Why is it ever so difficult to find the standards? 6

[EngCutie]

Do some companies just not bother with buying standards not often used? ASME standards are at visible places, but EN and API standards are nowhere to be seen. Is it just the companies I have been, or it’s the same with many companies?

It’s quite annoying not be able to find what I need. It’s like this in my last company, people suggested to have them electronically stored on the intranet, make it easier for people to search and find what they want, not sure if any company does it, it seems very costly.

Anyway, I have got a new job, and my old ID got blocked... don’t know why.


Cutie

 

[SomptingGuy]

I work to ANSI/ISO 9899-1990. It cost me £28.95 back in 1994.

- Steve

 

[PeterStock]

IHS is the company that our client uses (and we have access to). Thanks ColonelSanders, I don't have to look.

Peter Stockhausen
Senior Design Analyst (Checker)
Infotech Aerospace Services

http://www.infotechpr.net

 

[Debaser]

@ ColonelSanders83

We too are lucky enough to subscribe to this service (IHS). The fact that my company is multi-disciplinary, doing highways, water, building services and environmental engineering on a national and international basis, means that this service virtually pays for itself.

In addition, with respect to highways, the UK Highways Agency provides a website;

http://www.standardsforhighways.co.uk/

wherein all the latest standards pertaining to bridge and highway design for our trunk road/motorway network are available (DMRB), together with the relevant Specification and BoQ documents (MCHW).

 

[KENAT]

Just before I moved to the States my UK company got subscription to the BS website what allowed us to look up almost any BS standard (except the old ones that hadn't been scanned yet). DEF-STANS were already like that, or maybe it was on our intranet, either way you could look them up.

We had a small internal library (downsized in the mid 90's before I started there) which had a lot of the most commonly used one with the update service. We also had some set up with the library that we could order (to loan) standards we wanted to look at.

My current place in the US is week. For a while there was some impetus on drawing standards and we bought quite a few but this is dwindling, to the point I didn't have ASME Y14.5M for a while (as the owner of the copy I used got laid off) until a copy 'appeared' that in intern had and I nabbed it.

Posting guidelines faq731-376

http://eng-tips.com/market.cfm?

(probably not aimed specifically at you)
What is Engineering anyway: faq1088-1484​

 

[graybeach]

We have IHS too and, as the Colonel said, it's total heaven. Man, I need to get a life.

Anyway, engineers citing ASTMs and other standards without reviewing them are playing a dangerous game.

 

[ColonelSanders83]

As an afterthought, I recently came accross this site and have found it quite usfull. It's not IHS, but it you need free open access specs it a great place to look.

http://www.everyspec.com/

"EverySpec.com provides free access to over 20,000 Military, DoD, Federal, NASA, DOE, and Government specifications, standards, handbooks, and publications."

The specs are all developed with public money's so they are available to the public. Alot of them have some damn good design info if you know what to look for. They really do cover everything under the sun, from toilet seats, to hammers, to the parts of 2.5 billion dollar submarines that arn't classified.

Some examples

http://www.everyspec.com/MIL-STD/MIL-STD+(0000+-+0099)/MIL-STD-22D_5107/

http://www.everyspec.com/USN/NAVSEA/S9505-AM-GYD-010Rev-2_5630/

http://www.everyspec.com/NASA/NASA+..._Limits_For_Standard_Threaded_Fasteners_2503/

Enjoy!

Always remember, free advice is worth exactly what you pay for it!

 

[moltenmetal]

kepharda: if your company has to buy 10 accounting packages every two years, they're in deep trouble. I fail to see how your comparison is valid.

In an office with only a couple of engineers, keeping abreast of standards is a significant overhead cost. Not up there with liability insurance, but nothing to sneeze at either.

In shops which DON'T do engineering but DO purport to fabricate in accordance with these standards, it can be a very significant overhead cost- so significant that they very often do not keep current.

In universities, where the proper use of these standards SHOULD be taught, unless you bootleg them or get some kind of university exemption for their reproduction for educational purposes, the cost is beyond practical.

