Differences between Indian and Chinese codes and practises There are considerable codal differences between Indian

and Chinese codes which were pointed out by our LCC () for OWNER project. As suggested by them somewhere Chinese codes are on the conservative side and some where Indian codes on conservative side. Hence, the contractor can design as per Chinese code but they should strictly adhere to the strigent of Indian/International codal requirements. For OWNER, EPC has taken considerable time in understanding these Indian codal requirements and finally they incorporated these aspects in the revised drawings. S.no Descriptions IS Code / Practise Chinese Code / Practise Remarks

Wind Load

In IS Code we don't have the concept of Basic Wind pressure, rather we have only Basic Wind speed. In India only Overhead transmission line towers are designed based on the Reference wind speed averaged over 10 minutes, whereas all other structures are designed for 3 seconds GB code considers wind load which is IS code considers wind load based on Basic wind gust velocity. based on metrological Reference wind speed (Vb) which is based on peak gust velocity speed (VR) over an averaging periods of 10 As per IS : 802 (Part - I), Clause 8.2, 3 seconds averaged over a short time interval of about 3 wind can be converted to 10 minutes wind by minutes duration. Here, Basic/Reference seconds. Here, by multiplying various factors into wind pressure is found out from Reference dividing it by a factor whose value is 1.375. the Basic wind speed, we derive the Design wind ie., VR = Vb/1.375 wind speed and Design wind pressure is speed and from design wind speed, we derive the derived by multiplying various factors into In other words, Indian Basic wind speed = Design wind pressure. 1.375 times Chinese Reference Wind speed the Basic wind pressure. &, Indian Design Wind Pressure = (1.375)2 x Chinese Design Wind pressure This is having considerable impact on design of highest transfer tower near Bunker, Boiler supporting Steel structure, Chimney, NDCT and Trestles supporting conveyor gallery of CHP.

code

Seismic Load

Suppose the site falls in Zone - II as identified in map of IS - 1893 : 2002. Then, Z = 0.1 (As per Table 2) I = 1.75 (As per Table 6) Sa/g = 2.5 (Refer Clause No. 6.4.5) R = 4 (As per Table 7) Ah = Z/2 x I/R X Sa/g (Refer Clause No. 6.4.2) = 0.1/2 x 1.75/4 x 2.5 = 0.054 Seismic Load = Ah x W = 0.054 x 100KN(say) = 5.4KN

Corresponding to Zone - II, Seismic Fortification intensity is 7 degree, the peak ground acceleration with 10% probability of being exceeded in 50 years is 0.10g. = 0.08 (Horizontal seismic influence coefficient) G1 = 100KN (say) (Representative value of Gravitational load) Hence, by comparing the two values, we find Geq = G1 = 100KN (Equivalent total gravity that Chinese code is conservative as compared load) to IS code for seismic design of structures. Fek = x Geq = 8KN (Characteristic value of the total seismic action of the structure) n = 0 (Standard value of Overall horizontal seismic action of the structure) H = 3m (Calculation height) F1 = Fek (1- n)G1H/G1H = 8 KN (Characteristic value of horizontal seismic action)

code

Allowable shear stress in concrete

The allowable shear stress in concrete is less which demands higher cross sectional area or more reinforcement steel as compared to GB code. Some clauses in IS code allows shear enhancement under certain conditions only. Indian code/practise insist to provide minimum reinforcement for grade slab to aviod cracks due to temperature/shrinkage stress. Cl. 5.4.5 of IS 2974 Part:1 insist on providing minimum reinforcement for all block foundations.

The allowable shear stress in concrete is much higher compared to IS code which results to lesser cross sectional area/ lesser reinforcement steel. Shear enhancement clause is not envisaged. Reinforcements for grade slab will be provided only if the slab experiences machinery/equipment loadings. Only major block foundations are provided with minimum/design reinforcements.

