Engineers and CAD 7

[Hurricanes]

I am curious about engineers general relationships with CAD across various industries.

Personally, I have been involved in the energy, industrial and mining sectors. In all cases I had not touched CAD. It is seen as a waste of resources for an engineer to use CAD when you can get a drafter/designer to do it at a much lower cost.

The closest I have gotten to it is when I get a drafter to export a model over for me to do an analysis on it.

It sort of surprised me to see on this site guys with sigs that have something like Professional/Design Engineer and then the version of the CAD package they are using. I realise that in some industries such as manufacturing it is advantagous to have engineers using CAD, but to what extent?

There have been threads here about engineers worried about becoming 'CAD jockeys', or drafters bascially. I guess this is just so far removed from my experiences I was just after other peoples experiences and thoughts with regards to engineers and CAD.

Ok, I know similar threads to this one have been discussed, but they all seemed to be closed when I searched for them.

 

[Hurricanes]

On the 2 year courses, I don't think there is actually much CAD involved. Its more about the basics of engineering... I think...

Here, kids are taken from highschool and given a job. They study part time, so it takes 4 to 5 years to get the 2 year diploma. Most of the CAD stuff is learnt on the job from the senior drafters.

 

[KENAT]

There are a lot of different courses available from what I've seen. Some of them claim to have quite a bit of drafting. Others are more technician courses etc.

Just look at the TV adds for somewhere like ITT.

Posting guidelines faq731-376

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

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

 

[bpattengale]

As a young engineer (I'm 26, so just a baby by most of the people here), I've seen drafting become more a by-product of the design.

At my first job out of college with a small company it was all site design work. I'd do the design and layout in AutoCAD and produce full construction plans. There was no drafting department. It was convient because I could change the location of a storm sewer inlet and adjust the grading at the same time.

With my current company I've switched to Civil 3D. I can basically do all of my design, earthwork balance, check interference with pipes, do stormwater calcs all in the software. I'll generally set up the plan sheets then pass them off to the drafters to make them look presentable, but often times its simply faster for me to just fix the plans then to red line them and then hand them off to the drafters.

At the same time I've been exposed to both hand drafting and CAD since I was in high school. I learned to draft on a board and letter by hand, before I was even allowed to try and run CAD. In college it was a single CAD course with ProE (Yes it's a mechanical software, but I was already proficient with AutoCAD) that taught me a lot about the standards and tolerances in plan production.

Now the drafting department at my current company has no functioning knowledge of engineering design. It's a basic they draw what I scribble on the sheet. It would be exptremely useful if I could just pass on a design and have them fill is some of the missing details, but they don't have the knowledge base to do that. Hence I can either red line and have the drafters fix it or just fix it myself and it takes about the same time as it does to red line the plans.

I really feel that you have to have a basic understading of what you're drawing, so that can have a general feeling if something doesn't look like it should. I'm not saying that a drafter needs to know how to size pipes or do earthwork balancing, but they should know that pipes generally get larger down stream.

 

[vc66]

Hence I can either red line and have the drafters fix it or just fix it myself and it takes about the same time as it does to red line the plans.

If they take the same amount of time, I would assume that redlining and explaining to the drafter would be more beneficial for the future.

If you're always redoing what's been done, and nothing is said to the drafter about it, how is he/she going to ever get better at their craft?

If you were to do something wrong over and over again, and whoever you reported to just fixed it, instead of going over it with you and explaining your mistakes--you'd never get any better.

V

 

[ewh]

Way back when I first started out, Jr Detailers were hired straight out of high school. Their responsibility was to take what the engineer or designer sketched out for them and create a drawing that met applicable drafting standards. The only thinking that they were required to do was that which would produce a good drawing. As they gained experience they were expected to start learning more about the product, and they were promoted to Detailer, Designer, Sr Designer, and if they did not get a college degree their ceiling was pretty much limited to Checker.
CAD has pretty much done away with that. Now, Detailers are fairly rare and designers are much more common. The main problem with that is that not enough time or effort has been spent on creating good drawings. To make matters worse, the best teacher for them was the Checker and his red pencil, which are now an endangered species. So now we have designers and engineers who only produce what they have always produced until the rare occasion that their mistakes are pointed out.
Yes, you can still manufacture acceptable products from less than optimal drawings. It is sad though that fewer and fewer are able to actually recognize an optimal drawing.

