Regarding some issues in renovation and expansion projects, how should we handle regulatory standards and borderline cases?
Thread Content
This post was last edited by 328104062 on 2016-5-5 23:24. As the title suggests: During the recent renovation of a project, there are some issues with the on-site construction. If everything is done in strict accordance with standards and specifications, it could be very time-consuming and labor-intensive. 1. For the foundations of new equipment (towers, compressors, heat exchangers, storage tanks, etc.), it was found that these foundations happen to be located above cable trenches and circulating water lines; therefore, these cables and water lines must pass through the foundations. If the cables (10KV, 380V, 220V) need to be rerouted, the cable trenches would have to be rebuilt, and in that case the length of the cables would not be sufficient. Is it possible to convert the cable trenches into tubes that allow the cables to pass through the foundations of the compressors and towers? Does passing cable trench sleeves and circulating water pipes through the foundation violate the codes? Which specification was violated? 2. During the retrofit of the air-cooled motor, it was found that the cables for the new motor were not long enough; even after removing the cable trunking and trying various ways to extend the cables, there was still a shortage of 1-2 meters. Is it possible to extend the cables? This cable is primarily a 380V power cable, while the control panel uses 220V secondary circuit cables. In the heating furnace, for some reason, the instruments and electrical wires were damaged, including the 4-20mA signal wires, the 24V solenoid valve supply wires, the 24V valve position feedback wires, the 380V furnace igniter wires, and the 220V secondary circuit wires. It’s not possible to lay new wires; is it possible to connect the existing wires instead? 4. Must the cables for instruments and electrical equipment be single-core? Can it be connected if the length is insufficient? Which standard specifies this clearly?
Who designed this? ? ? It’s really poor quality – there’s no experience involved, the way issues are considered is too simplistic; no allowances or coefficients were taken into account during design. The material plans are based on theoretical values. I don’t want to criticize, but it’s simply the theoretical values from the drawings. Also, the wiring should go from the motor towards the power distribution room; it would be logical to have it flow in the opposite direction. 380V power cables generate heat easily due to too many connectors; signal cables have poor shielding and it’s best not to extend them. Whoever did this job should be taken outside and beaten.
If there are many connection lines, a junction box should be installed; too many connections will always have an impact. If the foundation is penetrated and damaged, it will no longer be able to withstand the designed load, posing a safety risk and violating all relevant regulations
Personal advice: Standards and regulations come first, that is, safety first.
Design, construct, and produce in accordance with the relevant standards.
It is absolutely not allowed to make unauthorized modifications; please have a reputable design firm carry out the design changes before starting construction. Otherwise, the safety risks are too high, and any problems that arise will cause trouble.
This post was last edited by 328104062 on 2016-5-6 at 14:03. In practice, it’s not entirely the design that can be blamed; sometimes the design is created in strict accordance with regulations, and the designers sign off on it. Signatures are also required for the design process, proofreading, and review. What really matters in practice is the construction phase – but who signs off on the work done by the construction workers? Would a union member sign? Some can’t even read
Don’t worry, it’s definitely a legitimate design firm. Both the client and the design firm are serious about this project, as not many people are willing to take responsibility and assume duties. Hehe, you get it
This post was last edited by *nht1 on 2016-5-6 16:05. I don’t think the person who signed it can be blamed; could there be errors in the design? That’s the key issue here; those in charge of review may not understand everything, but they will point out what can be detected. No one can identify all of the problems. The key lies in the design; errors such as insufficient distance, inadequate length, insufficient ceiling height, insufficient installation height, and lack of sufficient installation space are mistakes for which the designer is responsible. Of course, individual pipeline interference issues can be considered acceptable. Sometimes the standards are also recommendations, or that’s what usually happens, but special cases require special treatment; this involves matters of experience – whether there is experience in on-site construction (construction requirements, sequence of operations, etc.), operational experience, maintenance experience, lifting experience, installation experience, process management experience, safety management experience, on-site standardization management experience, and so on. All these factors play a role in determining the breadth of a designer’s perspective. These days, there are fewer and fewer people who can’t read; it’s almost non-existent. Any boss who can hire workers knows these installation techniques. Of course, when there are problems during construction, everyone looks for the relevant documents to see if the construction plans specify how the work should be carried out
You don’t understand what I mean. The key is the quality of the workers; it could be migrant workers doing the work. Of course, I have no intention of discriminating against migrant workers. The question is: was the work carried out according to the blueprints? ?
If construction is not carried out according to the drawings, there is no other choice but to refuse acceptance.