Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 32

For BIS Use Only CED 2/A2.

26 - Minutes

BUREAU OF INDIAN STANDARDS

MINUTES

Cement and Concrete Sectional Committee, CED 2 : Twenty Sixth Meeting

in joint session with

Cement, Pozzolana and Cement Additives : Twenty fifth Meeting


Subcommittee, CED 2:1

Concrete Subcommittee, CED 2:2, and : Twenty fourth Meeting

Panel for work relating to ISO/TC 71 &TC 74, CED 2/P1 : Twelfth Meeting

Wednesday, 21 June 2017 : 1000 h to 1730 h

Auditorium, Bureau of Indian Standards, Manak Bhavan, 9 Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg, New Delhi
110 002

*********
PRESENT

Chairman: Shri Jose Kurian Member Secretary: Smt Divya S

Members

Shri K. H. Babu (In Personal Capacity) (Convener, CED 2:1 & CED 2:1/P1)
Shri R. C. Wason (In Personal Capacity) (Convener, CED 2/P1 & CED 2:2/P7
Shri V. V. Arora (National Council for Cement Building Materials, Ballabgarh)
(Convener, CED 2:2/P6)
Shri S. A. Khadilkar (ACC Limited, Mumbai)
Shri Avijit Chaubey (ACC Limited, Mumbai)
Shri J. P. Desai (Ambuja Cement Limited, Mumbai)
Dr Bibekananda Mohapatra (Ambuja Cement Limited, Mumbai)
Shri Sourav Acharya (Atomic Energy Regulatory Board, Mumbai)
Dr S. K. Handoo (Cement Manufactures Association, Noida)
Shri S. K. Saxena (Cement Manufactures Association, Noida)
Ms Smita Dayal (Rep. Cement Manufactures Association, Noida)
Shri M. P. Dubey (Rep. Cement Manufactures Association, Noida)
Shri Shailesh Sonar (Rep. Construction Chemical Manufacturers Association, Mumbai)
Shri Subhash Gurram (CSIR-Central Building Research Institute, Roorkee)
Ms Surya M. (Rep. CSIR-Central Building Research Institute, Roorkee)
Shri Hasan Abdullah (Central Soil and Material Research Station, New Delhi)
Shri N. Siva Kumar (Central Soil and Material Research Station, New Delhi)
Shri Subrato Chowdhury (Conmat Technologies, Kolkata)
1
For BIS Use Only CED 2/A2.26 - Minutes
Shri Aman Deep (Creative Design Consultant & Engineers Pvt. Ltd., Ghaziabad)
Shri Ashok Bose [Rep. Dalmia Cement (Bharat) Limited, New Delhi]
Shri Varun Gupta [Rep. Dalmia Cement (Bharat) Limited, New Delhi]
Dr Sujit Ghosh [Rep. Dalmia Cement (Bharat) Limited, New Delhi]
Shri Shashi Bhushan [Rep. Dalmia Cement (Bharat) Limited, New Delhi]
Shri Sambhu Charan Maity (Engineers India Limited, Gurugram
Shri S. C. Upadhyay (Gammon India Limited, Mumbai)
Dr Anant M. Pande (Indian Concrete Institute, Nagpur)
Shri K. C. Tayade (Indian Concrete Institute, Nagpur)
Shri D. S. Joshi (Indian Society of Structural Engineers, Mumbai)
Dr Manu Santhanam (Indian Institute of Technology Madras, Chennai)
Shri R. K. Jain (In Personal Capacity, Sonipat)
Dr S. C. Maiti (In Personal Capacity, New Delhi)
Ms Lopamudra Sengupta (JSW Cement Ltd, Mumbai)
Shri Jaishankar Balan (Rep. JSW Cement Ltd, Mumbai)
Shri Rishi Shroff (Rep. JSW Cement Ltd, Mumbai)
Shri N. M. Rao (Nuclear Power Corporation of India Ltd, Mumbai)
Shri S. K. Chaturvedi (Rep. National Council for Cement Building Materials,
Ballabgarh)
Shri N. Pandian (Rep. Public Works Department, Govt. of Tamil Nadu, Chennai)
Shri P. Vadivel (Rep. Public Works Department, Govt. of Tamil Nadu, Chennai)
Shri Anil Kumar Pillai (The Ramco Cements Limited, Chennai)
Dr D. Venkateswaran (The India Cements Ltd, Chennai )
Shri M. Bhoopathy (Tamil Nadu Minerals Limited, Chennai)
Shri S. H. Jain [The Institution of Engineers (India), Mumbai]
Shri P. P. Tavase [Rep. The Institution of Engineers (India), Mumbai]
Prof Mahesh Tondon (Tondon Consultants Pvt. Limited, New Delhi)
Dr V. Ramachandra (Ultra Tech Cement Ltd, Mumbai)
Shri A. K. Tiwari (Ultra Tech Cement Ltd, Mumbai)
Dr A. K. Singh (Ultra Tech Cement Ltd, Mumbai)
Shri M. A. U. Khan (Voluntary Organization in Interest of Consumer Education,
New Delhi)

Invitees:

Shri Sahil Aggarwal (Tata Steel Ltd., Jamshedpur)


Shri G. Bharat (Tata Steel Ltd., Jamshedpur)

BIS Directorate General:

Shri Sanjay Pant, Head (Civil Engineering)

**********

Item 0 OPENING REMARKS

0.1 Shri Sanjay Pant, Head (Civil Engg), BIS, welcomed the Chairman, CED 2 the newly appointed
Convener of CED 2:1, Shri K.H. Babu, the Convener of the Panel for work relating to ISO/TC 71 & 74,

2
For BIS Use Only CED 2/A2.26 - Minutes
Shri R. C. Wason and all the members. He gave a brief account of the achievements since the last
meeting and the various issues on the anvil. He mentioned that a lot of significant work had been
done and standards had been prepared for areas where even developed nations have not yet
encroached. He then requested the Chairman, Shri Wason and Shri Babu to give their remarks.

0.3 Shri R. C. Wason greeted the Chairman and all the members and welcomed them all. He
enumerated the work done under his Panels/WG so far. He pointed out that the revised version of IS
10262 have been readied for finalization for adoption and publication, while ten drafts of the revision
series of IS 516 and IS 1199 were already under print. He optimistically pointed out that the remaining
drafts under the series would also be ready within a year. Shri K. H. Babu also welcomed all present
and briefed about the work accomplished and going on in the area of cement and cement additives.

0.2 Shri Jose Kurian extended a warm welcome to all the members to the twenty sixth meeting of the
Cement and Concrete Sectional Committee, CED 2, being held in joint session with the Cement,
Pozzolana and Cement Additives Subcommittee, CED 2:1, Concrete Subcommittee, CED 2:2 and the
Panel for work relating to ISO/TC 71 &TC 74, CED 2/P1. He bought to the notice of the Committee
that the Agenda was a lengthy one with substantial parts of it entailing detailed technical discussions.
He requested the members to give their best technical inputs to decide on various issues, and also to
finalize the proposal for Indias participation in the forthcoming meeting of ISO/TC 71 at Sapporo,
Japan.

Item 1 CONFIRMATION OF THE MINUTES OF THE PREVIOUS MEETING

1.1 & 1.2 The Confirmed the minutes of the Twenty fifth meeting of Cement and Concrete Sectional
Committee, CED 2 in joint session with Twenty fourth meeting of Cement, Pozzolana and Cement
Additives Subcommittee, CED 2:1 and twenty third meeting of Concrete Subcommittee, CED 2:2 held
on 06 March 2017 in New Delhi as circulated vide BISDG email/letter No. CED 2/A-2.25 dated 30
March 2017. The Committee noted that the comment received from Ferrocement Society was
concerning their internal issue and the same has no effect on the accuracy of the recorded minutes of
the meeting, which have been correctly recorded.

Item 2 COMPOSITION

2.1 The Committee noted the present composition of the Sectional Committee as given at Annex 1 to
the Agenda, and made the following decisions/ observations :

a) The Committee noted the cooption request received from Inter-Plant Standardization in Steel
(IPSS), SAIL. The Committee noted that IPSS was engaged in preparing standards mainly
related to steel and their expertise may not be relevant to the work under CED 2.The
Committee hence decided not to coopt them. However, it was decided to keep them posted
on the various drafts issued in wide circulation from time to time.

b) The Committee noted that, as already pointed out before, Dr S. Harsh was represented in
various Panels/subcommittees as the nominee of NCB, however, he is due for retirement
shortly. In view of his expertise, it had already been decided to retain him in personal capacity
in CED 2:1 and CED 2:1/P1 after his retirement. NCB was requested to submit their new
3
For BIS Use Only CED 2/A2.26 - Minutes
nominations after his retirement, for CED 2 & its subcommittees/Panels wherever he was a
representative.

c) The Committee noted that Dr S. A. Reddi was no longer keeping good health and had not
attended the meetings for a number of years. Considering his vast contribution to the
Committee earlier, it was decided to write a letter of acknowledgement to him and to withdraw
his name from the Committee and all the Panels/subcommittees where he is a member.

d) It was decided to drop INSWAREB, Vishakapatnam owing to their lack of participation. The
Committee noted that they were a member in CED 2:1 as well, which will enable them to
receive notifications for their participation and continued inputs on various documents.

e) The Committee noted that the current nominees of MES had been posted out, and decided to
seek fresh nominations in CED 2 and various subcommittees and Panels thereunder.

f) The Committee noted that OCL India Ltd was being taken over by Dalmia Cement and decided
to withdraw the representation of OCL from the Committee. It was noted that Dalmia Cement
was already a member in CED 2:1.

g) The Committee decided to remind the organizations who have not participated in the last three
meetings, seeking their continued interest and urging them for their regular participation.