If the standards are to have force of law, they must be freely available. Otherwise, people who b*tch about them not being followed are just blowing hot air.

 

[MortenA]

First of all: Stop bitching that standards cost money - you dont work for free either! And the cost is of course not just the cost of printing - but some of these standard only sell in limited numbers and have high cost during development!

Second: Looking for a one-stop-shop? Go to:

http://www.global.ihs.com/

Here you will find almost any standard from anywhere on the globe! (no - not "free", not illigal copies etc.)

This: Engcutie: You seem to be looking for API520 - well if you dont need the exact copy then you will find all of the sizing info in the Crossby engineering handbook - FREE!

http://www.tycovalves-na.com/ld/CROMC-0296-US.pdf

Best regards

Morten

 

[moltenmetal]

MortenA: I'm not bitching about paying for them. I'm bitching about the current system, where only the honest people pay for them. The rest steal them, or ignore them.

Since the public are being protected by the application of these standards, the public should pay for their development and they should be freely available. Public goods should be paid for from the public purse. This so-called "user pay" model we have now is a recipie for non-compliance.

 

[MortenA]

Well I know for a fact that some people steal in grocery shops too!

So there you have it, next time you are in the supermarket feel free to fill your pockets!

Best regards

Morten

 

[ctopher]

The people that purchase and use standards are not generally the type of people that steal at grocery stores, or anywhere else.
A whole different subject.
ASME has done a pretty good job to keep their docs out of the wrong hands, like torrent sites.
Companies that do engineering mechanical design should invest in a set of drafting/design/material standards. The cost may be high on some, but the savings will be higher because of better quality parts (if employees trained and use them correctly).

Chris
SolidWorks 09 SP4.1
ctopher's home
SolidWorks Legion

 

[HgTX]

One could point out that the people who actually do the work on writing the standards usually don't get paid...

Hg

Eng-Tips policies: faq731-376

 

[graybeach]

This could also be compared to software pirating. A few years ago there was a lot publicity about companies using unlicenced copies, resulting in big fines. My company at that time checked everyone's computer for this.

Reputable companies need to purchase licensed software, and it't the same with standards. The cost should be included in a company's overhead.

 

[moltenmetal]

HgTX: an important point. It's a bit of an idiotic system, similar to the way journal articles are treated in the academic world.

Take the example of the professor writing a journal article. The taxpayer funds the professor's salary. He does the research and writes the paper, because his job is to generate and disseminate "knowledge" for the taxpayer's benefit, as well as to teach students. His peers at other universities, whose salaries are also paid by the taxpayer, reviews his paper, just as he reviews those of other peers. He then gets the article published in a journal. The journal publisher gets the copyright- and if the prof wants reprints of his paper, even for the purpose of teaching his students, his university has to pay the journal for the reprints! And who buys subscriptions to the journals? Primarily university libraries, of course. Who funds the university libraries? THE TAXPAYER!

Draw a box around the system so that you can identify the money flows into and out of the system, and you soon see that there's a net money flow from the taxpayer to the journal publisher, who does little more than promotion of the journal and of course printing the paper copies. Pretty inefficient from the taxpayer's perspective, isn't it? Whose interest does the copyright granted by the STATE to the publishing company serve in this case?

If we're truly interested in the public safety benefit these standards represent, we want the standards widely used and hence widely disseminated. We can't let an outmoded business model get in the way of that if we really value people's lives and safety. We need to find another way to run the standards generation and maintenance and dissemination process which doesn't involve the prohibitive fees.

 

[Compositepro]

Well said, moltenmetal. The organizations that maintain standards are really quite small and spend an inordinate amount of time trying to protect their source of income, while the actual writers and contributors to these standards are mostly volunteers.

A particularly troublesome case are building codes that are adopted into law by reference but you have to pay to read it.

Patents and copyrights are intended to benefit society by encouraging invention and innovation by providing time limited protection to the inventor or creator. In many cases they are used for the opposite effect in order to protect the income of an individual or organization. Did you ever wonder why standards are updated so frequently? There is nothing good or noble about this. It is human nature.

