There are electrical engineers who just mutter the slogan "Safety is the top priority," and simply convey old and inaccurate Cable Tray Weight information to the Architectural/Structural design department without trying to calculate the Cable Weight on the Cable Schedule.
As the result, some structures are over-designed, and others are designed to lack strength, leading to an accident in which the Cable Tray collapses.
Nevertheless, bad managers still seem to cover up the causes and facts of the accident.
The accident cause investigation report should clearly include the old and inaccurate Cable Tray Weight information delivered to the building/structure design team by the electrical design team and the real value calculated accurately for the cable weight.
In addition, to determine the adequacy of the cable quantity in the BoM(Bill of Material) created through electrical design, this quantity is compared to the cable quantities of several other projects. But the unit of quantity of all cables is just the length, that is, meter[m].
Electrical engineers compare the quantities only by length[m], even though they know that there are cables as thin as pinkies and cables as thick as forearms. In other words, they only do the formality of comparison/verification, but they don't really compare/verify properly.
In order to make ERP(Enterprise Resource Planning) top-tier, the unit of quantity for all construction disciplines (civil, architecture, mechanical, piping, electrical, instrumentation, etc.) should be unified as weight[kg].
There may already be electrical engineers using the Cable Schedule, which has not only the outer diameter of the cable, but also the weight. (Normally the cable schedule has the information of cables such as cable No., from, to, voltage, nos. of cables, nos. of cores, sqmm, outer diameter, length, etc., except weight.)
I ask them.
What are some problems/disadvantages about using Cable Schedule which has cable load/weight values?
As the result, some structures are over-designed, and others are designed to lack strength, leading to an accident in which the Cable Tray collapses.
Nevertheless, bad managers still seem to cover up the causes and facts of the accident.
The accident cause investigation report should clearly include the old and inaccurate Cable Tray Weight information delivered to the building/structure design team by the electrical design team and the real value calculated accurately for the cable weight.
In addition, to determine the adequacy of the cable quantity in the BoM(Bill of Material) created through electrical design, this quantity is compared to the cable quantities of several other projects. But the unit of quantity of all cables is just the length, that is, meter[m].
Electrical engineers compare the quantities only by length[m], even though they know that there are cables as thin as pinkies and cables as thick as forearms. In other words, they only do the formality of comparison/verification, but they don't really compare/verify properly.
In order to make ERP(Enterprise Resource Planning) top-tier, the unit of quantity for all construction disciplines (civil, architecture, mechanical, piping, electrical, instrumentation, etc.) should be unified as weight[kg].
There may already be electrical engineers using the Cable Schedule, which has not only the outer diameter of the cable, but also the weight. (Normally the cable schedule has the information of cables such as cable No., from, to, voltage, nos. of cables, nos. of cores, sqmm, outer diameter, length, etc., except weight.)
I ask them.
What are some problems/disadvantages about using Cable Schedule which has cable load/weight values?