2.2 The Committee noted the present composition of the subcommittees under CED 2 given at
Annex 2 and Annex 3 of the Agenda and reviewed and reconstituted the same with the following
decisions:

a) Cement, Pozzolana and Cement Additives Subcommittee, CED 2:1

1) The Committee noted the cooption request received AshTech (India) Pvt Ltd. The
Committee noted that AshTech has formerly submitted a draft standard on ultrafine fly
ash as well. The Committee decided to invite them for the next meeting and to consider
their membership later.
2) The Committee decided to write to the Cement Manufacturers Association, West
Bengal, to send t heir nominations expeditiously, and to ensure their presence next
time.
3) It was decided to write to the Dept. of Industrial Policy and Promotion, Ministry of
Commerce and Industry to review their nomination in view of the changes in the setup,
as informed by the members.
4) The Committee noted that OCL India Ltd was being taken over by Dalmia Cements
and decided to withdraw the representation of OCL from the Committee. It was noted
that Dalmia Cement was already a member in CED 2:1.
5) Dalmia Cement was requested to send their revised nominations as their principal
representative Dr K. C. Narang has since retired.

4
For BIS Use Only CED 2/A2.26 - Minutes
b) Concrete Subcommittee, CED 2:2

1) The Committee was informed that Shri Avijit Chaubey will represent ACC Ltd as the
principal member. They were requested to send their nomination of their alternate
representative.
2) The Committee decided to withdraw the membership of Civil Aid Technoclinic Ltd, as
both the nominees were no longer associated with the organization, and neither new
nominations have been received nor the organization have been participating in the
meetings.
3) Gammon India Ltd reported that Shri Manish Mokai was no longer associated with
them. They were requested to send revised nominations to BIS.
4) It was noted that Dr Ashok Jain has since retired from IIT Roorkee and the Committee
decided to write to them for fresh nominations.
5) It was noted that Dr C. B. Kameswara Rao was no longer in NIT Warangal and the
Committee decided to write to them for fresh nominations.
6) The Committee requested IITM to send nomination of their alternate member.

2.3 The Committee noted the present composition of the Panels as given at Annex 4 to Annex 11 of
the Agenda and reviewed and reconstituted the same with the following decisions:

Under CED 2

a) Panel for Work relating ISO/TC 71 and ISO/TC 74, CED 2/P1

1) The Committee decided to write to AIMIL for their regular participation and for
nomination of an alternate representative.
2) The Committee noted that the current nominees of MES had been posted out, and
decided to seek fresh nominations.
3) The Committee decided to withdraw the membership of Civil Aid Technoclinic Ltd,
as they have not been active and both the nominees were no longer associated
with the organization.
4) The Committee decided to co-opt IITM representatives in the Panel.

b) Panel for Revision of Handbooks, CED 2/P2

No change in composition was decided.

However, it was noted that no work is being undertaken under this Panel. The Committee
felt that the work on handbooks can be taken up under the concerned Sub-
committees/Panels themselves and that a separate Panel for the same might not be
necessary. Hence it was decided that this Panel may be considered for winding up in the
next meeting of the Committee.

Under CED 2:1


c) Panel for Revision of Cement Standards CED 2:1/P1

5
For BIS Use Only CED 2/A2.26 - Minutes
No change in composition was decided. The Committee however, also noted that the
current nominees of MES had been posted out, and decided to seek fresh nominations.

Under CED 2:2


d) Panel for Review/Revision of IS 3370, CED 2:2/P1

No change in composition was decided. However, it was noted that Shri Satander Kumar,
CRRI and Dr Ashok R Jain, IITR have long retired from their respective organizations and
these organizations were requested to send revised nominations. Also IITD was also
reminded to expedite their nominations.

e) Panel for IS 456 and IS 1343, CED 2:2/P5

The Committee decided to write to IIT Roorkie for nominations. The Committee noted the
cooption request from Shri A. K. Jain and approved the same.

f) Panel for Revision of IS 457, CED 2:2/P6

No change in composition was decided.

g) Panel for Revision of Indian Standards on Test Methods for Concrete, CED 2:2/P7

No change in composition was decided, however it was noted that fresh nominations were
still awaited from ACC Limited. Shri Avijit Chaubey, ACC Ltd, informed that Shri Prahalad
Majumdar and himself would be the principal and alternate representation from the
organization. He agreed to arrange to send a formal communication from the organization
in this regard along with complete contact details. Also, CRRI was requested to send their
nominations expeditiously.

h) Panel for Aggregates from Natural and other Sources, CED 2:2/P8

1) It was decided to coopt Sesa Sterlite - Sterlite Copper, Tuticorin and Indian Metals and
Ferro Alloys Ltd, Bhubaneshwar also in the Panel.
2) Tata Steel Ltd was requested to expedite sending their nominations.

i) Panel for Ferrocement Construction, CED 2:2/P9

No change in composition was decided. However, NCB, CBRI, MERI and SERC were
requested to sending their nominations expeditiously.

The Committee decided to formulate a separate Panel, CED 2:2/P10 for revising IS 2386 series of
standards on methods of tests for aggregates. The Committee decided the composition of the Panel
as follows:

Panel for Revision of IS 2386, CED 2:2/P10

Shri R. C. Wason, In personal capacity, New Delhi (Convener)


National Council for Cement and Building Materials, Ballabgarh
6
For BIS Use Only CED 2/A2.26 - Minutes
National Testing House, Kolkatta
Bureau Veritas India Ltd, Mumbai
JSW Cement Ltd, Mumbai
Public Works Department, Govt of Tamil Nadu, Chennai
Central Soil and Materials Reseach Station, New Delhi
CSIR Central Road Research Institute, New Delhi
Ready Mix Concrete Manufacturers Association, Mumbai
AIMIL Ltd, New Delhi
Indian Institute of Technology Madras, Chennai
Shriram Institute of Industrial Research, New Delhi
Indian Institute of Technology Delhi, New Delhi

Item 3 DRAFT STANDARDS/AMENDMENT FOR FINALIZATION

UNDER CED 2:2

3.1 Draft Indian Standard Guidelines for Concrete Mix Proportioning, (Second Revision of IS
10262) Doc: CED 2(11290) WC

3.1.1 The Committee considered the draft along with comments received as given at Annex 13 to the
Agenda and as also the recommendations of the WG for Revision of IS 10262, CED 2:2/WG3, also
given at Annex 13 of the Agenda. The Committee also noted the additional comments from RMCMA
which were received after the WG meeting, and noted that most of those comments were repetitions
of the comments already received. The Committee also requested the members to stick to the time
norms for providing their comments.

The Convener of the WG, Shri R. C. Wason mentioned that in this revision, the standard has been
divided into 4 sections, covering general concreting, mass concreting, self-compacting concreting and
high performance concreting. He explained the major changes in the revised draft:

a) He explained that a new factor X in the calculation of the target mean strength was introduced
in order to ensure that the targeted mean strength has sufficient margin over the acceptance
criteria of strength as mentioned in IS 456:2000. He mentioned that a large number of
comments had been received regarding this. He clarified that the X factor will only come into
play when a standard deviation is chosen from experience or existing site values, and is less
than the assumed standard deviation value.

b) The air content factor was reintroduced in the standard as in the absence of the same, problem
may occur in calculating the amount of concrete. So realistic values have been included. He
explained that the values for air content were to be chosen based on actual trial values. Various
comments had been received, requesting that these values be higher, but he informed that
the WG had decided not to change the value since the option for choosing the values based
on site data was already provided in the draft.

c) New curves for deducing the initial w/c ratio have been incorporated. Initially the graphs were
based on the grades of OPC, but a few comments were received highlighting that these graphs
7
For BIS Use Only CED 2/A2.26 - Minutes
may appear to be biased towards OPC . He further explained that, the WG had decided to
modify the graph to base the curves on the expected 28 day strength of the cement used. He
also explained that the curves were introduced basically to cut down the design time and to
enable the designers to choose an initial w/c ratio easily.

d) He pointed out that another recurring comment had been about introducing ultrafines in the
draft standard. He said that as the ultrafines were yet to be incorporated in IS 456, and
therefore they could not be incorporated in the standard. And also sufficient data on their long
term effects are not available.

e) He thanked Shri A. K. Jain for the worked example of concrete mix design using ggbs and
informed that the same will be incorporated in the standard after necessary changes if any.

Shri Jose Kurian thanked Shri Wason for the comprehensive explanation provided by him and opened
the forum for discussions , which entailed the following deliberations:

1) Shri Avijit Chaubey, ACC, once again sought the reason for introducing the X factor. The
Committee noted that it had already been explained in detail.

2) ISSE raised the suggestion that the standard deviation values provided may be raised in order
to further ensure the quality of concrete. The Committee pointed out that the given standard
deviation is sufficient and that, the quality of concrete at site depends on a lot of factors and
cannot be ensured by the standard deviation value alone.

