services
designers]-contractor-material suppliers-project manager/engineer-financer-buyer
/user...might represent the general stakeholders},the chain of internal
customer-supplier relationships is as strong as only the weakest link. For
structural engineers to be proudly& profitably engaged continuously in their
profession, they must have an agreed Design Brief which must be within
professional and legal framework limits and then they must satisfy the customer.
And they must understand the market trends and search for new markets and
innovate continuously, in the persuit of excellence. In this Internet era,
global markets must be explored by those who can compete on the basis of
their professional strengths and experience.Networking should be the password,
with so much Resident/NRI talent available. There must be a will to share
knowledge to create dreams in concrete/steel,and generate wealth to be
shared..
Educating the decision makers /facilitators to obtain the desired professional
standards of global levels, would be an immediate important activity..as the
necessary outcome of this e-conference .
With increasing High Rises dotting our urban skies and deeper foundations mostly
on piles in cities like Mumbai/Navi Mumbai, seismic forces must dominate the
Design Brief without any compromise. The BIS is mandatory.not
optional...or is it ?, One is not sure seeing the fact that even after
having gone Metric for over 40 years , the Government/Semi Govt bodies jon the
builders in advertising houses with Areas stated in Square Feet[& not in
SqMeters,] and land being measured in different units like
cents,gunthas,bighas,yards instead of Sq Meters/Hectares,.and the state govt has
ready reckoners in those illegal units..!
There is a lot to be done..waiting for the fraternity to start doing,.
Regards,
N
N
Javdekar
back to top
Arvind [Fri Aug 30 20:54:04
2002]
Dear Dr. Sudhir K Jain & Prof Mahesh Tandon,
Validation of structural Softwares which are sold in the market, is a long felt
need, and there is no agency which has come forward to do this job till date.
Many software manufacturers say lot of things in their broachures, but when you
actually buy them you find many items missing from the assured list. Is
there any way to check them?
With warm regards......Arvind
back to top
M. Hariharan [Fri Aug 30
22:51:01 2002]
Some feedbacks on the issues:
(a) Continuing Education:
Any continuing education program should be structured, and should only be
conducted by professional bodies - Educational institutes, Public sector
organisations, Professional bodies etc, not as freelance lectures/PPT slides
distributed freely. They will lose the seriousness.
(b) Conferences, camps and workshops
Camps and workshops really form part of continuing exercise. In today's world,
considering costs and the utility, I am not very encouraged by Conferences in
general and in India in particular.Shortcomings are:
- The quality of papers is not very high
- Most papers are too academic, by research scholars who have less knowledge
about practical considerations
- Practitioners do not get time or motivation to write papers
- There is always such a short time limit for presentation that no worthwhile
discussion takes place.
e-conferences, or a discussion forum, on the other hand, provide for a lot of
interaction. There is no time limit (within a time frame, of course). This
should be combined with a publishing forum discussed earlier by others, which
will give opportunity for presentation of full papers. If everything is
conducted electronically, the operating costs will be minimal, and dissemination
would be more.
(e) Mentorship
I believe this should be made on a personal level, and possibly cannot be
expected as a standard practice. I get mails from my past colleagues working
elsewhere, asking for my opinion, feedback, or just a 'how to do'. The mails are
copied to other friends as well. Responses can be from me or any of the friends,
and will go to everyone. This disseminates information. I have learnt quite a
few new things in this exchange. (This is to say that seniors need not
necessarily know everything). A discussion forum may be more appropriate. Please
visit SEAINT I had written about earlier.
(f) Teaching Institutes
Most teaching Institutes are privately owned and operated. There is a severe
shortage of capable staff. The better ones are making do with retired
professionals, part timers and the like.
