The importance of the structural engineer

The importance of the structural engineer
B.L. Agarwal

We have two broad kinds of natural calamities to contend with: cyclones and earthquakes. When we design buildings we must, therefore, come up with proper dynamic analyses and designs for each individual structure, keeping various criteria in mind, including geographical factors.

Building earthquake and cyclone resistant structures is not something an architect or town planner can do. The other day, an architect was seen commenting on the safety of the structures along the Yamuna in New Delhi on television. I would like to ask him as to how he has the expertise to hold forth on earthquake resistant buildings, when it is an extremely specialised form of civil engineering? Surely architects should not to confuse people with their inadequate knowledge in the field.

Earthquake resistant designs require a very specific branch of engineering: earthquake engineering. Most people do not even know of the existence of such a branch of engineering! The safety to structures and buildings can only ensured by bringing civil or structural engineers into the picture. Structures are not simply objects of beauty, they have to be safe. Beauty, in fact, can only figure in the scheme of things after safety is assured.

Interestingly, India has considerable expertise in earthquake engineering, next only to USA and Japan. The earthquake engineering department of the University of Roorkee is a pioneer in the field. There are in India, currently, about 500 earthquake engineers who have specialised in structural dynamics. However, the utilisation of this expertise has been poor, mainly because people are not sufficiently aware of these aspects and how they impact on their lives.

What is disturbing is a trend, noticed over the last two decades, of building designs being done increasingly by architects, who have very little knowledge about the larger field. Even those who conceive the various rules and regulations at the governmental and other levels, depend more on architects, than on engineers, to get their plans approved. In the process, what should have been the responsibility of engineers becomes that of architects and aspects like safety, stability, constructional technology, material designs, and cost optimisation are neglected.

The higher the building, the more critical it is to ensure that the structural safety aspects have been adequately addressed. Today, architects get these projects and they, in turn, sub-contract them out to civil-structural engineers. But this is a bit like putting the cart in front of the horse. At the time of signing these projects, very few architects even acknowledge that the structural design is the work of engineers. In other words, structural engineers have been reduced to performing the role of draughtsmen.

The public needs to understand all this clearly. If they wish to ensure that the structures they invest in are based on sound principles of engineering they must approach the right person. The Republic Day earthquake has resulted in numerous buildings of all kinds, ranging from small structures to tower blocks, collapsing like a pack of cards in Gujarat. Several of those that survived the quake exhibited huge cracks.

Certainly, in the aftermath of this tragedy, fingers need to be pointed at builders for their attempts to cut corners at the expense of safety. But they are not solely to blame. Those who designed these death traps must also be on the firing line.

The writer is a Bhubaneshwar-based associate professor in structural engineering