3) Shri R. K. Jain suggested that the restriction of 450 kg/m3 being the maximum cement content
in cement may be relaxed. Shri V. V. Arora also pointed out that this was relevant in case of
high strength concrete. The Committee decided to refer the comment to CED 2:2/P5 for
consideration while revising IS 456.

The Committee authorized the WG and the Convener of the WG for the revision of IS 10262, CED
2:2/WG 3, to take appropriate decision for the latest comments from RMCMA. They were also
authorized to take care of any other changes/improvements as may be required.

With the above decisions, the Committee endorsed the decisions of the WG and finalized the draft for
ADOPTION and PUBLICATION.

Item 4 ISSUES FROM THE PREVIOUS MEETING & OTHER ISSUES/ DEVELOPMENTS

UNDER CED 2:1

8
For BIS Use Only CED 2/A2.26 - Minutes
4.1 The Committee discussed the progress with respect to various discussions in the last meeting as
given below along with the recommendation of the Panel for Revision of Cement Standards, CED
2:1/P1 made in its last (sixth) meeting held on 29 Dec 2016 and 11 Jan 2017, and made the following
observations:

Sl ISSUE / IS Discussion in the previous Current Status Committee Discussion/


No. meetings of CED 2. Decision
1. Issue of inclusion of Subsequent to the last The Committee noted that
Performance NCB reported that the R&D work meeting of CED 2, the the complete report
Improvers (PI) in PPC was being carried out. They 69th Research Advisory regarding the inclusion of PI
& PSC assured the Committee that they Committee Meeting of in PPC and PSC, was
would be able to provide the final NCB was held. In the received from NCB on 20
report by December 2016. meeting, the status of June 2017. Shri S. K.
the R&D work on Chaturvedi, NCB, explained
Shri J. P. Desai, Ambuja technical suitability of the r&d work done and the
Cements, suggested inclusion of performance improvers outcomes thereof. He
5% performance improvers within in PPC & OPC was mentioned that in general,
the permitted 35% fly ash in PPC. discussed. It was particularly in early stage,
NCB was requested to examine reported that the project there is reduction in strength.
this aspect. was completed, and that The Committee noted that
However, it was felt that, as a the formal report will be the results were not
detailed study is already under sent to BIS soon. encouraging and no
way at NCB, it would be However, during the immediate decision can be
appropriate to await the R&D meeting, it was reported taken in favour of inclusion of
findings and to review the whole that the studies, in performance improvers in
matter in totality. general, did not indicate PPC and PSC.
any improvement in the
performance of PPC and Shri J. P. Desai, Ambuja
PSC with use of Cement, proposed that at
granulated slag/fly ash least 5% of the slag may be
and limestone as allowed within the 35%
performance improvers. pozzolana permitted in PPC.
On the contrary, some of Shri V. V. Arora, NCB
the properties like early clarified that, even within
strength and tendency to 35% these materials were
undergo carbonation not providing any
were negatively improvement on the
affected. performance, and hence
cannot be used as
Performance Improvers.

Further, Shri Desai claimed


that he was getting fair
results in his research and
that NCB may continue the
research with more samples.
Ambuja Cement and
Ultratech agreed to share the
data with NCB. Shri S. A.
Khadilkar, ACC raised that
inadequate grinding of slag in
laboratory ball mill may be
the possible reason for
reduced strength. NCB
clarified that study was also
conducted on cement
produced by grinding the
slag separately and then
blending. The Committee

9
For BIS Use Only CED 2/A2.26 - Minutes
Sl ISSUE / IS Discussion in the previous Current Status Committee Discussion/
No. meetings of CED 2. Decision
decided that, at present, the
matter may be concluded
with the report submitted by
NCB. If Ambuja so desires,
they may sponsor further
research work at NCB, and
the matter may be taken up
again after the completion of
such research work.
However, the Panel CED
2:1/P1 was requested to
study the complete report
along with all the above
deliberations/inputs.
2. Use of Automatic The Committee requested NCB to Update awaited. The Committee noting no
Blaine Type Apparatus coordinate the work. IITD and Shri progress being made inspite
in IS 4031 (Part 2). S. A. Khadilkar, ACC also offered of periodical review in
to help. meetings, requested Shri
Khadilkar to prepare a draft
expeditiously and to take
help from NCB, if required.
Dr D. Venkateshwaran,
agreed to share his inputs
with Shri Khadilkar.
3. Use of Mortar Mixer NCB informed the Committee that Subsequent to the last NCB commented that the
and Fixed Value of they had taken up R&D work on meeting of CED 2, the research work was going on,
Water-Cement Ratio in the Performance evaluation of 69th Research Advisory as already recorded in the
IS 4031 (Part 4) and cement samples by mechanical Committee Meeting of Agenda. The Committee
IS 4031 (Part 6) mixing and keeping fixed w/c for NCB was held. In the requested them to ensure
compressive strength meeting, the status of that the work is carried out
determination vis a vis per Indian the ongoing R&D work with the objective of aligning
standard test procedures. They was discussed. The with the ISO procedure. NCB
informed the NCB informed that present progress made further explained that the
the project had commenced on was reported as follows: research with w/c ratio of 0.4
April 2016, and is expected to be Collection of had yielded good results, but
complete by March 2018. samples of OPC, with 0.5 w/c ratio , the work is
PPC and PSC and still going on, but the results
physical testing of were not promising. They
samples using assured that the final report
mechanical mixer will be ready by March 2018,
as per Indian which the Committee
standard methods decided to wait for. Shri S. A.
Compressive Khadilkar, ACC, said that, as
strength evaluation per the work done by them,
of OPC, PPC and different fixed water cement
PSC samples using ratios are suited for different
mechanical mixer at types of cement like OPC,
fixed w/c 0.4 and PPC and PSC. He agreed to
0.5 share his paper/data.
Physical testing of
cement samples
both as per ISO
procedure and
Indian Standard
procedures.
4. Revision of IS NCB had suggested that a The proposal from NCB The Committee requested
4032:1985 Method of smaller project for the revision of regarding the same is the Panel, CED 2:1/P1 to
Chemical Analysis of IS 1727 and of IS 4032 with the

10
For BIS Use Only CED 2/A2.26 - Minutes
Sl ISSUE / IS Discussion in the previous Current Status Committee Discussion/
No. meetings of CED 2. Decision
Hydraulic Cement alignment of the revised IS 4032 attached at Annex 14 (P- study the proposal and to
(First Revision) with international standards, may 102) of the Agenda. recommend further action.
be taken up initially and that
further projects may be taken up
subsequently. The Committee
agreed to his suggestion and
requested NCB to submit a
research proposal outlining the
same.
5. Amendment to IS In addition to the decisions listed The proposal from NCB The Committee requested
1727: 1967 Methods of in (4) above, the Panel had regarding the same is the Panel, CED 2:1/P1 to
Test for Pozzolanic requested Dr Harsh to review the attached at Annex 15 (P- study the proposal and to
Materials standard and to suggest if any 103 ) of the Agenda. recommend further action.
immediate modification is
required. As per the Panel
decision, Dr Harsh informed that
he had studied IS 1727 and that
there was no requirement of any
immediate modifications. In
addition, IITM had informed that
IITM and IITD were involved in a
round robin test programme (as
part of a RILEM committee to
study the test methods for
assessing pozzolanic activity. Dr
Shashank Bishnoi, IITD, informed
that this included various test
methods including the current
lime reactivity test method. They
offered to share their test results
with NCB as soon as the same
were available.
6. Use of Term NCB along with Shri S. A. Update awaited. NCB reported that they had
Pulverized Fuel Ash in Khadilkar agreed to make a note contacted NTPC regarding
IS 6491:1972 Methods regarding revision of IS the sample collection, but
of Sampling Fly Ash 6491:1972. NTPC was also they were yet to respond.
requested to provide assistance The Committee requested
in full-fledged revision of the Shri Khadilkar, along with
standard. In this context, it was NCB, to study the standard,
decided to involve Fly Ash and to suggest the required
Utilization Division of NTPC modifications to the same.
7. Quality of lignite fly ash Shri J. P. Desai, Ambuja Cement On 3 April 2017, Shri Shri Desai confirmed that the
as per IS 3812 (Part voiced that lignite ash has not Desai informed that he sample had been dispatched
1&2), been found suitable as its had initiated the action in April, but NCB denied
fineness is too high and it of send 50 kg of lignite having received the same.
interferes with the grinding of and 50 kg of Clinker to They were requested to
cement. He suggested to review NCB. check the courier details for
regarding the provision of use of which Shri Desai was
such fly ash. Shri V. V. Arora, requested to forward to NCB
NCB requested him to send a the copy of the letter vide
sample of such lignite ash as well which the material was sent.
as their clinker to NCB so that Shri Desai agreed to send
they can study the same. new samples urgently

It was decided to study the matter


further based on the output of
such a study.

