Standards shelf-life expired?
Standards shelf-life expired?
(OP)
Engineers know the value of standards, but are some standards doing more harm than good?
If so, is the problem getting worse? What effect is this having on development and innovation?
Are some standards devloped for the wrong reasons?
I wonder how many applications continue to use orifice plate or dP transmitters in some applications, despite the availability of newer and better technologies for those applications, simply because of the existence of a very well established set of standards?
Doesn't happen? Yes it does, i have have this categorically stated to me by industry engineers, and for some very good reasons. But are those reaons still valid when 80% of technology is now estimated to be obsolete within 5-10years?
A road surface dressing company sets aside £10million each year for "re-work".
Re-work is required whenever there is reason to believe the road surface does not comply with the standards as determined through testing of the materials.
They proposed a new approach for bitumen emulsion spraying using viscometers for quality control and for application control.
Testing showed the process viscometers, even though operating with a pseudo-plastic material, were giving far superlative resuts.
The Standard called for testing of samples within 7 days (often extended to 14 days) using a Redwood viscometer.
This is specified for historical reasons. In fact it proved to be a very unsuitable technology but to be replaced with an ISO cup measurement when the standards were "harmonised" with European standards.
The project was scrapped. The local governments engineers refused to depart from the standard and were not inclined to aid in having the standard reviewed. For some, standards are sacrosanct. The standard proved more difficult to change than even £10million a year was worth.
If so, is the problem getting worse? What effect is this having on development and innovation?
Are some standards devloped for the wrong reasons?
I wonder how many applications continue to use orifice plate or dP transmitters in some applications, despite the availability of newer and better technologies for those applications, simply because of the existence of a very well established set of standards?
Doesn't happen? Yes it does, i have have this categorically stated to me by industry engineers, and for some very good reasons. But are those reaons still valid when 80% of technology is now estimated to be obsolete within 5-10years?
A road surface dressing company sets aside £10million each year for "re-work".
Re-work is required whenever there is reason to believe the road surface does not comply with the standards as determined through testing of the materials.
They proposed a new approach for bitumen emulsion spraying using viscometers for quality control and for application control.
Testing showed the process viscometers, even though operating with a pseudo-plastic material, were giving far superlative resuts.
The Standard called for testing of samples within 7 days (often extended to 14 days) using a Redwood viscometer.
This is specified for historical reasons. In fact it proved to be a very unsuitable technology but to be replaced with an ISO cup measurement when the standards were "harmonised" with European standards.
The project was scrapped. The local governments engineers refused to depart from the standard and were not inclined to aid in having the standard reviewed. For some, standards are sacrosanct. The standard proved more difficult to change than even £10million a year was worth.
JMW
www.viscoanalyser.com
Eng-Tips: Pro bono publico, by engineers, for engineers.
Please see FAQ731-376 for tips on how to make the best use of Eng-Tips Fora.





RE: Standards shelf-life expired?
Interesting thought. I certainly agree that standards can be a handicap to new and emerging technologies.
Standards actually makes the engineer's work more difficult as everything (designs) must be altered to suit the standards, which can be (and mostly are) outdated in most respects. It is an excellent idea to give all standards a shelf life, after which the standards must be re-evaluated and compared with new technologies.
On your topic of road evaluation using unsuitable viscometers: I suspect that the industry's sluggishness to review the standard is that there is vested interest by companies controlling the current (and standard-stipulated) technology...
Regards
GJdW (mechanical, South Africa)
RE: Standards shelf-life expired?
JMW
www.viscoanalyser.com
Eng-Tips: Pro bono publico, by engineers, for engineers.
Please see FAQ731-376 for tips on how to make the best use of Eng-Tips Fora.
RE: Standards shelf-life expired?
Cheers
Greg Locock
RE: Standards shelf-life expired?
Regards,
RE: Standards shelf-life expired?
In some cases the "standard" is strongly supported by manufacturers who wish to influence the standard to reflect their product to their advantage.
Some standards are seen as a revenue earner for national bodies. Some standards are an integral part of a countries "protectionism".
