It depends what material we are discussing & the purpose of such material. For example: concrete is a material where strength is the prime criteria rather than look. Parquette flooring is a material where look is more important than strength as parquette available in different looks with almost same stregth. The aluminum claddding/curtain wall: The look is to go with strength because look define the elevation of a building that puts him on the map however, strength give it durability edge...it depends on structural requirements to use different kin dof panels & type of glass & thicknesses.
By
Zubair Irshad, Business Associate, Captain International General Trading
| 06 14 2010 05:51:41 +0000
As the material is being used for the super structure obviously it strength overcomes Looks,so from my point of view strength nneds to be given the priority,Now the question arises what if we have choice of materials which can be used instead of these,and also they have more aesthetical value keeping the strength same....then obviously looks will matter.For example : In marathwada we have min.2 types of deccan trap..one is red and one is black...bearing strength is almost the same,so being an Architect I would certainly go for the red one.So if choice is available then Looks do matter.
By
Saleel Deshpande, Sr.Architectural Co-ordinator, Dar Al-Handasah(Shair and Partners)
| 01 12 2010 14:10:26 +0000
Quality of the material is most important. Before starting the work assessment of good material should be done and procured. Necessary testing of material or onsatsfaction of credentials materials should be used. Apart from this grading of material at work spot is also important. most impotant is also workmanship. For plasting some prepares a mix and comes back after 3 hours and starts work then what happens? material will not give necessary results like wise.
By
malladi madhukumar, AGM -MKTG, Andhra Cements Ltd
| 12 13 2009 10:54:31 +0000
srength of material is prime factor for using the matrial provided it is used for such work that it is going to bear some load like fondation sub and super structure etc.If it is being used for external or internal wall ,floor etc look is also important like today building.But of course for its structure ,srength is important without any doubt. k k jain Dyce Railway
By
kamlesh kumar jain, Construction-Construction Management, Indian Railways
| 11 13 2009 07:50:09 +0000
Strength of material is the first criteria. Argument in favour is that a material good in strength will mostly result into aesthically good look , but reverse may not be true always.
By
Sanjay , MBA+Engineer
| 11 11 2009 20:34:03 +0000
Strength of material is the first criteria. Argument in favour is that a material good in strength will mostly result in good looking also , but reverse is not always true.
By
Sanjay , MBA+Engineer
| 11 11 2009 20:32:03 +0000
Strength of material is the first criteria. Most of us think that there is an auto check for strength but no neglection on part of testing will result definitely into good looks also.
By
Sanjay , MBA+Engineer
| 11 11 2009 20:30:01 +0000
. India is a very big country and at some places the looks of materials are very good but I found the quality of material was not upto the mark. So it is always important to get it tested for all the required characteristics. But here I also want to explain that now a days we are using design mix concrete at almost all the places so if we are getting the required strength of final product with a good looking material don’t think it is due to the good looking materials you will loose a lot of cement for sure.
By
nitin , Head/VP/GM-Business Alliances, KlA Const. Technologies (P) Ltd
| 09 23 2009 12:20:37 +0000
Strength should be given first priority. Without strength, look is of no use. If a material cannot withstand the jerk of earthquake or heavy load, what is the use of its beauty then ?
By
Anjali Bhatia, Construction-Heavy, Sobha Developers
| 08 04 2009 12:04:12 +0000
It is bit obvious that look doesnt matter,its the strength that matters.Sand cannot be used in construction by considering its look,strength has to be tested.The most imp. test is bulkage test which can effect a lot.If you are an expert ,you cannot have faith on your supplier by looking or toucing the sand.Its the strength which gives you results.
By
Rashmi koul, Assistant Project Controller, MWH
| 06 30 2009 08:23:12 +0000
I support for testing the material properties before using in concrete for big or small building. Even for plastering also I don't recommend using this by seeing. But for items like mortar for flooring etc. we may not require the tests for strength.
