Piping plan drawings usability 2

[McDermott1711]

Hi everyone,
I asked from one of field engineer friend, what do you do with piping plan, and he said: "normally nothing, we work mostly with 3D model and isometric drawings".

But I think working with piping plan is very easier in terms of setting pipe supports, especially on sleepers than using piping isometric.

I should be grateful if experienced people here share their use of piping plan drawings in execution of piping in plants.

Nothing is more fairly distributed than common sense: no one thinks he needs more of it than he already has. Rene Descartes

 

[MickMc]

There are a few different opinions on this which have been discussed in several forums here and elsewhere. Originally pre-3D Model GA was developed first and from there piping isometrics which in a 3D environment is no longer the case as isometrics generated from Model but most clients will still insist on GA being produced. IMO the GA is still a useful tool during construction as everyone does not have access to the Model or the training to use it and the GA will give a better overview of where your pipe/equipment/support is located in relation to other equipment/structure etc than an Iso would but I would favour more basic type GA limiting the information currently required and time consuming.

 

[mk3223]

IMHO, there is a cost to maintain the 3D program after the plant built. The piping plan may be a cheap option for operation for the future engineering reference. The use of the 3D model and iso's drawings are focused in the design and construction phases.

 

[Gator]

"IMHO, there is a cost to maintain the 3D program after the plant built"

Some 3D software vendors are trying to sell the notion of using the 3D model as a form of ongoing documentation of operating facilities throughout their lifespans. Considering that competently created and verified as-built drawings are usually one of the first things cut from budgets, I have to wonder how realistic this concept is.

 

[KevinNZ]

We design and build above ground pipelines and isometric drawing are useless in showing where support etc. are located. We still draw in 3D but only print pipe plans and detailed in tables where the supports and bend are located.

 

[DGrayPPD]

I have posted a similar question in the past. You can see some of the responses I garnered here...

http://www.eng-tips.com/viewthread.cfm?qid=420710

We still produce piping plans, but they can still be a potential source for reducing cost if the client is okay with a 3D model and the contractors have a means to reference the model as needed. However, this is not always feasible.

 

[McDermott1711]

Thanks DGrayPPD for your link. As I read the content, it seems that for those (large) projects that have isometric DWGs, piping plan is used to have an understanding of lines and equipment configuration with regard to each other. On the other hand,I've heard that putting annotations on piping plan drawings is taking place automatically by software. This causes a lot of unnecessary dimensions appear on the drawings with future time and cost on inspection.
Are agree with me that dimensions is not necessary for piping plans, and only tagging as well as coordination for pipe supports shall be put in the drawings?

Nothing is more fairly distributed than common sense: no one thinks he needs more of it than he already has. Rene Descartes

 

[DGrayPPD]

I agree that piping plans should be minimally dimensioned, and that tagging should be used to coordinate the relationship between all piping, equipment, structures, etc. to the contractor. Full dimensioning should be left to the isometrics.

 

[MFJewell]

From a plant engineering perspective, I LOVE have piping plans available when performing modifications or troubleshooting issues. From the design/build perspective, you can probably live without them, but I have found them to be very useful to send to people that need information on a project as it conveys a good amount of information on a single drawing.

 

[Bernoulli31]

I guess it depends on the client and whether he's willing to pay for a 3D model. In my industry, everything is done using BIM, except on small projects that wouldn't justify the costs for a BIM modeler.

Imo, GA drawings will go the way of the 3.5 mm audio jack on phones. Still very needed, but sooner or later all the phones will be without.

I design aqueducts in a parallel universe.

 

[Gator]

"I guess it depends on the client and whether he's willing to pay for a 3D model. In my industry, everything is done using BIM "

BIM is not a term used in the process piping industry (although you could make a claim that "BIM" has been used in that industry since the early PDMS days; it just wasn't called "BIM". Or is my interpretation of BIM wrong?).

I haven't seen a process plant project that *didn't* use a 3D model in at least ten years. Are you referring to building plumbing?

 

[Bernoulli31]

Interesting. BIM is all over the place in high technology facilities, e.g. semiconductors, photovoltaic,.. We have BIM designers, BIM coordinators, etc.
Process piping: gases, chems, cooling water, clean dry air,...



I design aqueducts in a parallel universe.

 

[Gator]

Ah, I see. I'm referring to facilities that "make" those fluids, not facilities that just *use* those fluids. They typically are of much larger scale than the types of users you mention.