www.www.buonovino.com

[rni]

Congrats SEFI on the e.conf.! In this note I restrict my comments to two
general issues.
1)Membership to Code Committees is institutional and not individual to the
person. Progress and Advancement in knowledge which happens in the
academic organizations do not get reflected in these committees since not
all Univs/ IIt's and IIsc are willing to support the travel of their
members to Delhi by air or otherwise. Hence only institutions near to
Delhi participate in the meetings leading to a bias. The collective wisdom
of the intelligentsia of the country does not form an input into the
codes. BIS never bears the travel of the members nor compensates for their
time, leading to a priority crisis for many professionals. Govt.
organizations and Labs send their members on "who-is-available-on-the-day"
basis, who lack depth in the subject.
2)The concept of Hazard in the earthquake code is, according to me, quite
hazardous! See the way the zones have been changed, I mean not just the
数字recen但复杂的地图t revision. Any one who
looks at the map can make out there is no correlation between the
seismo-tectonic regimes of India and the engineering zones shown. The
kink near Khillari is specific to this epicenter. So next time an
earthquake occurs you can expect another alteration. Any engineer can
reasonably design a structure once the forces are specified. But what is
the confidence we can place in the IS code as far as seismic forces are
concerned? The code itself is silent on this issue. Compare how the
problem is handled by other codes such as IBC-2000.

Shall rejoin after listening to others.

rn iyengar

Posted via Email

[roark.sol1]

�Prof. R.N.Iyengar wrote :