This major codal difference results in provision of extra shear links especially in Chimney Raft and heavily loaded Raft of Main Power House because of provision of lesser Raft depth.

code

Grade slab

code

Block foundations

code

Loads on structures

The loads proposed by EPC for 600MW was Live loads and dust loads to which the various The design loads mentioned in GB code are accepted and the design is done based on the structures are to be designed are mentioned in the different and those loads are mentioned in loads mentioned in DBR, though dust loads are bid spec. based on IS 875 part -2. DBR violating the bid specification. not considered for design by EPC in MPH area.

code

Load combinations

The load combinations for design of various structures are as per IS875 part-5

The factors considered for load combinations are different compared to IS codal factors. This have been conveyed to EPC during DBR stage and detail engineering stage, where EPC ensured the deflections are within limits wrt IS codes but no document submitted as proof. This problem was encountered in finalisation of boiler foundation for OWNER and finally reinforcement reqd asper IS code was provided.

code

Lateral deflection of CHP structures like TP and conv galleries

As per IS 11592, the lateral deflection of conveyor As per GB code the lateral deflection for trestles and conv entry point in the tranfer tower multi-storeyed frame structure is H/400. shall be restricted to H/1000.

code

11

Modulus of sub grade reaction

A constant value of modulus of subgrade reaction Different values at different bore hole is normally considered for design of raft foundation location are considered for design of raft as per IS codes. foundation as per chinese practise. As per indian code minimum reinforcement shall be provided for steps in staircase As per indian codal provisions all the foundations/water retaining structures shalll be checked for overturning and sliding As per IS Code & Wind tunnel test requirement, strakes are provided on RC Chimney Shell to take care on aerodynamic interference. No such provision in chinese practise

code

15

Reinforcement for stair Check for sliding and overturning

code

16

No such provision in chinese practise

code

19

Strakes in RC Chimney

No such provision as per GB Code or Chinese practice. In OWNER the design is done for Fy=365 steel and it's executed with Fe500 steel, which may not be advantageous always especially in case of highly overreinforced section.

code

21

Minimum grade of reinforcement steel

Indian code allows to use grade of reinforcement steel up to Fe500 (Fy = 435 Mpa).

Chinese code allows to use grade of reinforcement steel up to Fy =365 only.

code

24

Difference in SBC values used for design

In OWNER, the detailed geotechnical investigation was carried out and furnished by CE Testing on behalf of EPC. CE Testing furnished the geotechnical recommendations mentioning the basic parameters for foundation design of various structures as a base document for EPC. EPC was advised to carry out the design of foundations based on this document. However, EPC chose to use the test results only and interpret the same in accordance with their Chinese standards which resulted in different SBC values as compared to those mentioned in the base document and the same was not acceptable to OWNER. This was the case for almost each and every structure for the project. Our Project specification clearly states that RCC road to be designed as per IRC 58. As per this code for determining the slab thickness, underlying layers such as LC ,WBM, WMM, & sub-base strength is not included. As per IRC 58, minimum reinforcement to be provided near the top surface of the slab in order to prevent cracks due to shrinkage and temperature effect.

code

25

Concrete Road Design

Chinese code includes the strength contribution of underlying layers, thereby arrive reduced slab thickness for RCC Road.

Since plant roads to be in service for a life period of minimum 30 years, OE insisted the design as per IS code. EPC finally adopted the design as per IS code.

code

26

Concrete Road Design

Since without minimum reinforcement in the slab, cracks will develop and reduce the life There is no such provision in chinese code. span of the road, OE insisted EPC to provide the same. EPC finally adopted the design as per IS Code EPC increased the member sizes based on our comments

code

27

Switch Yard Gantry Steel Structure Design

Switch Yard structures to be designed as per the Loads & Load combination are different in loads & load combination mentioned as per project chinese code. specs which is based on IS 802 As per the design requirement based on IS 456, negative reinforcement is required for withstanding the uplift force acting on the foundation

code

28

Switch Yard Gantry Foundation Design

There is no such provision in chinese code.

EPC provided the negative reinforcement as per the design requirement.

code