Can it still be used as a void standard?
Thread Content
I just received a project, designed by a certain design institute; there are 8 sets of drawings in total, and none of them is error-free. There’s something odd about this: all saddle-type supports use standards such as JB1167-73 and JB1167-82. After checking, it turns out that JB1167-73 has been revoked, and it was replaced by JB1167-81. However, JB1167-81 is also an obsolete standard, with JB/T4712-92 taking its place. Well, JB/T4712-92 is also obsolete; the current standard is JB/T4712.1-2007. Moreover, JB1167-82 never existed in the first place. It gets more and more annoying the more I talk about it.
The standard should be the currently valid version...
It depends on what the owner requires; using an obsolete standard is quite strange as well. . . We have encountered cases where the DNV standards were used, but the old standards were followed instead of the new ones, as the provisions of the old standards are stricter than those of the new standards.
I reviewed the drawings again today and think the design institute is also innocent. Since these devices are all upgraded models, it is estimated that the outdated standards are being used in order to work in conjunction with the existing infrastructure. But we don’t have this standard at all – how can we produce then?
This post was last edited by cxd11888 on 2019-1-24 at 11:15. Hehe, it’s one’s own choice that causes frustration; as long as all other standards are in line with current regulations, there might be a reason why they use that standard for the supports. Another example is the relationship regarding load-bearing capacity, as well as making use of existing foundations.
Is JB1167-82 not available? What's going on? Was it a typo?
Solve the problem quickly: as long as it’s not a mandatory standard, the old one can be used just fine.
The standard provisions must be followed; otherwise, it is illegal.
For example, what kinds of headings indicate mandatory standards? ?