11
For BIS Use Only CED 2/A2.26 - Minutes
Sl ISSUE / IS Discussion in the previous Current Status Committee Discussion/
No. meetings of CED 2. Decision
8. IS 650:1991 The Committee had requested Update awaited. The Committee noted that
Specification for TAMIN, along with Shri K. H. the details provided in the
Standard Sand for Babu, Dr Harsh,NCB and Dr D. Agenda and requested
Testing Cement Venkateshwaran, to take up TAMIN to provide further
studies for the following: updates. TAMIN agreed with
1) To review the existing sources the suggestion of the
of supplies to ensure supplies of Committee, as recorded in
Standard Sand of the requisite the Agenda, they further
quality for next many years. informed that currently they
2) To identify new contiguously were waiting for the
located sources to augment such clearance from Ministry of
supplies in sufficient quantities of Environment, for initiating a
the prescribed quality Standard few new sites. The
Sand, for future use in the Committee reminded them,
country. that as per IS 650, Sand from
3) To take up studies for only Ennore
production and supplies of or Mudaliyarkappam may be
standard sand as per ISO used as Standard Sand. If
Reference Sand covering more sources are to be
comparative evaluation of incorporated, it will have to
cements from various sources be done by an amendment,
with the Indian and ISO sands or revision of IS 650. The
and propose draft revision of IS Committee suggested that
650 in line with the ISO standard. TAMIN may call an early
meeting of the WG for
Later on, TAMIN was requested commencing the actions for
to arrange a meeting of the WG the technical clearance.
first in New Delhi, where specific
issues about the source, quarries, a) Shri K H Babu, Convener
their sizes, grade wise availability, b) Dr S Harsh,
etc as also the quality controls c) Representative, NCB
adopted. The subsequent d) Dr D Venkateswaran
meeting could then be held at e) TAMIN coordinator
TAMIN. BIS agreed to facilitate
the meeting at New Delhi, for Various cement
which TAMIN would send detailed manufacturers raised the
information/inputs to be included issue that the quality of
as Agenda items. standard sand received from
TAMIN was not up to the
mark and required further
screening before they could
be utilized. TAMIN
responded that they were
using wire sieves and that
their quality results were
deviating only with the
allowed margin of 1%. They
also reported that their
equipment had also been
updated recently. Shri K. H.
Babu suggested that they
may purchase high
quality/accurate sieves such
as Endecotts sieves and get
their sieves periodically
calibrated. They were also
instructed to replace their
worn out sieves timely.

12
For BIS Use Only CED 2/A2.26 - Minutes
Sl ISSUE / IS Discussion in the previous Current Status Committee Discussion/
No. meetings of CED 2. Decision
The Committee strongly
desired that TAMIN should
ensure the quality of their
Standard Sand
9. IS 10080:1992 The in the 3rd meeting of the Update awaited. The Committee noted that
Specification for Panel (2012) CED 2:1/P1, the there has been no progress
Vibration Machine for Panel had considered the on this proposal for the last 5
Casting Standard comments received from Marks years. The committee
Cement Mortar Cubes Department Delhi-I tabled at the decided to remind AIMIL
meeting, suggesting to lay down once again and to drop the
separate Indian Standard proposal in case of no
specification for cube mould of response.
size 70.6 mm to make it distinct
from IS 10080 which is a
specification for vibration
machine. The Panel then decided
that a comprehensive revision of
both IS 10080 and IS
10086 may be considered
including dealing therein the
aspect of separate cube mould
specifications, and at the instance
of the Panel, AIMIL agreed to
propose the revisions for further
consideration. This issue has
been pending with AIMIL since
2012.
10. Specification for NCB had started the work on Subsequent to the last NCB confirmed the details of
Portland Limestone Investigations on Portland meeting of CED 2, the the research as recorded in
Cement (PLC) Limestone Cement Compositions 69th Research Advisory the Agenda and that the
and their Performance Committee Meeting of report of the R&D work would
Characteristics in April 2016 and NCB was held. In the be available by March 2018.
the work was expected to finish by meeting, the status of They also informed that Ultra
March 2018. Ultratech had also the ongoing R&D work Tech was yet to provide them
offered to share the research data was discussed. The with any research data. Dr V.
available with them, with NCB present progress made Ramachandra agreed to
was reported as follows: provide the data urgently.
Preparation of PLC
samples by blending
of 10. 20 and 30% of
ground cement
grade limestone
with OPC.
Evaluation of the
above blends for
chemical and
physical properties
and particle size
distribution.
Preparation of
control OPC and
PLC blends (9 Nos)
by inter-grinding of
10, 20 and 30 % of
each of three types
of limestone with
clinker and gypsum.

13
For BIS Use Only CED 2/A2.26 - Minutes
Sl ISSUE / IS Discussion in the previous Current Status Committee Discussion/
No. meetings of CED 2. Decision
Evaluation of
physical and
chemical
characteristics of
above PLC is under
progress.
Hydration studies of
PLC Blends taken
up.
11. Limestone Calcinated In the last meeting, Dr Shashank Dr Shashank Bishnoi NCB confirmed that they had
Clay Portland Cement, Bishnoi, IITD had informed that informed that the received samples from IITD
LC3 intensive research was being samples have already and that the research project
conducted at IITD for the last 4 been submitted to NCB has already started and was
years. He informed that the and that research work expected to finish by August
project at NCB had already been is going on. 2018.
funded and that the materials are
due to reach NCB within a week.
He mentioned that as per their
findings, chloride binding and
durability were found to be better
except in respect of carbonation,
which he said, was still better in
comparison with composite
cement. The Committee,
accepting the recommendations
of the Panel, decided to await the
NCB report of study for its future
consideration. The Committee
also desired that the position
regarding any patent for the
product/ technology be also
bought to its notice.
12. Specification for Dry In the previous meeting of CED 2, No draft has been The Committee noted that no
Mix Mortar a WG had been constituted for the received from Shri Jain. concrete outcome has come
preparation of the draft: however, he has despite thework having been
informed as follows: assigned to Shri A. K. Jain
Shri A. K. Jain (Convener) A meeting was held on since 2013(20th meet of CED
Shri Khadilker, ACC Ltd, 13th May in Mumbai 2). Ultra Tech informed that
Shri Anil Pillai, Ramco Cement with Mr. Praveen they were also
Dr Nagendra, Civil Aid Deshmukh and other manufacturing dry mix mortar
Technoclinic Pvt. Ltd. staff of Wall Plast. Wall and the committee requested
plast is major Dry Mix Ultra Tech also to join the
During the last CED 2 meeting, Mortar producer in WG. Also, Dr V.
Shri A. K. Jain had informed the Western India. Ramachandra, UltraTech
Panel that work was going on and Mr S A Khadelkar could was coopted as a member on
that a first draft may be submitted not join the meeting. the WG in place of Civil Aid
within 3 months. The specifications and Technologies.
test methods were
discussed taking into
consideration of EN
1015-11 of 1999 and
ASTM 4541 on the
subject.
The following
characteristics have
been taken into account
and are being included
in the standard

14
For BIS Use Only CED 2/A2.26 - Minutes
Sl ISSUE / IS Discussion in the previous Current Status Committee Discussion/
No. meetings of CED 2. Decision

Cement
Content
Bulk Density
Flow
Water Demand
(Normal
Consistency)
Setting time -
Initial and Final
Water
Retentivity
Comprehensiv
e Strength
(3,7&28 d)
Flexural
Strength (28 d)
Water
Absorption
Dry Adhesion
Chloride and
Sulfate
Contents

To arrive at proper
values, some laboratory
testes were considered
necessary. The same is
being conducted and
results are likely to be
available by June'end.
A meeting is proposed
to be held in first week
of July'2017 in Mumbai.
The progress will be
further reported after
the meeting in July.

13. Use of Marble Slurry in The Panel had studied the NCB Update awaited. NCB informed that an initial
Cement Manufacture report on using marble slurry as a write up is ready and can be
performance improver in shared within 2 weeks.
concrete. The Panel requested However, NCB also informed
the Convener to decide on an that they were waiting for
appropriate amendment, as per more samples to continue
the discussions, to integrate the research. It was
marble slurry as a performance however, also noted that
improver with similar economical utilization of
requirements, for which NCB was marble slurry would have its
also requested to give their own challenges.
inputs. In the last meeting of CED
2, the matter was further
discussed.
Shri V. V. Arora, NCB desired to
know, if ASR studies have been
carried out on the material. While
Dr Bishnoi, IITD, felt that being a

15
For BIS Use Only CED 2/A2.26 - Minutes
Sl ISSUE / IS Discussion in the previous Current Status Committee Discussion/
No. meetings of CED 2. Decision
very fine material, no such issue
would be there. Shri R. C. Wason
clarified that whilst de-
dolomatization does not cause
ASR problem but entrapped clay
content after de-dolomatization
does, and so caution may be
exercised.

