ive got no argument on this one except for the last paragraph. in our place
we dont practice "design that states that it must be inaccordance with
manufacturers instructions.". and i have not come across of any plant
specification or guide to the same effect. what we say is "design shall be
inaccordance with the Codes and Project Specification". However we do
operate the equipment in accordance with manufacturer instructions. Not only
becuase they built that sucker, but also because of the performance warranty
that goes with it.
-----Original Message-----
From: <a href="/group/PipingDesign/post?postID=2Cq2W5P6WFhiO40WgYc3cvjiIGd02mdZMBZeiCJvCAecYUZodmIdEB1zMy3XXvP-TWWtiSx2DiD_RYUgQM-JHMacoOc">geoff.stone@lendlease.com.au</a> [mailto:<a href="/group/PipingDesign/post?postID=2Cq2W5P6WFhiO40WgYc3cvjiIGd02mdZMBZeiCJvCAecYUZodmIdEB1zMy3XXvP-TWWtiSx2DiD_RYUgQM-JHMacoOc">geoff.stone@lendlease.com.au</a>]
Sent: 27 May, 2001 7:50 AM
To: <a href="/group/PipingDesign/post?postID=8FtfUGZyn03HGTpurq_mOR_h0Mzwf-VyDysX9boY-6RPXp_O2eNMiPE7e_zdJyvZTrlsVte1q_Y3W0wYUGbludro">PipingDesign@yahoogroups.com</a>
Subject: RE: [PipingDesign] P&ID
I think that when things were designed by T Square and slide rule design
required far more people. Checking was far more thorough than it is today.
Because there were larger engineering offices there was room for
"seniority".
You know those old grey balding sods who had lived through years of their
own or
other peoples mistakes. The lesser lights were left as "iso bashers" whilst
the
brighter draftsmen progressed to become design draftsmen or checkers once
they
had sufficient experience. The same occurred for engineers. There enough
people
around so that if you didnt cut the mustard you were relegated.
I am afraid these days the accountants have got it in their head that to pay
for
all the high tech computers & software they can cut down the staff numbers.
With
the cost cutting goes the whole culture of "seniority". I understand that
computerisation allows a greater in depth analysis of a problem as what if
scenarios can be reviewed far more quickly. However if the original premise
is
wrong you just end up with far more alternative rubbish solutions.
Computerisation does allow efficient transfer of data between applications
and
this rules out repetitve human error. Thus it is to be applauded.
The focus these days appears to be on quality assurance and not quality
control.
So rather than having experienced people checking for the quality of the
design,
fabrication, installation or operation we have people checking that a piece
of
paper has been signed off. All that guarantees is that mistakes will be made
and
the mistake will be consistent with the first time it occurred.
Rather than promoting the idea of throwing out the computers I recognise the
benefits of these wonderful tools. Its just the quantity and quality of
people
we need to make sure the design is conceptually correct and that the detail
is
checked.
One of my pet hates is the design that states that it must be inaccordance
with
manufacturers instructions. This to me shows pure ignorance on the part of
the
designer. If the engineer cannot interpret the requirements of a particular
piece of equipment and specify same in a generic fashion he should go sell
newspapers for a living. Thsi particular method of risk aversion is just
avoiding one's own responsibilities as a designer..
"SARE, RALPH H." <SARERH@YANPET.SABIC.com> on 27/05/2001 14:29:26
Please respond to <a href="/group/PipingDesign/post?postID=8FtfUGZyn03HGTpurq_mOR_h0Mzwf-VyDysX9boY-6RPXp_O2eNMiPE7e_zdJyvZTrlsVte1q_Y3W0wYUGbludro">PipingDesign@yahoogroups.com</a>
To: "'PipingDesign@yahoogroups.com'" <PipingDesign@yahoogroups.com> cc:
Subject: RE: [PipingDesign] P&ID
will it make it better if it was design using a slide rule and t-square? the cnn and bbc report inidcated that there are lapses in the procedural compliance, inpsection and work control and management at Petrobas. Same thing happens in the Piper Alpha based on the video ive seen during one of our monthly safety meeting. In the same token, The Chevron Philips Chem Company has also taken a bad hit in their St. James Plant this year. Most of these incident happens not because they are design bad but rather they were operated bad.
if you're in the piping industry, the incident cited are almost always part of the safety orientation - use it and learn from the mistakes of others.
