Need a book? Engineering books recommendations...

Return to index: [Subject] [Thread] [Date] [Author]

Re: Thanks for your guidance

[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]

If you review my 2nd post on the subject, you will see I have covered most of your questions already. Any way I'll respond to this once again for you, item wise:

 1) No, KDA (KARACH DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY) demands Structural Design
    Calculation & Soil Investigation Report for all G+3 & higher
    Structures only. While for G+2 & lower height structures, only
    Architectural Plans with schedules of Structural details like
    typical foundation sizes, thickness of slabs, sizes & typical
    reinforcement details of beam, columns etc. are required to be
    submitted; all these grouped in a typical fashion in one drawing
    only. All G+3 & above  structures are required to be designed to
    resist wind & Earth Quake forces.

 2) The Authority maintains a small set up who reviews in-house all
    plans for G+2 & lower height structures. All submittals for G+3
    & higher structures are referred to registered VETTING CONSULTANTS;
    these are selected by the Authority itself, however the
    OWNER is allowed to submit names of three preferences from his
    side. Authority nominates one out of three names provided by the

 3) NO, this vetting by the registered VETTING CONSULTANTS is a
    time-bound assignment; they are alloted about 6-8 weeks to finish
    the job. After that the Authority takes some time to process & the
    whole process, from submission to final approval, takes about 6-8
    weeks . The Authority ensures a VETTING CONSULTANT is not loaded
    with a lot of such assignments, that is why they use their
    preorgative in awarding/assigning jobs to the Vetting Consultant,
    in that process they do respect choice of the OWNER but nominate
    only that which is not already assigned some other job. I have
    had experience of vetting quite a few jobs directed to my company
    back home by the Authority. What I used to do is mostly check the
    suspect portions of the works only rather than making a full
    thorough review of the Structural Calculations. We used to have
    2-3 sessions with the original Design Engineer after we had
    made a first hand review of the work. After these explanatory
    sessions with the designer, we used to set again to review the
     work. Get necessary replacement of the corrected works & then
    send the approval to the Authority.

 4) No, the prime responsibility solely & squarely rests on the
    passed by the provincial Legislative Assembly, the AUTHORITY
    is just a regulatory body only & the responsiblity of safe design
    rests with the professional Consultant & safe performance of
    structures lies on the BUILDER & THE OWNER alone. However, Iam
    not aware of any legal case study where the vetting Engineer
    was also held responsible, along with the primary Consultant,
    for failure of any structure. There are failures of structures
    but the ARCHITECT/CONSULTING ENGINEERS get away easily & in
    the end the BUILDER Or its poor Supervising Engineer pays the
    brunt. The Owner being rich & influential also gets away. The
    reason is design work are very professional work, on the paper
    at least. But they are seldom built in exact accordance with
    the approved design. The job is tampered by the owner in
    connivance with the builder; in most cases the OWNER & the
    BUILDER is one & the same person,with a different front man.

 5) the cost for scrutiny/vetting of the job is paid by the OWNER.
    depending on the size of the project, the Authority has
    established a fixed rate for the service. It varies from 1-3
    percent of the civil cost of the project; sometimes more &
    sometimes less. But the fixed rate of the Authority is

I hope I have responded to your satisfaction. If you have further please feel free to come back again. Best regards,


From: "JAYANT LAKHLANI" <jayant_l(--nospam--at)>
To: "SYED FAIZ AHMAD" <syedfaiz23(--nospam--at)>
Subject: Thanks for your guidance
Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2001 12:43:21 +0530

Dear Mr. Syed,

Thanks for your guidance regarding my query, pertaining to some checking system on structural engineers, on seaint digest.

Regarding your reply, I have got few more questions. I will be obliged if you can spare your time to answer them.

1) In Karachi, local authority demands structural drawings and structural calculations for scrutinizing them. Do they demand these for each and every building or some random checking procedure is there?

2) Who checks the structural calculations? I mean authority itself has got the infrastructure of structural engineers to check design of private professionals?

3) Does it become possible that structural design for each and every building gets scrutinized in detail? If it is so, doesn't it make approval procedure very time consuming as in my opinion it takes more time to proof check other's design rather than to design anew.

4) Once the design is approved by the authority, whose ultimate responsibility is being considered regarding correctness of the design, that of the primary private consultant or the authority?

5) Who pays the scrutinization fees for structural design?

With best regards.


Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at

******* ****** ******* ******** ******* ******* ******* ***
*   Read list FAQ at:
* * This email was sent to you via Structural Engineers * Association of Southern California (SEAOSC) server. To * subscribe (no fee) or UnSubscribe, please go to:
* Questions to seaint-ad(--nospam--at) Remember, any email you * send to the list is public domain and may be re-posted * without your permission. Make sure you visit our web * site at: ******* ****** ****** ****** ******* ****** ****** ********