"Good to know you got shoes to wear when you find the floor." - [small]Robert Hunter[/small]

 

[DesignerGuy16]

That all boils down to knowing what everyone is capable of, and training them appropriately. If a drafter has natural mechanical aptitude they can go a long way. I've seen plenty of engineers who couldn't design their way out of a paper bag, I've also seen brilliant designers who have no formal education past high school.

In everything you have to train and allow growth, if you just think your drafters can't do anything other than detail a sheet then they will never do anything but that. Not because they aren't capable, but because they won't experience and learn anything other than what's given to them.

We're all in the same boat, trying to paddle down the same stream. Some people think they're entitled to the paddle just because they have an engineering degree. Others can easily understand why the engineers are rowing, and learn how to row themselves, or even show them a better way to row.

I think there's the likelyhood to lose a lot of relevent experience from the workplace when the baby boomers retire because nobody wants to spend the time and money to train anyone. It's like you have to know everything before you ever step foot on the job anymore. That's not good for any of us.

The way CAD is now, it should be embraced as an excellent tool for visualization and documentation. It should not be looked upon as a division of "those who have" and "those who have not".

James Spisich
Design Engineer, CSWP

 

[NomLaser]

I'm in the same boat as Kenat. I have a BS and 9 years of Engineering experience in exempt industries, therefore not needing a PE certification. I haven't worked at any large companies, most were 150 employees or less and most of them are production personnel. At most jobs that I have held there were no CAD Jockey's. I have been creating my own drawings, which I don't mind until I have a huge stack to create. These are typically machined components, sheet metal, welded structural members and plastic components.

 

[ajack1]

Firstly going back to the original post I think CAD is now an everyday activity for many engineers these days. In the same way as typing out reports, doing power point presentations is. Most of now sit at a PC or laptop for much of the day and have a more rounded set of skills than was the case even a few years ago.

If it is a waste of time and money having an engineer doing CAD or typing when it could probably be done quicker and cheaper by a draughter or typist is debateable but that is how it seems to be these days.

With regard to Draughtsperson, Designer, Cad monkey whatever you want to call them there is a huge difference, I pretty much agree with Kenats breakdown but still feel it is a very broad set of terms that cover many different level of skills. A bit like a builder that can cover anything from someone who could completely rebuild a house with many skills to a bloke with a saw a screwdriver and a hammer who might one day put a nail in straight.

 

[apsix]

KENAT

By 'tracer' I meant a drafter who copies my sketches without adding meaningful value, other than aesthetics. As described by bpattengale; 'they draw what I scribble on the sheet'.

 

[cksh]

For most of my 15 years in engineering, say about 13 years, I was resposible for my own CAD work. This included everything from modeling to detailing etc.

There had always been a very fine line between the designers and engineers.

My current employer has both designers and engineers. They do not allow one to do the others work. Our designers use catia, UG and autocad, while we use solidworks, and sometimes autocad, to check their work. We give them input on the design and let them fly. Then they might send the models to another less experienced group to detail.

It is not so bad if you have a good design group. But I spend more time, and watch my counterparts spending alot of time, checking over every dimension on the print, making corrections on tolerances, dimension locations etc. With CAD I could just dimension it on my own and be done faster. Same with some of the 2D changes. Do I really need to submit requests to a designer, have them change it, then their group checks it, so I can check it and have my group check it, for a lonely little part number change on a print? Does frustrate me once in a while.

Models are another story. I don't know how valuable my time would be cleaning them up...Adding draft, chamfers etc., but coming up with the basic shape would be quick and easy.

I guess I go back and forth on the issue since I came from drafting and can look at it from both sides.

But either way I hate detailing and creating prints. 13 years was enough for me.

 

[dcasto]

As a ChemE, I produce the process design using my simulator. I generate sizes of equipment during the simulation steps. I then take the process flow sheet and transfer to visio where I add enough information that the CAD guys can then add stuf like gauges, site glasses, control vales block and by-passes, ect.

