Questions regarding standard updates
Thread Content
JB/T4735-97 has been updated to NB/T47003.1-2009, but why is the new standard denoted as NB/T47003.1-2009 (JB/T4735.1)? What does the parentheses after it mean? Are both standard numbers correct? Similar standards include NB/T47008-2010(JB/T4726), NB/T47016-2011(JB/T4744), etc
NB is a standard issued by the Energy Bureau, while JB was a standard from the former Ministry of Machinery Industry, which no longer exists. Many NB standards have replaced the original JB standards.
It has been replaced; then why is it necessary to include parentheses and write JB/T4735.1? Can’t it just be written as NB/T47003.1?
When using it, only NB/T47003.1 needs to be specified; JB/T4735.1 is not required
I mean, is it okay to write JB/T4735.1? Can NB/T47008-2010 be written as JB/T4726?
Reply to 5# sxjhtlj: It’s not allowed. The JB standard has been replaced by NB.
If I’m not mistaken, what’s in the parentheses is the provisional standard that was once proposed as an update to the old standard; it wasn’t pursued any further, and later the NB standard was introduced.
NB is an energy standard, while JB is a mechanical standard that has been discontinued; when specifying reference standards in the design, only NB can be used
It can be understood this way: **The departments were merged, with the former Ministry of Machinery incorporated into the Ministry of Energy.** The numbers in parentheses are the old standards. Just implement the new standard. But the old standards can also be used for our learning; I think some of the new standards are not as detailed as the old ones, so I study both the old and new standards together.
NB/T47003.1-2009 does not completely replace JB/T4735-97; it only replaces it partially. For example, vertical circular storage tanks are quite different under the new standard. JB/T4735-97 should still be valid.