Dr Bishnoi opined that similar to


marble slurry, kotastone slurry
gives same results and can be
utilized. He mentioned that the
slurry has to be, however, dried.
He agreed to give inputs based on
the work done by them in this
area.
The members also mentioned
that marble slurry is already being
used as a raw material during
burning stage in the cement
industry.
Dr Subrato Chowdhary also
suggested that the MgO content
in the marble slurry need not be
limited. As it will not affect
soundness, dolomitic limestone
being not soluble.
Dr Harsh, NCB was finally
requested to give their considered
inputs after considering all the
above, within 2 months time.
14. Guidelines for use of The following working group had Subsequent to the last The Committee noted that
various types of been constituted for preparing a meeting of CED 2, Shri beyond an initial draft
cements guideline for the various types of A. K. Jain informed as submitted in 2015, no actual
cement. follows: progress has happened.
Shri Jain was reminded to
Shri A K Jain (Convener) The draft guidelines expedite by organizing
Shri Rajesh Khare, CPWD were circulated by BIS meetings of the WG.
Lt Col Gaurav Kaushik, MES for comments about 3
Shri Vijaykumar R Kulkarni, years back. The
RMCMA comments from few
cement companies were
received, considered
and incorporated in the
draft.
However, in view of
revision of various
cement codes and
cementitious materials
during 2015 and 2016, it
was felt that guidelines
may again be updated
taking revisions and
other developments into
consideration. The
following persons were
given the responsibility
to revise:
16
For BIS Use Only CED 2/A2.26 - Minutes
Sl ISSUE / IS Discussion in the previous Current Status Committee Discussion/
No. meetings of CED 2. Decision
Shri A K Jain (Convener)
Shri Rajesh Khare
(CPWD)
Lt.Col. Gaurav Kaushik
(MES)
Shri V R Kulkarni
(RMCMA)
Though discussions
were held with Mr V R
Kulkarni couple of times
on the subject but the
meeting could not be
held.
It is now proposed to
hold a meeting in mid
July'2017 and to finalize
the guidelines by
Aug'2017.

15. Fly Ash based In the previous meeting of the Subsequent to the last NCB informed that an initial
geopolymeric cements Committee, a proposal for high meeting of CED 2, the report was ready and a note
performance green sustainable 69th Research Advisory would be provide within 2
cement technologies using fly ash Committee Meeting of weeks. They informed that
only and Ground Granulated NCB was held. In the they have since taken up
Blast Furnace Slag (GGBFS) meeting, the status of further work as well. Shri V.
only had been discussed, and a the ongoing R&D work V. Arora, NCB, opined that
task force under Dr S. Harsh, was discussed. The terminology, based on usage
NCB had been designated for the present progress made would be more appropriate
same. In the last meeting of the was reported as follows: for geopolymer concrete,
Panel, the Panel CED 2:1/P1 had Compressive which has entirely different
discussed the proposal further. strength study up method of curing. He said
Dr S. Harsh, NCB reported that to 75 days from the this had potential for
the work was underway and day of casting at inclusion in various precast
additionally mentioned that the different periods concrete product standards.
test methods for non hydraulic and mineralogy Smt Lopamudra Sengupta,
cement will be completely and microstructure JSW informed that they were
different and will be required to be development sponsoring an R&D
covered under a separate investigations programme at NCB on
standard. He explained that these using XRD and geopolymer concrete.
may be fly ash or granulated blast SEM on products
furnace based alkali activated synthesized by
cement. He explained the alkali activation of
research work already going on at coarse
NCB. (unprocessed) fly
ash by initial temp
In the last meeting of CED 2, Dr curing at 60C and
Harsh pointed out that ASTM 90C for varying
1157 is 'Standard Performance retension time in 1
Specification for Hydraulic cube moulds and
Cement', and non-hydraulic subsequent curing
cements cannot be dealt in the at 27C; 50%RH
same lines. Conducted dry
shrinkage studies
The members opined that the in these
performance based specifications specimens
for different non-hydraulic
Investigations on
cements is difficult to generalize,
effect of fly ash
as it varies as per the
fineness on the

17
For BIS Use Only CED 2/A2.26 - Minutes
Sl ISSUE / IS Discussion in the previous Current Status Committee Discussion/
No. meetings of CED 2. Decision
composition, method of curing, properties of alkali
etc. activated products
developed by initial
Dr S. Harsh agreed to prepare a curing of alkali
preliminary note for the treated fly ash
Committee within 3 months. paste at 60C for
varying retention
periods in 1 cube
moulds.
Compressive
strength and
drying shrinkage
studies on alkali
activation of
ground fly ash
mixed with filler
(standard sand
grade II and grade
III) by applying
thermal curing at
90C in 2 cube
moulds and
studied
microstructural
development in
products using
SEM.
Investigations on
development of
cementitious
binders by alkali
activation of
blends of fly ash
with BF slag.
These studies
conducted on two
different samples
of fly ash and
GBFS. Mineralogy
and
microstructural
studies carried out
on alkali activated
products using
XRD and SEM to
elucidate the
mechanism of
strength
development.
Compressive
strength studies on
alkali activated
products of fly ash
mixed with bottom
ash upto 90 days.
Also studied
dimensional
stability.

18
For BIS Use Only CED 2/A2.26 - Minutes
Sl ISSUE / IS Discussion in the previous Current Status Committee Discussion/
No. meetings of CED 2. Decision
Prepared tiles of
size 150 x 75 x 25
mm meeting test
limits of IS
2690(2), brick
shaped bodies of
size 190 x 90 x 40
mm, by alkali
activation of
processed fly ash
with typical bottom
ash.

16. Proposal for A proposal for gasification slag Update awaited. NCB informed that they had
Gasification Slag utilization in cement application received no
Utilization in Cement was received from Shri sample/information from
Application Vaadendra Koti, Reliance Reliance Industries Ltd. it
Industries Limited, Navi Mumbai, was decided to drop the
and was discussed in the last matter for the time being as
meeting. The Committee studied there has been no response
the NCB report regarding the from Reliance Industries Ltd.
utilization of the Gasifier Coke as
performance improver in cement,
which had been emailed along
with the Agenda of the meeting. It
was noted that the Gasifier Slag is
a reactive material with a high
glass content and may be
considered for use as a
performance improver. However,
the Panel noted that the NCB
studies had been conducted on a
limited supply of imported
sample. The Panel then
suggested that a study of
indigenous gasifier slag may be
conducted so as to evaluate its
potential application in cement
manufacture as proposed.
Reliance Industries Limited was
requested to contact NCB
regarding the same.

UNDER CED 2:2

4.2 Revision of Indian Standards on Concrete Testing

4.2.1 The Committee noted the progress on the revision series of IS 516/IS 1199. It was noted that
10 drafts are already under publishing. The committee congratulated the Panel on the excellent work
done. The committee requested the members to speed up the remaining work so that the remaining
parts of the standard could also be published early. In addition to the details provided in the Agenda,
it was noted that drafts on IS 516(Part 1), IS 516(Part 5/Sec 2) were received from NCB on 20 June
2017. The committee requested the Panel to consider the same and authorized the Panel to decide
regarding further modification/circulation thereof.
19
For BIS Use Only CED 2/A2.26 - Minutes

4.3 Revision of IS 9103:1999 Specification for Admixtures for Concrete (First Revision)

4.3.1 The Committee requested NCB to provide an initial draft so that the WG could start working on
it. It was decide to co-opt CCMA also into the WG.

4.4 Proposal for Use of Microwave Oven for Drying of Aggregates and Other Materials

4.4.1 The Committee noted that, in addition to the details provided in the Agenda, a draft had been
received from NCB on 20 June 2017. The Committee requested the Panel CED 2:2/P7 to study the
draft and to proceed further.

4.5 Indian Standard based on ISO 10406-1:2008 Fibre-reinforced polymer (FRP) reinforcement
of concrete Test methods Part 1: FRP bars and grids

Indian Standard based on ISO 10406-2:2008 Fibre-reinforced polymer (FRP) reinforcement of


concrete Test methods Part 2: FRP sheets

4.5.1 The Committee noted that the ISO standards ISO 10406 Part 1 and 2, had references to other
ISO as well as Japanese standards. The committee decided that instead of adopting the standards,
it might be better to draft them to make them technically equivalent to the ISO standards. It was
decided that BIS would prepare an initial draft which could then be further worked upon by NCB.

4.6 IS 2386 Methods of test for aggregates for concrete

The Committee noted that the majority of work was entrusted to NCB and requested them to expedite.
NCB agreed to provide some inputs within a period of 2 months, for further consideration of the newly
constituted Panel, CED 2:2/P10.

Item 5 COMMENTS ON PRINTED STANDARDS/ NEW PROPOSALS FOR STANDARIZATION

UNDER CED 2:1

5.1 IS 16415:2016 Specification for Composite Cement

5.1.1 Considering the comments given in the Agenda, Shri K. H. Babu suggested that composite
cement may be classified in 2 grades based on composition. However Shri J. P. Desai informed that
composite cement was being widely accepted in the market. The Committee decided that detailed
research be taken up at NCB on alternative compositions of composite cement with different clinker
contents and fly ash/slag combinations along with durability studies so that appropriate decision could
be taken, and also, studies on strength and carbonation may also be taken up for the reference of this
cement in IS 456. The Committee requested Ambuja to sponsor the same and also to enable NCB to
take up the work.

5.1.2 The following comment was received from the Raipur Branch Office of BIS

The Committee noted the comment and pointed out that flyash and slag, both have alkali, and that
adding them to the clinker, will not dilute the alkali content of the clinker. He was of the opinion that
the clause is anyway only optional. However, the Committee referred the comment to the Panel CED
2:1/P1 for further consideration.
20
For BIS Use Only CED 2/A2.26 - Minutes

5.2 IS 455:2015 Specification for Portland Slag Cement

The Committee noted the comment received from Dr S. C. Maiti, Dalmia Cement, and OCL and
additionally noted that an email of similar subject matter was received from Shri Murari Ratnam as
well, on 20 June 2017, which was displayed during the meeting.