 

[vc66]

At one of my previous jobs, there was an engineer who was my "mentor".

He basically instilled in me the notion that a good designer (taken to mean, one who can take a concept to model then to drawing) is invaluable.

He had a designer, who was the best I've ever seen. The guy could take a lump of sh*t, and turn it into gold. Made his life that much easier.

Today, I have designer who works for me. Best investment I've ever made to my business.

Good designers are very hard to come by, so if you find one treat him/her well.

V

 

[ewh]

cksh,
How do you check a Catia or UG drawing/model on SolidWorks? Or are you just checking form as opposed to modeling practice? A well modeled part reaps benefits for the life of the product, while a poorly modeled one may require much more effort every time it is revised.

"Good to know you got shoes to wear when you find the floor." - [small]Robert Hunter[/small]

 

[desnov74]

I like PEDARRIN2 am in the building industry.

Personally, I recently have been exposed to revit, for electro-mechanical building systems. I am not particularly happy with it for several reasons:

1)What is the point of modelling an entire building? It seems to me to be a waste of time. It produces a SIM-CITY level of quality/detail, it does not offer the efficiency it promises. It has value when designing a cramped space like a machine room. But it seems to add more unecessary design hours. We do not build buildings like machine parts.

2)It is way to taxing on the computer systems. Too huge a capital investment is required to make the system work. I think the push is driven by AUTOdesk and larger AE firms, knowing that they can drive smaller firms out. I heard of an Revit sales person, tell a business owner, that there would be zero RFI's on construction jobs, if they hired firms that used REVIT (What the $%^&!!!!!)

3) From a training pedagogical point of view it will be a disaster.The quality of engineers will continue to drop. You can not learn engineering video game style.

Prints in the field are in 2-d. They need dimentions, useful notes, and accurate details.

 

[PEDARRIN2]

desnov74

I disagree with some of your points.

1. The point of modeling the whole building is to get a 3d view of the building, including the PME portions. This 3d model is invaluable when the contractors have to make their coordination drawings.

More and more contractors are going to be required to coordinate their installations with 3d software. It makes it simpler if the engineer has already constructed a 3d model.

When we used 2d software, design coordination was more difficult. You would have to create your own sections from the plans to see how things looked in section. If you need several sections, that took a lot of time. If something moved, it might require you make a whole new section. With revit, it is just a couple key strokes and you have a section. If something changes in the plan, it automatically changes in the section.

2. It is taxing on the computer systems, if all you were using was 2d cad. And yes, smaller firms will likely not be able to deal with the support issues that Revit requires. But with more and more emphasis being placed on BIM, the need for 3d models with "real" pieces of equipment in them is not going to go away.

The claim that there would be zero RFI's is stretching it, but with a 3d model, the amount of coordination RFI's drops significantly because you can do interference checks to make sure your piping is not running down the same space as a piece of ductwork.

3. I think it will be a good training exercise for the newer engineers and also the ex-line jockies who want to grow. I know from experience that younger engineers tend to never get out into the field. They don't know how things fit. A plumbing chase behind a toilet room full of lines and squiggles in 2d looks good. Put the same thing in Revit and it doesn't fit as well. A line on a drawing is only that - but a 4" pipe in Revit won't fit in a 2x4 stud wall. Revit also helps you to see you can run a sloped pipe above the ceiling only so far before you either have to drop to the floor or you will be below the ceiling. From experience it is no fun getting the RFI stating that your pipe run is below the ceiling.

We recently had a multi story project where the PME team knew up front the structure was going to be in the way. The structural engineer knew the PME was going to need beam penetrations. Revit helped incredibly with locating and determining the elevations and distances from columns these penetrations were to be placed. It could happen with 2d cad but it would have taken a lot longer. Revit also helped incredibly to allow me to determine I did not need beam penetrations for my sloping drainage piping. Again, it could happen in 2d, but not as quick.

Since you are electrical, you probably still do a lot of your design in a schematic nature and only show conduit above a certain size. Revit is not as beneficial for that.

Prints in the field are 2d, but the building is not. A design tool that enables everybody to design in 3 dimensions is indispensible.