Attempts at harmonisation are often frustrated. In the case of the old British standard for domestic water meters, it formed the basis of the new European standard. Sadly, as this came to fruition a new class of meter was introduced for the UK market. In defense of this, the original standard was nased on the 1945 water act and meters were expected to lead to a fair and equitable method of billing, despite many homes paying for water according to the rateable value of the property. In part also, the UK plumbing systems are not typical of the rest of Europe, due to the Napolionic Invasion scares which lead to the intorduction of gravity tanks in homes which in turn means very low flow into the tanks due to ball valve action. One cannot but wonder whether this consideration should have been raised before harmonisation.
JMW
www.viscoanalyser.com
Eng-Tips: Pro bono publico, by engineers, for engineers.
Please see FAQ731-376 for tips on how to make the best use of Eng-Tips Fora.
RE: Standards shelf-life expired?
It comes down to the fundamental problem of innovation, as put forward by Scott Adams of Dilbert fame. Let's say I'm a work-a-day engineer, slogging away in the cubicle trenches of XYZ Corporation. One day I come across an opportunity to save the company $2 million in capital and $100,000 a year in operating costs by taking a technical risk by deviating from the company's specifications and standards. My upside, if everything goes as planned, is a certificate of appreciation in a handsome plastic frame. My downside is a "pink slip" and a boot to the ass on the way to the unemployment line. So- why would I innovate? Why would I incurr the technical risk? What's in it for me?
Fortunately I work in a company which not only permits but ENCOURAGES engineering innovation, and I share the reward of decisions that pay off. That's by choice. I get to do REAL engineering- but only when my customers permit me to do so for their benefit. Often I spend huge amounts of effort convincing my customers that despite my desire to just shut up and follow the letter of their specifications, if I do so the equipment will be rendered LESS rather than more functional and safe- and in some cases, it just plain will not work.
Where we engineers fell down in the creation of these codes and standards is that we tried to be prescriptive, to cover every case with a rule. What we should have done instead was to write two sections in these documents: a first section for engineers with design philosophy to guide their design judgment, and the other with the prescriptive rules for the non-engineers.
RE: Standards shelf-life expired?
not everyone works for your sort of company.
In another thread (Thread756-90255) you can see a lot of anxiety about deviating from specification, whether client's, manager's or industry's.
JMW
www.viscoanalyser.com
Eng-Tips: Pro bono publico, by engineers, for engineers.
Please see FAQ731-376 for tips on how to make the best use of Eng-Tips Fora.
RE: Standards shelf-life expired?
RE: Standards shelf-life expired?
Quite often, one reg contradicts another, or it was written so long ago, nobody knows why it was introduced.
We have recently had our building regs updated to include monitoring of fuels. This essentially means that on a site, we might have to meter the boilers and the gas supply to the kitchen. This is so someone can assess the efficiency of the 'systems'. Who is going to do this?? The client..I think not. What a waste of money.
All is needed is a reg to make people service their plant.
Another problem we have is that our natural gas enters the building at 20.7mBar ( 8.5"WG) and the allowable pressure drop from the meter to the boiler or end of circuit is 1mBar. This results in enormous pipe sizes. In addition, when we also have to add a meter to sub-meter the mains, the meter pressure drop has to be included in the 1mBar drop. The net result,...rotary meters to reduce the system pressure drop, larger pipes, a meter that will probably never be read and another maintenance problem..and cost to the client...MADNESS
Whoever writes these regs has no idea about practicalities.
Friar Tuck of Sherwood
RE: Standards shelf-life expired?
I've no problem paying for a standard, but having paid a fair price, I am then expected to keep paying the same price over and over to keep an up-to-date copy. Why? If amendments are needed, then the original was wrong and should have been checked more carefully. The frequency at which amendments are being issued appears to be growing too. A more cynical person might suggest that it was a money-making ploy by the issuing body. Of course, that couldn't be true - could it?
------------------------------
If we learn from our mistakes,
I'm getting a great education!