The members observed that various research works show that in case of certain minimum proportion
of fly ash and slag addition, the free alkalis get utilized by them, thereby inhibiting alkali aggregate
reaction. Shri R. C. Wason shared his experience with the Committee from his days of working in
NCB. He informed that he had done a lot of research on this topic, and had researched with lots of
reactive aggregates, and had studied their ASR activity with OPC having 0.6% Na2O equivalent. He
expressed with findings as follows:

1) PPC, with minimum 20% flyash, and having an alkali content of 0.8 to 0.9 Na2O equivalent,
had shown a marked resistance to ASR, similar to OPC with 0.6% Na2O equivalent.
2) With PSC, the findings were as below:
a. when the slag content is very high, the ASR expansions can be suppressed appreciably,
even if the alkali content was very high;
b. when the Na2O equivalent was in the range of 0.8 to 0.9, the ASR content was
unpredictable, and depended on the slag content in PSC.
It was concluded that in case of PSC, a higher alkali content can be tolerated provided the slag content
was minimum 50 %.
Shri K. H. Babu also explained the phenomenon and drew reference to the Magazine of Concrete
Research, U K as well.

In conclusion, it was recommended that,


0.9% total alkali as Na2O equivalent may be allowed in PPC provided it has minimum 30% flyash and
0.9% total alkali as Na2O equivalent may be allowed in PSC, provided it has minimum 50% slag
content.

The committee approved the above and decided to issue a suitable amendments to IS 455:2015 and
IS 1489 (Part 1):2015 accordingly. Since the amendments were non-controversial in nature, it was
decided that the amendments may be directly processed for printing waiving wide circulation.

5.3 IS 269 : 2015 Ordinary Portland Cement Specification

The Committee noted that comment received from Shri L. K. Jain and referred the same to the Panel
for revision of Cement Specifications, CED 2:1/P1 for their consideration.

5.4 IS 1727:1967 Methods of test for pozzolanic materials

The Committee noted the comment from NCB, and referred the same to the Panel for revision of
Cement Specifications, CED 2:1/P1, for their consideration.

21
For BIS Use Only CED 2/A2.26 - Minutes
UNDER CED 2:2

5.5 IS 9103 1999 Specifications for Concrete Admixtures

5.5.1 The Committee noted that comment received from Shri Arunendu TA, Dy. Vice President- R&D
and Product Development- Concrete and Cement, CHRYSO India Pvt Ltd, and referred the same to
the WG for revision of IS 9103, for further consideration.

5.5.2 The Committee noted that comments received from Penetron India Pvt Ltd, and referred the
same to the WG for revision of IS 9103, for their consideration.

5.6 IS 2645:2003 Integral Waterproofing Compounds for Cement Mortar and Concrete -
Specification

5.6.1 The Committee noted that comments received from Penetron India Pvt Ltd, and referred the
same to the WG for revision of IS 9103, for their consideration.

5.7 IS 456:2000 Code of Practice for Plain and Reinforced Concrete

5.7.1 The Committee noted the series of communications that had taken place between Shri Pankaj
Jain and BIS.

It was noted that Shri Jain was circulating certain information about FRC claiming that it was a part of
Amendment No. 3 to IS 456. The Committee concurred with the clarification sent by BIS to Shri Jain,
and to the Ministry/Departments to whom Shri Jain had written to, clarifying the true nature of
Amendment No. 3 to IS 456.

The Committee noted the further communication received from Shri Pankaj Jain and made the
following observations:

a) The details given in the link referred to, by Shri Pankaj Jain namely,
npcc.gov.in/pdf/cvoimportantcircularsC.pdf is a document which seems to be a compilation of CVC
circulars/extracts thereof, related to construction industry.

The relevant part of the table of contents of the above document is reproduced below:

Sl. Particulars Office Orders/ Circulars referred in Page No.


No. the booklet
39. Important revisions to IS 456:2000 Amendment No. 3 August 2007 51
a). Self Compacting Concrete Annexure J of the Amendment 52
40. Fibre Reinforced Concrete Notes from Vigilance 52

As clearly bought out in their index, they have mentioned the important revisions to IS 456 under item
39, and they have also mentioned the Annex J 'Self Compacting Concrete' of the Amd No. 3 under
item 39 a). Item 40 on FRC is not related to the revisions of IS 456. Shri Jain has mixed up the serial
numbers 39 & 40, which is not correct.

22
For BIS Use Only CED 2/A2.26 - Minutes
In reply to his second and third points, the Committee noted that the provision for the addition of fibres
in concrete was introduced into IS 456 in order to ensure that the utilization of fibres in projects (where
it is suitable and where sufficient data on FRC is available) is not hindered. There should be a lot of
caution in the addition of fibres in concrete, as the type and quality of fibres, and its suitability for the
various applications will play an important role in the quality of the concrete. The Committee further
observed that synthetic fibres being propagated by Shri Jain have their own limitations and may not
be suitable in all application situations and for improving all properties of concrete as being claimed
by him. Regarding the application of various types of fibres, the Committee observed as follows:

Resistance to impact is generally increased when the strength of concrete is high and energy
absorption is high. Energy absorption and toughness can be increased by use of steel fibres in
concrete. Whereas addition of steel fibres, glass or carbon fibres improves flexural and shear
strength also, the use of synthetic fibres like polypropylene fibres do not significantly improve the
above properties. Polypropylene fibres do however reduce shrinkage cracking and are suitable for
concrete/ mortar used for concrete repairs.

However, further R&D work including durability tests may have to be conducted before providing any
detailed guidelines in an Indian Standard. The National Council for Cement and Building Materials
(NCB), Ballabgarh is engaged in R&D work in such areas and some work on fibres has already been
done by them. Shri Jain may approach NCB with data/studies carried out by him, if any, on the type
of fibres being proposed by him, so that the same could also be considered in the ongoing research.
NCB was requested to interact with Shri Jain so that a comprehensive work on synthetic fibres as
considered appropriate may be carried out.

The Committee decided to reply to him appropriately as per the discussion.

5.7.2 The Committee noted the comment from India Lead Zinc Development Association (ilzda), and
referred the same to the Panel for IS 456 and IS 1343, CED 2:2/P5 for further consideration.

5.7.3 The Committee recalled that the same issue had been discussed in the last meeting of CED 2
as well, BIS informed that the decision of the Committee taken in the last meeting, had been intimated
to Shri Chirag Baxi, and that the letter given in the Agenda was his reply to the same. The Committee
had requested Shri Baxi to contact NCB to get his product tested for viability/durability.

NCB informed that Shri Baxi had contacted them and that they had explained to Shri Baxi that his
product was a corrosion inhibitor, like many available in the market and that using a corrosion inhibitor
does not justify using sea water for concerting. NCB informed that they were awaiting further
communication from him.

5.7.4 The Committee noted the comment from Shri S. H. Jain, Struct Bombay Consultants, and
referred the same to the Panel for revision of IS 456, for further consideration.

Item 6 INTERNATIONAL ACTIVITIES

6.1 ISO/TC 71 Concrete, Reinforced Concrete and Prestressed Concrete

6.1.1 The Committee noted the details of India's Participating (P) membership on ISO/TC 71
and all its 7 Subcommittees including the details of Chairmanship and Secretariat held for
23
For BIS Use Only CED 2/A2.26 - Minutes
each of these committees. The Committee also noted the scope of work of ISO/TC 71, and
the various ISO standards published so far and those under publication, as given under the
item of the Agenda.

The Committee further noted that a series of documents for Indias vote were being received and
circulated by BIS Secretariat to the members for their inputs and comments. In this context, the
Committee noted that, as given under the item of the Agenda, voting on 8 documents was done since
the last meeting of the Committee, and more documents had been received which are under
consideration. The Committee formally endorsed the voting done so far.

6.1.2 The Committee noted the details of the ISO Working Groups/Experts for new proposals
nominated by India as given in the Agenda.

6.1.3 Participation of India in the Next Meeting of ISO/TC 71 & its Subcommittees in Sapporo, Japan

The Committee noted the details of the next meeting of ISO/TC 71 and its SCs scheduled to be held
during 25-28 September 2017 at Sapporo, Japan.