 

[desnov74]

PEDARRIN2

Some good points, but for building construction I still don't see the point. Primarily because coordination still has to occur. I just don't see the 3-d drawing done by the engineering improving that step. I just find that too much time is taken on the Revit maintenance and not enough on the engineering. Communication, between all parties is whats needed. In the field a set of prints, with notes, dimensions, and a good set of specs is needed; Not a 3-D cad work station.

However, you mentioned BIM. The way engineering is done is going to change because of the philosophy. So, like it or not, we got to just deal with it.

 

[PEDARRIN2]

desnov74

I agree that coordination still has to take place. But if I can create a 3d model for the contractors to use, the amount of time it takes to coordinate is reduced. If their coordination time is reduced, then the time I have to spend responding to RFIs about conflicts is minimized.

I will agree that if the contractors are not going to use 3d for their coordination - the benefits are less. Also, 3d software would likely not be useful in smaller buildings where the PME is light or in renovations where putting the existing into the model takes longer than the new work. 2d will still be used for awhile, in my opinion.

Using 3d will require more design time up front, but it will more than offset the extra in the minimal amount of construction admin time (for coordination). Our company has seen this to be true.

I had another project - a two storey lab project where - again, the structural was a problem. There was a beam under about every wall and there was cross bracing in about every wall. So bringing up utilites to the 2nd floor lab equipment was a nightmare. And trying to get vents up and drains down was interesting. In 3d, it all worked. If I had been required to use 2d, I would still be working on the plans.

The contractors were required to have 3d capabiility - didn't have to be Revit. The CM took our model and gave it to the contractors to produce coordination drawings for the field work. I saw the final coordination model and it had all the hangers, supports - which our model didn't have. The contractors had access to both views - they had their plans in the field and they could come to the office trailer to see how it all fit in 3d.

I only had one coordination RFI and that was due to a field change in the structural. It took me about 2 minutes to tell the contractor what he needed to revise.

But to the point of the thread - use of drafters (those who just take mark ups and put lines on the drawings) will not be advantageous. They need to know how to route piping. A good designer or a less experienced engineer is required for this.

 

[drawoh]

Hurricanes,

I am an engineering technologist with a three year diploma. I do design on CAD, and I produce all my drawings including fabrication ones. Some people where I work feed their 3D[ ]models to drafters, but I do not see this would save me much time. Even in the old days on a drafting board, I figure I spent less than ten percent of my time on fabrication drawings.

I figure that the number one problem with 3D[ ]CAD like SolidWorks is that companies are hiring CAD[ ]operators. AutoCAD is a draftng tool. SolidWorks is a design tool. If the actual SolidWorks design is done in pencil on 1/4"[ ]grid paper, you are wasting thousands of dollars worth of capability.

If mechanical or industrical design is to be done, the person sitting in front of a SolidWorks (ProE, SolidEdge?) station ought be a designer. They should have the intelligence, technical background and trustworthiness to solve problems and make decisions.

There are dozens of ways to generate any 3D[ ]model. How you do it depends on what sort of design you are doing, how you plan to be able to change stuff, how you make decisions, and how you plan to generate production documentation. Most of the really awful CAD[ ]models I have seen have been generated by people who either did not understand or care about all of this context.

How many people here have gone into AutoCAD drawings and found that someone has exploded the dimensions and re-typed the text? For that matter, has anyone here ever found that someone modified a dimension on a SolidWorks drawing by replacing <DIM> with the new dimension value?

JHG

 

[FeX32]

Seen both of those. What a big wast of time. What is that person thinking exploding the dwg.
We should explode their desks.
On another note, in the research area I don't do much CAD anymore. I use it for diagrams, and the occasional design.


Fe

 

[cksh]

ewh,

Our designers export a parasolid from UG that we pull into solidworks. Works pretty good. Not sure how we do the Catia. Haven't had to pull in any of those models yet since it is for old programs we are done with.

With drawings I am stuck with printing them out. But I prefer that to the screen anyways. They usually send us cgm files which are pretty nice. I imagine there might be a way to import the drawing into solidworks but I have not figured out how.