The All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE) has a separate set up
called the National Board for Accreditation (NBA). I think it is mandatory for
every teaching institute to get the approval of AICTE to first come into
existence. It is now mandatory for every institute (and every course in that
institute) to be evaluated and accredited by NBA within 5 years. This is
somewhat like ISO 9001 Quality Accreditation for the Industry. This is a serious
exercise, and I have been part of it for a couple of institutes. The courses are
graded A, B, C or Not accredited.
I think the number of Engineering colleges in the country should first be
halved. Most of them have come up in the last five years, with the aim of only
making money, and "Software" in all its metamorphic forms as the courses. That
craze for software has dried. Incidentally, no one has talked about the software
industry hijacking engineers and making them do work for which a much lower
calibre person is adequate. Only a few fleeting references were made.
(g) Resource database for Engineers
Points (a) and (b) above are related to this. One point that may need to be
considered is the confidentiality of some data - Clients may not want their
information made public.
Dr. M. Hariharan
back to top
M. Hariharan [Fri Aug 30
22:51:05 2002]
This contractually not correct. The applicable code shall always be the one in
force at the time of issue of the tender document. (Some people may extend it to
the time of submission of the priced bids). The incorporation of more recent
codes into a contract can be the client's prerogative, provided he compensates
the contractor/designer for cost and time. What is the provision in staturory
bodies?
M. Hariharan
back to top
M. Hariharan [Fri Aug 30
22:51:08 2002]
kiran akella wrote:
“Please Stop Young Engineer Bashing”
This is from an older engineer.
1. The young (read fresh from college) engineers are not taught practical,
design related things in college. Reason is that their teachers themselves may
not have done practical designs. The young engineers are not to blame. These are
taught / learnt in the profession. However, it is the considered opinion of most
practicing engineers that the courses taught are only theoretical, and that is
not enough. Incidentally, some students who came to India from abroad on
exchange programs also expressed a similar view. Their courses were more
practical.
2. The theoretical knowledge / computer knowledge taught in college does not
give capacity for "lateral thinking" as you put it. "Lateral thinking" comes
with experience.
3. No senior should expect the new entrant to know all code provisions or
practical details. However, it is a crime if he/she doesn't know these after a
couple of years of experience. A "Good" senior will not bully the youngsters,
but will guide them.
4. Computer is not everything. I have been using computers since early 70's for
all analysis / design work. Still, I do not encourage young engineers to
approach a computer till they have performed a preliminary design by hand,
understood the load flow, and overall behaviour of the structure. The computer
is then used to optimise the design, document the results etc. Without the hand
calculations, you will never know if the results are reliable or not.
Incidentally, an approximate design can be performed in a very short time
compared to computer coding. (This is valid for large structures, not for
isolated footings and the like).
5. "A person with a reasonable aptitude can gain the required specific knowledge
anytime.". In the industry, experience has a lot of value. It is very necessary
for troubleshooting. The first years in the industry are specifically intended
to impart such knowledge. This is well understood and followed in Public sector
engineering organisations, but I am not sure of the status in the private
sector.
M. Hariharan
back to top
Sameer Sajjad
[Fri Aug 30 22:51:12 2002]
Dear Prof. Jain,
Thank you for giving me the opportunity to participate in this e-conference. I
wish all success for this commendable endeavor. Ideas put forward by several
fellow participants have been quite valuable and enlightening.
In recent years, southern state of Kerala, where threat of an earthquake was
considered to be remote, experienced tremors of significant intensity. There was
wide-spread phenomenon of "sinking of wells" and "boiling water in wells".
However, to my knowledge, there has not been adequate scientific investigation
into the causes of these phenomena. A proper study might change seismic zoning
of Kearala in Indian seismic codes.
Most practicing engineers in Kerala, including Masters Degree holders in
Structural engineering, have limited knowledge of aseismic design and
construction practices, since seismic engineering/earthquake resistant design is
not part of even Masters Degree Curriculum in universities of Kerala.
Therefore, in my opinion, there should be opportunity for Continuing Education
in Earthquake Engineering for practising engineers. Intensive short-term
courses tailored for practicing professionals could serve the purpose.