-----Original Message-----
From: <a href="/group/PipingDesign/post?postID=2Cq2W5P6WFhiO40WgYc3cvjiIGd02mdZMBZeiCJvCAecYUZodmIdEB1zMy3XXvP-TWWtiSx2DiD_RYUgQM-JHMacoOc">geoff.stone@lendlease.com.au</a> [mailto:<a href="/group/PipingDesign/post?postID=2Cq2W5P6WFhiO40WgYc3cvjiIGd02mdZMBZeiCJvCAecYUZodmIdEB1zMy3XXvP-TWWtiSx2DiD_RYUgQM-JHMacoOc">geoff.stone@lendlease.com.au</a>]
Sent: 27 May, 2001 1:45 AM
To: <a href="/group/PipingDesign/post?postID=8FtfUGZyn03HGTpurq_mOR_h0Mzwf-VyDysX9boY-6RPXp_O2eNMiPE7e_zdJyvZTrlsVte1q_Y3W0wYUGbludro">PipingDesign@yahoogroups.com</a>
Subject: RE: [PipingDesign] P&ID
Tell that to the dudes at Petrobas with their prized rig that keeled over
like a
dead warthog.
"SARE, RALPH H." <SARERH@YANPET.SABIC.com> on 26/05/2001 15:22:59
Please respond to <a href="/group/PipingDesign/post?postID=8FtfUGZyn03HGTpurq_mOR_h0Mzwf-VyDysX9boY-6RPXp_O2eNMiPE7e_zdJyvZTrlsVte1q_Y3W0wYUGbludro">PipingDesign@yahoogroups.com</a>
To: "'PipingDesign@yahoogroups.com'" <PipingDesign@yahoogroups.com> cc:
Subject: RE: [PipingDesign] P&ID
im one of the old guys. been invoved with piping since '76 when all you got is the slide rule, a tsquare, trinagle and scale and measuring tape. in a year or 2 i plan to do jsut that. the acronyms is not important it is the experience - fabircation, design, erection, testing, commissioning, welding, modification, repair.
it is now different paul. palnt are no longer being built the old fashioned way anymore. its built better, quicker and more reliable now.
-----Original Message-----
From: Paul Bowers [mailto:pbowers@pipingdesign.com]
Sent: 26 May, 2001 8:03 AM
To: <a href="/group/PipingDesign/post?postID=8FtfUGZyn03HGTpurq_mOR_h0Mzwf-VyDysX9boY-6RPXp_O2eNMiPE7e_zdJyvZTrlsVte1q_Y3W0wYUGbludro">PipingDesign@yahoogroups.com</a>
Subject: Re: [PipingDesign] P&ID
SARE makes a good point again.
I guess all we "old school guys" should just go out to pasture, since now the most important thing seems to be the understanding of acronyms.
One has to wonder how refineries were once built in the old days, though.
Paul
> not according to 29 CFR 1910. the rules has changed so much now.
not only
> must you be conversant with section 111 and xi,or with B31.1
/B31.3 or be
> familiar with microstation, AISC, FEA and caesar II but you have
to
> integrate all the info using the PDS and EDMS and be able to
migrate it
> seamlessly with SAP. After ISO 9001 and the PSM, now comes iso
14000 which
> will impact the way we specify valves. No im not trying to
impress u guys
> but the realty of the business in piping has leap in bounds. Its
not as
> simple as routing a line anymore.
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to <a href="http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/">http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/</a>
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to <a href="http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/">http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/</a>
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to <a href="http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/">http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/</a>
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to <a href="http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/">http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/</a>
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to <a href="http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/">http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/</a> Received on Sun May 27 01:26:00 2001
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Tue Mar 04 2008 - 11:40:11 EST