Warning: Make sure you scan the downloaded attachment with updated antivirus tools before opening them. They may contain viruses. Use online scanners here and here to upload downloaded attachment to check for safety.
Posted: Tue Jul 22, 2003 7:04 pm Post subject: From the moderators at the end of the second day...
We have had some excellent though rather sparse discussions an d one can only surmise that you are still recovering from the past e-conference or are mulling hard before you give your considered opinions on the topic. Let us hope it is the latter and that you will plunge into the discussion from today. A quick review of issues discussed: a) The obsolescence of some codes: Some of the codes have not been upgraded for quite a while and are almost obsolete and do not respond to the current state of Practice in the Industry. It was also remarked that the codes are often over conservative but this point was open to debate. IT was pointed out for example that in some areas the code is unconsrvative too.
b) Absence of important codes which respond to the developments of the industry IT was pointed out that there is no explicit code for PEBs in steel and manufacturers tend to use their own asssociation codes which are rather lenient. Hence one has to be extra careful in such cases and a new IS code for this class of stuctrues needs to be developed. Similarly there was no code for special tunnel formed or aluminium wall and slab shuttered typeof sturctures which have a very high proportion of shear walls per unit area.
c) Functioning of BIS committees It was pointed out by senior members of SEFI who have been code committee members for decades that the BIS does not reimburse travel to meetings and thus it is not always viable for the interested academicians to attend the committee meetings. COnsidering the amount of profit the BIS generates form the sturctural enigneering codes, the attitude is puzzling. THe committee could reimburse academics and let the private sector representatives pay for themselves. as someone asked How are the committees formed? How do the Codes get passed the way they are written (when quite a few are unhappy about it!) and who decides when to revise a code?
d) Explanatory Codes to be more "explanatory" Some participants expressed the need for the explanatory code to go into greater detail regrading the rationale of a close to make it more palatable
e) Delay of IS 1893- and present Zoning Maps do not inspire confidence IT was pointed out the delay in the IS 1893-2002 was partly due to the zoning map which still leaves a lot to be desired. Every time there is an earthquake the zoning map gets a local kink in that region. A more comprhensive and less knee-jerk approach to zoning is required.
f)SEFI to prepare alternative codes/augment BIS capacity by debating the dreaft codes... A idea wasmooted that agencies such as SEFI should prepare alternative codes. IN the US and may other countries, conrete and steel institutions formulate codes which are then aaccepted as industry norms. THE ACI is a case in point. Alternately SEFI could be a useful prganisation for debating the draft codes prepared by BIS.
Well. there's lots more to discuss- on specific IS codes or general policy of codes, on the BIS and all the absent codes and explanatory handbooks.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum You can attach files in this forum You can download files in this forum