I also share the idea of many participants that licensing examination to
practise as Earthquake Resistant Design Consultants should be introduced.
Allowing structural Engineers without formal education in seismic engineering to
practise as a consultants in earthquake resistant design and construction
practices could do more harm.
with regards,
Sajjad Sameer,
back to top
Arvind [Fri Aug 30 22:53:01
2002]
Dear Dr Sudhir Jain,
I am producing excerpts from an article for your kind attention:
By P.V. Indiresan
"A.P.J. Abdul Kalam is President of India. Undoubtedly, his selection has caused
deep misgivings both among a section of politicians and media. One objection
that has been repeated ad nauseum is that Dr. kalam is only an engineer. Few of
those critics have paused to ponder that such an objection is an insult to the
engineering profession.
Few politicians command much respect these days. Yet, if media, comments were to
be believed, when it comes to teh highest position of honour in the country,
barely literate, even a shady politicians are to be preferred to successful
engineers. That reveals a contemptuously low opinion of engineers.
Why is it that virtually every youngster would love to enter an engineering
college, and yet, why do so many abuse the profession the way they do? Probably,
that is because every engineering advance comes with two unavoidable defects:
One, it makes existing practices obsolete, and hence destroys the careers of
those who have invested a lifetime in acquiring those skills. Such losers are
naturally made unhappy. Two, every engineering advance disturbs the environment.
That raises the hackles of the conservationists who believe in Ram Rajya, who
have religious faith that the past was better than the present.
It is simple shift from opposition to dislocation caused by engineering advances
to suspician about the character of engineers. In addition, it is safe to
abuse engineers. As a class, they are tounge-tied. Their communication skills
are very poor. Have you ever heard of an engineer being invited to a discussion
or debate by the media? Engineers are never ashed to present their point of view
but others are brought in to do so on their behalf.
........Engineers need not be offered more than what they deserve, but it would
be not only just but wise to give them their due. ............and so on."
This has appeared in HINDU 31.07.2002
With warm regards......Arvind
back to top
G. C. Oak [Fri Aug 30
23:44:01 2002]
Dear Collegues,
This E-mail is not for boasting about me, as I know very well that my
contribution is very humble. This is for triggering and boosting your actions
towards betterment of Structural Engineering Profession. You are more gifted,
more energetic, more knowledgable, more capable than me and therefore you would
do much better than me for providing solutions to the laccunae of present
system. The present system consists of interconnected links of OWNERS - BUILDERS
- ARCHITECTS - MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS - OWNERSHIP ACT - STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS
and the STRUCTURAL ENGINEER himself. The system gives rise to peer pressures for
compromises by the structural engineers. This rottening has to be minimised if
cannot be eliminated.
Individually, the Structural Engineers also need uplifting. For which there
should ample avenues and also intimation about the same. My humble contribution:
A] UPLIFTING OF STR. ENGR:
I have created and am maintaining my website "oakfreehelp.com" which is
singlehanded effort for providing free help by E-media, some useful library
material, business help, sharpening of tech. commonsense etc. There juniors can
also get lot of guidance, free of cost. Seniors are welcome for giving "Matured
Wisdom", can participate in "Fortnight Forum" etc. Basically this concept is " E
Developement Centre" If you like the site and concept of the site, kindly join
me in the welfare efforts.
B] IMPROVING THE SYSTEM
I am active member of Indian Society of Structural Engineers, as Honarary
Trustee and also editor of our quarterly journal. ISSE is a wonderful forum for
all of us. Presently we have more than 500 members, mostly from Maharashtra.
ISSE in last 3 years have made commendable efforts in various aspects. If you
desire to improve SYSTEM, collective efforts will be needed. For your
initiative, what better forum can be than ISSE?
If you want something, should not you give something? LET US ACT, AND NOT ONLY
DESIRE!
Yours truely
G.C.OAK
back to top
|