By
Preetha , Architect Manager, Southern Techno Ventures
| 06 30 2009 04:10:37 +0000
Testing The Sand for Grading ( Seive Analysis), Silt Content is Imapartant. To be Done at the Initial Stage itself. If any Chemical impurites may possibly present, it should be tested for that also. By mear look at them some time it will be misleading. Whenever the texture changes, then again it should be tested. The Material that goes into the Concrete /Mortar, if satisfying to the requirements only we can get satisfying end/ durability/performance results.
By
Srinivas S.Mantrala, PMP, Executive Engineer, A.P.S.Police Housing Corporation
| 06 29 2009 14:11:44 +0000
Yes I think the strength of the material should be checked at the time of building big buildings, it is not that it shouldn't be done for other buildings but Big buildings take lots of time and checking the strength of it gives a whole lot of importance. as the problem of the behaviour of materials under the influence of loading has generally been treated as a more or less static. So totally agree with Mr. Dikshit for checking the materials for strength.....
By
Pragya Kothari, Construction-Heavy, DLF
| 06 29 2009 11:13:57 +0000
Definately strength of the material is of utmost importance in construction project, and I also agree that it is not possible to check each and everything that is being used in the consturction, still following measures will help to check to strength of material: 1. local survey of soil. 2. Trusted brand 3. Geological and climatic conditions 4. Earthquake resistance zone.
By
Dinesh Raghav, Pre-Press Executive, Eli Research
| 06 29 2009 11:06:53 +0000
|
Mr. Dikshit, With great respect to your experience, I politely & humbly differ to your reaction that 'everybody is more experienced than me'. When you sought a debate you must be accomodative to every one's comment. If experience is to tell some thing, it is better to post an article on this matter to give insight to everybody which will be benificial. Naturally following an article there will be questionaries & while answering all questionaries your experince will help us to learn more. However coming back to debate, as this is a building material both aspect, the look & the strength are equally important. Whatever strong a tile, cannot be used if doesn't have a good look. similarly however good looking a tile cannot be used if it doesn't have strength. Thus both the aspects need to be balanced on awider term particularly those materials which also contributes aisthetic part. On the other hand if the material is to an ingradient of a finished material such as aggregates in concrete, strength of material is the only criteria. This my is my view. I welcome any suggestion/comments which can improve my knowledge.
By
Biranchi Narayan Acharya, Chief Manager (Projects), Simplex Infrastructures Ltd
| 11 14 2009 10:14:20 +0000
If we have to vote only out of these two options, then of course the look should prevail. The strengh of concrete or plaster is not at all governed by the strength of sand. Sand is required to fill the pores of wet concrete. Hence the material aspect of sand is immaterial. However the sand should not contain undesirable foreign elements like silt, deleterious and/or organic impurities etc which adversely affects the concrete or plaster. These impurities can be checked largely by visual inspection. Hence the look of sand should be governing factor for use in concrete or plaster
By
Bhavesh Kumar, contract management, Govt Sector
| 08 03 2009 15:30:14 +0000
well. i think look and strength, both are important in one way or the other. Mr. Pughalendhi is right....until and unless we don't like the looks of the material, we are not going to test it's strength.....but yes, strength has to be checked.......
By
Mandeep K. Bajwa, Architect, RMC (India) Infrastructure Ltd.
| 07 10 2009 12:40:39 +0000
Well nothing much to say the look of the material instigates further action be it testing or rejection.
By
Hridibrata Roy, Manager
| 07 01 2009 12:48:34 +0000
In addition to Vivek's comment... If the look itself is not good, why should one waste time and resources in testing the sand ? In most cases, by having a look at the sand, a professional engineer can understand whether it will pass the tests or not.. So testing for strength can be defined as secondary criteria..
By
Shaju George, Facilities/Construction Manager, IBS Software Services (P) Ltd
| 06 30 2009 03:15:10 +0000
What a simple question. I know nobody will naturally, obviously vote on this side and it may be "ashubh" to leave it blank...so why not me.
By
Vivek Singh, Project Manager, L&T
| 06 30 2009 03:00:14 +0000
|
