Based on the article “ Engineering Evolution: Integrating Advanced Technologies and substainable Practics

in the Digital Science Park: in the KIIFB newsletter (Vol 7 Issue 5 May 2024) , numerous factual errors
have been identified, which could undermine the credibility of the SPV and the associated consultant
responsible for design of this iconic structure. The following discrepancies have been observed and
highlighted:

1. Floor Heights (Second paragraph, pg. 30, KIIFB Newsletter)

The newsletter states that each floor stands at a height of 8 meters. In reality, only the basement
and ground floor have a height of 8.1 meters as per client requirements, while the remaining three
floors have a height of 4.5 meters.

2. Expansion Gaps (Third paragraph, pg. 30, KIIFB Newsletter)

The article mentions modeling the structure as a single unit to eliminate expansion gaps. However,
the architectural drawing shows a plan of 72m x 72m . According to IS 456 Cl. 27.2, structures
exceeding 45 meters in length require one or more expansion joints, and IS 3414 mandates
expansion joints for masonry and R.C.C. structures at 30 meters length. The inclusion of thermal
stress on the terrace floor shows no difference in the model without thermal stresses.

3. Foundation Design Optimization (First paragraph, pg. 33, KIIFB Newsletter)

The SPV recommends a pile depth of 39 meters resting on rock strata. Conversely, the KIIFB TRC
suggests terminating the pile at 20 meters in silty clay strata. Nearby, the IIITMK building is still
experiencing settlement and cracking issues due to the foundation not resting on rock strata.

4. Geotechnical Recommendations (First paragraph, pg. 33, KIIFB Newsletter)

The newsletter states that a pile foundation at 18 meters depth is sufficient and economical,
contributing to 25% of the total project cost (25 crores). However, the same report indicates that
the project cost is approximately 250 crores, with the foundation cost being 25% of this amount,
i.e., approximately 75 crores. But in detailed estimate shows the foundation cost is actually around
19 crores for 30 m depth.

Additionally, the KIIFB geotechnical consultant and initial soil investigation report advise that pile
depth reduction can only be finalized after conducting at least two initial pile load tests at different
 depths(20 m and 39 m respectively) due to the presence of silt and clay, which could cause
differential settlement in the long run for 20 m pile.

5. Pile Foundation Cost Comparison (Fig., pg. 33, KIIFB Newsletter)

The cost comparison highlights the reduction in steel and cement due to a decrease in pile depth
from 39 meters to 20 meters. However, it fails to mention the increased number of piles required
due to reduced allowable pile capacity. The additional cost from the increased number of piles
needs to be considered, which is only possible after obtaining the initial pile test results. Thus, the
comparison is invalid and inaccurate without these results.

6. Energy-efficient Facades (Second paragraph, pg. 33, KIIFB Newsletter)

The article mentions that HITES have not adopted energy-efficient facades in the design, which is incorrect.
Energy-efficient facades are specifically designed to reduce energy consumption by optimizing thermal
performance, natural lighting, and ventilation. Our design incorporates several features that enhance
energy efficiency:

 A double-glazed facade, which improves thermal efficiency and reduces air conditioning load.
 Curved fins with vertical aluminum louvers, providing additional shading to the interior.
The KIIFB proposes incorporating kinetic facades in the design instead of double-glazed façades and
curved fins with vertical aluminum louvers. While kinetic facades offer numerous advantages, they also
come with some disadvantages and challenges. Here are the key disadvantages:

 The design, engineering, and installation of kinetic facades are more complex and costly compared
to traditional static facades.
 Kinetic facades require regular maintenance to ensure all moving parts function correctly. This
includes cleaning, lubrication, and inspection of mechanical and electronic components.
 While kinetic facades can reduce energy consumption for heating, cooling, and lighting, the
operation of motors and control systems themselves consumes energy. This can offset some of the
energy savings.
 The control systems need to be sophisticated enough to handle real-time data from sensors and
adjust the facade accordingly. Any errors in the programming or sensor malfunctions can lead to
suboptimal performance.
 Significant structural modifications may be required to accommodate the weight and movement of
the kinetic components, which can be disruptive and costly.
 Kinetic facades are exposed to weather conditions and environmental factors that can impact their
durability. For example, high winds, dust, and pollution can cause wear and tear on moving parts.
Ensuring that the facade components remain operational in extreme weather conditions requires
robust design and high-quality materials, adding to the overall cost and complexity.

Enclosures:

 Structural comments on the revised ETABS model submitted by the KIIFB TRC team.
 Comparison statement with foundations resting on rock and silty clay strata.
 Report from the geotechnical consultant of KIIFB.