 

[MortenA]

OK Moltenmetal

Those were good arguments! I wont say that i have often felt the same way.

Some new standards such as the European PED and machine directive is now in public domain. Maybe we will eventually see a shift towards this?

Best regards

Morten

 

[TGS4]

As a volunteer for a Safety Code, I just want to add that organizations, such as ASME, do run significant expense in staff labour to manage the Code. yes, volunteers do a significant amount of work, but there are many individuals whose job it is to manage the volunteers and coordinate their work.

Are you suggesting that the government pay for their salaries? That they should become civil servants? Furthermore, which government - US Federal Government, Canada, individual States or Provinces, etc?

I submit that such a scheme has been deemed too difficult to manage. Furthermore, I think that if the government was "footing the bill", then political action (as opposed to the best intentions of learned volunteers) would drive the Codes. I can point to many countries (China comes to mind) where this is the case, and I, for one, want no part of that.

So, if you want a relatively impartial (or at least balanced) perspective, then industry-driven is the way to go. That comes hand-in-glove with industry-pay.

Would I like my Codes for free - sure. Am I willing to pay the price (as described above) that comes with that - absolutely not.

 

[jmw]

Standards also get updated for sound engineering reasons, it has to be said.
However, design to standard and then look for approvals.
Take marine industry. Lloyds tests ENV1 etc.
Now OK, you need one for each country as you'd expect but you also need one for most of the EU countries (I'm excepting Switzerland, to the best of my knowledge they don't issue marine approvals).
So what happened to the Common Market, never mind the EU, which was all about harmonisation.
Well, national standards are:
a) a source of income
b) protectionist - each standard has some slight differences or each authority has different aspects they emphasise.

So come testing time you might expetc to have to host a dozen or so inspectors.... if you are in Barbados or Hawaii that may be so but in reality, when you are in Scunthorpe or somewhere, you'll get one, maybe. He is then empowered by the other societies to witness on their behalf.

If you make the mistake of organising each one individually then you have a punitive bill and it will add years to the ROI but if you contact them all at once, they will agree this sort of procedure with one inspector representing all.
It is cheaper on expenses fo sure.
It is still a hefty bill but a lot less hassle.
But why all the different European approvals?
Why not a unified global approval for a global industry?
Why Germnaische Lloyd and Lloyds of London, DNV, BV, RINAS and all the rest?

Go figure.




JMW

http://www.ViscoAnalyser.com

 

[moltenmetal]

TGS4 and jmw have excellent points as well. In a sense, sometimes any widely-accepted standard, regardless how flawed, is better than NO standard- i.e. fifty or a hundred different, non-widely accepted standards into which protectionism and regional preferences can most easily creep.


Not that we don't have that situation now- jurisdictions may adopt some of the ASME codes, ANSI/ASTM etc., but all put their own regional flavour in there.

Protectionism masquerading as safety regulations is indeed a problem. The Japanese have that down to a science.

Of course, I wouldn't complain if the US federal government started paying ASME's bills so I wouldn't have to. If an American code or standard becomes the de-facto world standard, perhaps it's the least our American friends can do is foot the bill through their taxes- in return for the unbelievable convenience provided to them by the fact that THEIR standard is so widely accepted by the rest of the world?!

Centralizing standards under government control and funding requires world government- something we don't have. I guess paying ASME every two years for what amounts to a de-facto internationally accepted standard is better than nothing.

But let's not pretend that the current system of funding organizations like ASME is not putting lives at risk. Literally on a weekly basis I see examples of non-compliance which results from non-awareness which can be directly tied to the non-availability of these standards in the hands of ALL those who need them.

 

[SNORGY]

I think the pricing of Codes and Standards puts a lot of them beyond the reach of "Mom and Pop Shop" engineering companies, but they ought to be an easily affordable - and necessary - cost of doing business for any multi-disciplined engineering company that purports to do engineering.

Unless, of course, that multi-disciplined engineering company is led by accountands and MBAs as opposed to P.Eng.'s or PE's.

Not that I am in any way bitter.

Regards,

SNORGY.