Is full enforcement required in GB now?
Thread Content
GB is divided into provisionally mandatory and fully mandatory; under the provisionally mandatory category, only the specified provisions are mandatory, while the rest are advisory in nature； But I have an opinion: The National Standardization Work Conference held on January 10, 2019, proposed that mandatory provisions should be abolished in favor of full-text mandatory requirements; in other words, as long as a standard is mandatory, it must apply to the entire text, with every word within the standard being subject to mandatory compliance. Is this claim reliable? Is there anyone who is well-versed in this topic, or who has access to relevant documents? Thank you all for your guidance! :handshake
GB refers to mandatory standards. The provisions in national standards GB can be roughly divided into three categories: bolded mandatory requirements, which must be followed; and suggestions, which are advisable to follow. National standards GB also specify the level of enforcement for each of these three categories. Bolded mandatory requirements must absolutely not be violated, and those marked as \"should\" must also not be ignored. So what is the difference between these two? From a normal design perspective, there is basically no difference. The biggest difference lies in the fact that when the design is under review, if there are issues with the qualifications of the design team, some designers think it’s okay to ignore those rules. However, the regulations clearly state that these rules must be followed when conditions permit; in other words, if the reviewers ask why the rules cannot be followed, you need to have an answer ready.
It should be the same as the explanation on page 50 of the detailed regulations; under the appropriate conditions, it is preferable to proceed in this manner
Generally speaking, this represents the perspective or requirements of Party A.
There are these two types: GB and GB/T, right?
These are all the requirements set by the authorities and the standards developers; if these standards are to be followed strictly throughout, won’t there be any safety issues? Who will address the issues that are not covered by the standards? If there are fire protection design standards, but no explosion protection design standards. Also, there may be contradictions or differences in terminology among various national standards (mandatory standards); how should this be handled?
As I understand it, the first issue is which standard applies; then, standards marked with a T are recommended standards, while those without a T are mandatory standards. Most standards set requirements using the terms “shall”, “should”, and “may”. Some standards specify that certain provisions are mandatory and must be strictly followed, even though the standard itself is of a recommendatory nature