Why do design institutes these days insist on compliance with recommended standards?
Thread Content
I work for a chemical company, where I am in charge of project management. Over the past few years, we have also worked with 2 or 3 design institutes, but recently we’ve noticed that they always rely on certain recommended standards and insist on adhering to one specific rule. (In this case, in accordance with requirement 3.2.8 of the advisory specification HG/T20508-2014 on control room design issued by the Ministry of Chemical Industry, the control room should not share the same building as the substation.) Based on my limited understanding and what I found on Baidu, advisory specifications do not have mandatory enforcement requirements. I wonder if other netizens have encountered similar situations as well; what are everyone’s thoughts on this issue?
Go to the appendix and check out the specific guidelines regarding the use of the words \"not suitable\" and \"should not\". In other words, they can be placed next to each other, but it’s better if they aren’t; moreover, they cannot be located within the same building or house. Generally, high-voltage and low-voltage components should be separated.
What I mainly want to ask is whether the recommended specifications must be followed
When it comes to safety, if there is no better standard, then this standard should be followed
Standard specifications are the laws and regulations that designers must comply with. The term “not appropriate” in the clause is still open to discussion; but if it’s “should not”, then there’s no room for negotiation. Therefore, the clauses in the prescriptive standards that use “shall” and “shall not” are actually mandatory clauses.
In my view, mandatory norms are those that must be followed, but their scope is relatively limited; for areas not covered by them, recommended standards are used as a basis for design. If such a recommended standard has been specified for a particular project, then it must be complied with. Unless it is specified before the design that this stringent code should be replaced with another, less stringent one
I’ve made it very clear; please take a look at the requirements at the end of the appendix.
When cost savings come into conflict with safety considerations, it is a choice between the boss and the law
Standard specifications are divided into mandatory standards and recommended standards; mandatory standards are also referred to as the old system, while recommended standards are known as the new system； In terms of the evolution of standard specifications, mandatory standards originate from standards established earlier in the country, while recommended standards are more aligned with international standards ； In terms of standard requirements, mandatory standards set the lowest requirements, while recommended standards have relatively higher requirements ； Due to technological advancements, recommended standards that are closer to international standards are now widely adopted.
Many netizens above have misunderstood; the original poster isn’t saying that it’s not allowed or inappropriate to do so. What’s meant is the ‘T’ in HG/T. In my opinion, we never consider the issues mentioned by the original poster – as long as there are standards with defined application ranges, those standards should be followed. Of course, when there is a conflict, it is determined which one has higher priority, and that one is handled first…
It depends on the design contract; if the owner includes this standard in the contract, then it changes from a recommended standard to a mandatory one. If this standard is not specified in the contract, it does not have to be followed.