Subsequent to the meeting, the detailed Agenda was received as follows:

ISO/TC 71 Meeting Sessions


Time September 25th-Day 1 September 26th-Day 2 September 27th- September 28th-
slot Monday Tuesday Day 3 Day 4
Wednesday Thursday
ISO/TC 71 ISO/TC 71 ISO/TC 71 ISO/TC 71
Registration Registration Registration Registration
08:30-12:00 hrs 8:30-17:00 hrs 8:30-17:00 hrs 8:30-17:00 hrs
9:00 Conference Hall Schooling of Engrg - Schooling of Schooling of
- And Rm:A151 Engrg - Engrg - Rm:A151
12:00 ISO/TC 71 Rm:A151
hrs Registration ISO/TC71/SC1 ISO/TC71
13:30-17:00 hrs Rm: AL1 ISO/TC71/SC3 Plenary Meeting
School of Engrg (Test Methods for Rm: AL1 Rm: AL1 + AL2
Rm:A151 Concrete) (Concrete
Production and
WORKSHOP ISO/TC71/SC5 Execution for Morning Session
Rm:R2 Rm: AL2 Concrete 0900 - 1300 hrs
Conference Hall (Simplified Design Structures)
Standard for Concrete
1. Opening remark Structures) ISO/TC71/SC4
TBD Rm: AL2
2. Presenter TBD ISO/TC71/SC7 (Harmonization
3. Presenter TBD Rm: A101 of Performance
4. Presenter TBD (Maintenance and Requirements
Repair for Concrete for Concrete (Group
12:15-13:30 Structures) Structures) photograph)
AD-HOC CMT
MEETING ISO/TC71/SC6
Rm: AL 1 Rm: A101
(Non Traditional
Reinforcing
Materials for
Concrete
Structures)
Lunch Lunch Lunch Lunch

24
For BIS Use Only CED 2/A2.26 - Minutes
12:00
- 12:15-13:30
14:00 Ad hoc steering
hrs committee meeting
Rm: AL1
14:00-18:00 ISO/TC71/SC1 ISO/TC71/SC3 ISO/TC71 Plenary
14:00 ISO/TC71/SC8 Rm: AL1 Rm: AL1 Rm: AL1+AL2
- Rm: A101
17:00 ISO/TC71/SC5 ISO/TC71/SC4
hrs Rm: AL2 Rm: AL2

ISO/TC71/SC7 ISO/TC71/SC6
Rm: A101 Rm: A101
17:00 ISO/TC71/WG1
- Rm: A101
19:00 (Life cycle 18:00
hrs management of Shuttle bus for
concrete structures) Dinner
19:00 Welcome Reception Open Evening Dinner
hrs Hotel Mystays Aspen Garden Grill,
Sapporo Sapporo Bier
Garten

Considering the various formal communications received and discussions held telephonically
or/and during the last meeting with the respective members and considering their
contribution/involvement in the work under the Committee, and after detailed consideration, the
Committee decided the final delegation as follows:

1) Shri Jose Kurian, Chairman, Cement and Concrete


Sectional Committee, CED 2 (Leader of delegation)
2) Shri V.V. Arora, National Council for Cement and
(with funding from BIS
Building Materials, Ballabgarh
under Plan funds)
3) Shri R. C. Wason, Expert, in Personal Capacity,
New Delhi (Convener, ISO Panel CED2/P1
Shri Aman Deep, Creative Design Consultants & Engineers Pvt Ltd,
4) Ghaziabad
5) Dr Shashank Bishnoi, Indian Institute of Technology Delhi, New
Delhi

6) Dr Bhupinder Singh, Indian Institute of Technology Roorkee,


Roorkee
7) Prof Mahesh Tandon, Indian Association of Structural Engineers,
New Delhi
(with funding from their
8) Dr V. Ramachandra, UltraTech Cements Limited, Mumbai respective organizations)

9) Shri J. P. Desai, Ambuja Cements Ltd, Ahmedabad

10) Dr Manu Santhanam, Indian Institute of Technology Madras,


Chennai
11) Smt Lopamudra Sengupta, JSW Cements Ltd, Mumbai

25
For BIS Use Only CED 2/A2.26 - Minutes
12) Smt Divya S, Bureau of Indian Standards, New Delhi (Member
with funding from BIS/
Secretary, CED 2)
under Plan funds

The Committee, considering their vast experience and the extent of their contribution to the
standardization activity under the Committee including for ISO work, decided that the expenditure of
Shri Jose Kurian, Shri R. C. Wason, and Shri V.V. Arora would be borne by BIS from the Plan funds.

The Committee authorized the Panel for work relating to ISO/TC 71 & TC 74, CED 2/P1 to take care
of further changes as may be required in respect of the delegation and also take further preparatory
work for an effective participation and contribution by India.

6.2 ISO/TC 74 Cement and Lime

6.2.1 The Committee noted that India was represented as P (Participating) member on the ISO
Technical Committee, ISO/TC 74 Cement and Lime, which was involved in the activities for
standardization in the field of Cement, apart from Lime. The Committee also noted the scope and
details such as Chairmanship and Secretariat of the Committee which are with France and Belgium
respectively. The Committee further noted the details of standards published under TC 74 as given
under the item of the Agenda.

The Committee further noted that a few documents were received for Indias vote which were
circulated by BIS Secretariat to the members for their inputs and comments. In this context, the
Committee noted that, as given under the item of the Agenda, voting on 4 document was done since
the last meeting of the Committee. The Committee formally endorsed the voting done so far.

6. 3 The Committee noted that India was a signatory to WTO Agreement on Technical Barriers to
Trade (TBT) and had aligned its standards formulation procedures to the Code of good practices for
preparation, adoption and application of standards. The Committee further noted that one of the
provisions of the Code requires BIS to use international standards wherever they exist as a basis for
standards being developed and wherever practicable to do so. In this context, the standards published
by ISO/TC 71 and TC 74 so far and those under development, as given in Annex 20 of the Agenda,
were duly noted.

The Committee noted that the Panels, CED 2:1/P1 and CED 2:2/P7 were duly taking into cognizance
the relevant international standards published for their effective utilization in standardization work and
also considering harmonizing the Indian Standards with the International Standards wherever
practicable.

Item 7 PROGRESS OF WORK

7.1 The Committee noted the Programme of Work under the Committee as given at Annex 21 to the
Agenda.

7.2 Review of Indian Standards/Special Publications

7.2.1 The Committee examined the 4 Standards which were due for revision, as mentioned in the
Agenda item. The Committee suggested that the respective Panels/WGs may continue the work. The
Committee noted that in addition to the 4 standards mentioned in the Agenda, IS 4926:2003 was also
26
For BIS Use Only CED 2/A2.26 - Minutes
due for review. The Committee hence decided to REAFFIRM all the 5 Standards for a further period
of 5 years.

Item 8 ENVIRONMENTAL ASPECTS IN STANDARDS

8.1 The Committee noted the details regarding importance and need of ensuring due cognizance of
environmental aspects in standards formulation process.

Item 9 NATIONAL SYSTEM OF STANDARDIZATION

9.1 & 9.2 The Committee noted the details as given under the item of the Agenda.

Item 10 TBT Notification/WTO-TBT Enquiry Point

10.1 to 10.6 The Committee noted the details as given under the item of the Agenda

Item 11 CE MARKING

11.1 The Committee noted the details regarding CE Marking given in the Agenda.

Item 12 E-SALE OF INDIAN STANDARDS

12.1 The Committee noted the details as given under the item of the Agenda

Item 13 ANY OTHER BUSINESS

13.1 The Committee noted that a communication was received from CMA subsequent to the
circulation of the Agenda. The letter was displayed during the meeting and the issue were taken up
point by point.

1. STI of IS 269:2015 for OPC - Clause number 14 STOP MARKING -

Kindly refer the Clause number 14 STOP MARKING of the STI (DOC: STI/269/8,
October 2016) for certification of OPC under IS:269-2015. This newly released standard
covers 5 varieties of OPC i.e. OPC33, 43,53,43S & 53S. Neither in IS:269 code nor in
STI states partial stop marking of particular grade of cement if fails . The clause of STOP
MARKING cannot be applied to all 5 varieties of OPC at a time, even if only one of the
five varieties fails to conform the given specifications. Clarification is required.

The committee noted that the issue was pertaining to the Certification Marks Department of BIS and
decided to forward the communication to them.
2. IS 16353: 2015; Table-1 - Chemical Requirements (Magnesia Content 6% Max)

The maximum limit for Magnesia Content specified 6% in Indian Standard code IS
16353:2015 for Portland Cement Clinker, which is applicable to all types & grades of
cement like OPC, PPC, PSC & Composite Cement. Clinker ratio in Blended Cement like
PPC, PSC and composite Cement is reduced substantially in comparison to OPC.
Appropriately increasing the maximum limit of the Magnesia Content in Clinker to be

27
For BIS Use Only CED 2/A2.26 - Minutes
used for PPC, PSC & Composite Cement manufacturing will be helpful for judicious
usage of limestone having higher Magnesia at certain locations.

The committee referred the point to the Panel CED 2:1/P1 for further consideration.
3. Marking Fee on Transfer of Cement at Bulk Terminals

In the existing scenario Cement plants pay marking fee for the transfer of cement to Bulk
Terminals, Blending units, which are used for packing & dispatch of cement received
from the main plant. Marking fee should be taken in one plant for the same product. Plants
with Bulk Terminals, blending units are having separate BIS license, are paying ISI
Marking Fees twice on the same product. ISI mark is used to sale the product in the
market, either in Bulk or in bag pack. Bulk Terminals are just a packing unit, Mother plant
of blending units are paying marking fee for OPC as well as blending units are paying
the marking fee for blended cement. Therefore Blending units should pay after deducting
the OPC marking fees amount. As Blending and packaging terminals is extended part of
the main plant. Hence paying marking fees twice on the same product is not justified.

The committee noted that the issue was pertaining to the Certification Marks Department of BIS and
decided to forward the communication to them.
4. Colour of the information to be printed under the Clause Marking in respective
STI

The information to be printed on the bags under the clause Marking is different for
different varieties of bags: for OPC it is BLACK, for PPC it is RED, for PSC it is
ORANGE and for Composite Cement it is BLUE.
Most of the cement plants are following online Printing technology for printing some of
the information like Batch Number (DWMY) and Percentage of various additives like fly
ash (in case of PPC), granulated slag (in case of PSC), Performance Improver (in case
of OPC) and both fly ash & granulated slag (in case of Composite Cement) which varies
on daily basis. Many of the Cement plants are producing; packing & dispatching minimum
two types of cement OPC & PPC or OPC & PSC and some of the plants even produce
all the 3 varieties OPC, PPC, PSC. In such cases, it becomes practically difficult to install
multiple online Printing set-ups for different colour of printing for different varieties of
cement.

