www.www.buonovino.com

[SKSNL at ltecd.ltindia...]

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

Instead, the choice of adopting WSD or LSM should be clearly given to
the purchaser. When purchaser do not specify anything, the right of
选择与设计工程师应该保持。

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

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


Respectfully,

Subhamoy Kar

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

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


Dear Structural Engineers,

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

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

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


Yours truly,

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

Posted via Email