Hence it is proposed that the colour of the matter printed online i.e. Batch Number
(DWMY) and the percentage addition of fly ash/GGBS/PI should be kept as BLACK
for all the verities of cements OPC, PPC, PSC and Composite Cement.

The committee noted that the issue was pertaining to the Certification Marks Department of BIS and
decided to forward the communication to them.
5. Declaration of percentage of Fly Ash added on bags

In the last CED meeting held on the issues of the declaration of fly ash addition on the
bags was discussed in details. The Cement industry was willing to remove it from bags
28
For BIS Use Only CED 2/A2.26 - Minutes
in view of the wide variation in fly ash quality as well as practical problem of maintaining
the exact percentage during manufacturing process. Secondly, the percentage of fly ash
added in PPC is being declared in Test Certificates, based on weekly average. Concrete
technologist & the representatives from Concrete industry, were impressing upon to keep
the declaration of fly ash added on bags. With due deliberations it was discussed to
introduce the variation of fly ash percentage added as +/- 3% of the absolute value in
place of +/- 3% of fly ash added. For example in case of declared percentage of fly ash
= 27% then the percentage of fly ash added may vary between 24% to 30%. All
stakeholders were agreed on this point including chairman & secretary of CED. But this
discussion was not recorded and this issue was referred to P-1 committee headed by Dr
Babu. The matter should be persuaded with P-1 committee to introduce at the earliest.
The Committee did not agree to some of the points mentioned as above and desired that the
recordings of the Minutes of the last (25th) Meeting of CED 2 be referred for actual deliberations held
and position taken in the matter. The Committee clarified that the matter is already slated for discussion
in the next meeting of the Panel, CED 2:1/P1. The Committee reiterated that the decision of the
Committee was quite clear and correctly recorded.
6. "Determination of Heat of Hydration" as per IS 4831 (Part-8)

The specification does not mention the error factor or Precision. The ASTM method C-
186 which follows similar procedure says that "the results of two properly conducted tests
by the same operator on the same sample should not differ by more than 42 kJ/kg." This
margin of error should clearly be brought out in IS Code, so that the large projects where
heat of hydration is an important consideration, can make judicial decision of
accepting/rejecting the consignment.

The committee referred the point to the Panel CED 2:1/P1 for evaluation.
13.2 The Committee noted that a comment had been received from Marketing and Transit (India) Pvt
Ltd along with a note signed by Dr S. C. Maiti and Dr C. Rajkumar, requesting that the site blending of
slag with OPC in concrete making should be restricted, and instead PSC to be used directly. The
letter had been circulated to the members vide email dated 20.06.2017.

Dr Maiti opined that the percentage of slag being added to the cement was very important and that it
required proper blending and testing and hence should be done only in a factory controlled
environment. JSW raised the point that, the quality need not be an issue once the slag meets the
requirement of the respective Indian Standards. It was pointed out that the standard for GGBS has
already been finalised by this Committee. JSW further mentioned that, the onsite blending of slag is
done usually in major projects; which will inevitably have huge batching plants.

Dr. Maiti further debated that in IRC-15, on site blending of slag with OPC has been prohibited. JSW
and NCB pointed out that IRC-15 was under revision and that the revised version is proposed to allow
the site mixing of slag with OPC. The representative from Dalmia requested that, in the view of safety,
onsite mixing of slag with OPC should be prohibited at least where ASR is a concern. The Committee
clarified that the onsite blending of slag with OPC is not used for ASR conditions alone, but also for
29
For BIS Use Only CED 2/A2.26 - Minutes
aggressive conditions like pile casting in aggressive soils, as detailed in footnote No.7 to Table 4 of IS
456. Only very efficient sites will be able to handle such conditions and such sites will be equipped
with good quality control facilities and required equipment as well. Shri Arora added on the ASR is
usually relevant in mass structures; which will inevitably have huge batching plants. The quality at
such sites may be comparable, if not better than, factory conditions.

The Committee concluded that such a restriction was not required.

13.3 The Committee noted that an issue regarding extending the normal shelf life of white cement
beyond the specification of 3 months, had been discussed in the last meeting of CED 2:1/P1. The
details and followup actions regarding the issue had been sent to the committee members vide email
dated 20.06.2017. The Committee noted that subsequent to the Panel meetings, J. K. White Cement
had provided details regarding their quality of packing. The committee requested the Panel to study
the details provided and to decide in the matter.

13.4 The representative from Tata Steel Ltd., raised the issue of inclusion of higher grades of steel in
IS 456. NCB informed that for grades up to Fe 550, R&D work was going on at NCB. Tata
representatives informed that they were producing up to Fe 600 and that they were already having
research data from IIT Guwahati. The Committee requested them to contact NCB if the wanted to
include Fe 600 also in their R&D project; and also requested them to share their R&D date with NCB.

13.5 The Committee noted that information has been sought under the RTI Act had been received
regarding the rate of loading during compression testing. The query was displayed during the meeting
and is reproduced below:

My enquiry is in context of IS 516 and IS 14858 (Rate of Loading for Concrete Cube).

As an Engineer I had always tried to obtain optimized solution for the betterment of the society and had
followed the guidelines to their extent given by the IS CODES.

Coming to the enquiry I would like to know the basis and the data through which the IS Codes had
formulated Rate of loading as 140kgcm2/min for concrete cubes as per IS 516 section 6.4.1.

During my entire career I have noticed that for different grades of concrete ranging from M20 to M60 the
rate of loading increases by itself without changing the rate of loading manually or through automatic
mode, also the rate of loading has never been achieved at a constant rate as specified in the IS Code.
The rate of loading for first 20% of the load is different as that of the rate of loading of next 70% loading
and then it changes for the last 10% remaining.

The CTM machines used were calibrated and are of top established manufactures.

If I take reference from the international codes which are mainly the below said whose reference is also
given in IS Code 516 FOREWORD point 0.3

BRITISH STANDARDS INSTITUTION

30
For BIS Use Only CED 2/A2.26 - Minutes

AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR TESTING MATERIALS AMERICAN CONCRETE INSTITUTE

CANADIAN ENGINEERING STANDARDS ASSOCIATION

The ASTM C39 guidelines suggest in section 7.5.1


The load shall be applied at a rate of movement (platen to crosshead measurement) corresponding to
a stress rate on the specimen of 0.25 0.05 MPa/s (35 7 psi/s) (Note 11). The designated rate of
movement shall be maintained at least during the latter half of the anticipated loading phase.

Kindly review the above said and provide an amicable solution for the same.

Kindly provide the data/record when this constant Rate of loading as 140kgcm2/min has been achieved
and the name and manufacturer of that machine who achieved the above said rate of loading.

The Committee reviewed the contents of the request and recorded as follows:

The rate of loading of 140 kg/cm2 per minute mentioned in IS 516 works out to 0.23 MPa per second
and is comparable to the ASTM stress rate of 0.25 0.05 MPa per second. The control on rate of
loading is necessary to achieve a proper estimate of the compressive strength of the cube. A very
high rate of loading may give a higher value of compressive strength and similarly, a lower rate of
loading may give a lower value of compressive strength. It is possible to control the rate of loading in
the compression testing machines and it is not true that the rate of loading increases/decreases by
itself, when it is properly controlled. However, when using manually controlled testing machines, the
load rate may be controlled within the range of + 10% of the specified value.

It was observed that the standard was formulated as early as 1959, and the exact information about
the basis for deciding the rate of loading recorded at that time is not available at present.

The Committee decided to reply to the RTI as per the aforementioned discussion.

13.6 Prof Mahesh Tanden drew attention to the need for early revision of IS 456:2000. He mentioned
that the Committee has all the requisite expertise and experience to ensure a comprehensive and
state-of-the-art revision of the Concrete Code. He opined that rather than working for a unified
Concrete Code, attempt should be made to encompass the plain, reinforced and prestressed concrete
and work should be completed in a time bound manner. The members in general agreed to the
approach. The Chairman then observed that this would require involvement of a dedicated team of
BIS officers. With already a series of massive projects undertaken by CED 2, it would be required to
augment the support in terms of officers and staff to enable a comprehensive and time bound
completion of the work.

It was then agreed to further discuss the modalities in the next meeting of the Panel for IS 456 and IS
1343, CED 2:2/P5.

13.7 The Committee noted that the matter regarding gradation of PPC and PSC continued to be
pending in the Honble Madras High Court for a very long time without any progress whatsoever,
requested that BIS take up action needed to get the case expedited.
31
For BIS Use Only CED 2/A2.26 - Minutes

13.8 There being no other issues, the members joined the Member-Secretary in thanking the
Chairman, Shri Jose Kurian, Shri R. C. Wason and Shri K. H. Babu for their guidance and smooth
conduct of the meeting leading to important decisions by the Committee. The Member-Secretary also
thanked Sri Sanjay Pant, Head Civil Engineering, BIS, for his presence throughout the meeting and
active guidance during the meeting. Finally she thanked all the members for their keen interest and
valuable inputs during the deliberations in the meeting.

13.9 The meeting ended with a hearty vote of thanks.

32