List Reborn

Hello All,

Just to keep you up to date, the pipingdesign list has been trimmed from about 1500 to around 850 members - Mr. Wright is now looking after the subscribe requests and is being notoriously diligent.

I recently had an offline email exchange with a group member and he gave permission to post his edited comments, so it's reproduced below (I've only edited out personal information, per his request). Some of his comments are in reply to my questions, so you'll have to read between the lines.

What he has to say is definitely not boring, especially for those of you that have suffered through the drafting board to 2D CAD to 3D CAD "industry transformation".

Paul

Just turned 50; last week in fact. Good stuff, half a century. Now I can officially join all the clubs: "Dirty Old Man", "Old Farts", and "Over The Hill". And the best part is that I've already paid my dues.

I'm not sure if I did what you think I did or not, but if you're thinking I went back to basics, you'd be right. When I say "old 2D guy" I really meant "manual drafting", which is of course the old 2D way. Funny how you get used to using different terms in this computer age. Sorry for any confusion. Anyway, like all of us who've been working in piping for the last couple of decades or more, I progressed from manual into working with 2D CAD firstly, followed by 3D CAD. Never made total sense to me that the new age drafters would keep working in the same drawing file from study through to finished product. Let me explain, and I hope I'm not going to bore you here. I really do feel strongly about this. I also apologize for preaching to the converted, but you did ask, so there!

Back in the "good old days" I was taught to study my area before I started on the "to-be" final drawing. Why was that (rhetorical question of course)?

First stage: Run a blueprint of the plot plan and do a transposition. Transposition; not a word I hear very often now. This was my first run at proving out the plot and firming up the equipment locations. Are there lines coming back on themselves? Well let's switch these two pieces of equipment around. Do I have some large diameter, alloy
(expensive), maybe even high temp and traced, lines that can be
shortened? Let's see, if I move this over here and this here, that'll shorten 'em. And so on. Have a few discussions with my Squady and the Process Engineer, (get in shit for taking too long) and we'd have a close to finished arrangement.

Second stage: Off I went and cut a drawing size sheet from a role of velum. With preliminary vendor data in hand and a set of P&IDs I'd start my study. Place the equipment and start running lines. Now I'm into the real thing: exactly positioning equipment, establishing building sizes, proving out sub-rack widths and elevations, positioning lines, positioning control valves and flow meters, positioning nozzles, investigating platform requirements, getting preliminary stress analysis done on the major lines, etc., etc. I might cut a new sheet off of that vellum role two or three times, (and get more shit for taking too long), but when I started on the mylar drawing I not only had a good arrangement, but I'd also established how I was going to detail this. I knew where my elevation and section cuts were needed and how many D size drawings it would take.

Third stage: Get the mylar drawing sheet out. With plastic leads, eraser, and, by now, some firm vendor data and updated P&IDs in hand away we go. Was this now just an exercise of creating a pretty drawing. Not quite, but it was darn close. Did things change? Of course. That horizontal pump you were told would be front-side, comes in as top-top. Bloody hell! Process change a line from 8" to 10". That control valve size changed. So you adjusted and you progressed, but by this time you had an excellent handle on your area, and the impact of any changes. Cause for discussion with your squady (and Project Engineer) before you made the changes and got even more shit for taking too long.

My point here is that at least 50%, maybe 60% of you time was in first and second stages. This study exercise set you up with a vast knowledge of your area, able to move fairly quickly through the final drawing stage, if there weren't too many changes. As an aside comment, people thought long and hard at this stage before making a change. Project Engineers appreciated the impact of erasing and redrawing.

So, into 2D CAD. The world changed. To this day I have many a debate in the pub, and I still haven't quite put my finger on it. But, for certain there were several significant shifts: Once a drawing file has been created, continue it through to completion, and because this is CAD anybody can work on it. No fears of the individual drafting styles messing up the look. Another was the acceptance of Project Engineers straight out of university. A younger generation of degree holders somewhat disrespectful at times in their attitude and lacking in understanding of orderly project execution. Call me old fashioned, but I never grasped the concept of "fast track" and "just in time" engineering. Piping as a discipline lost some authority. The non-degreed tech's were too often looked upon as a "drafting service". The idea that a drawing should be blown away after the study and started again just didn't fly. What sort of brainless twat would make that suggestion? In fact there was no study stage anymore, just a muddied water of design and change, and drawing file manipulation followed by more change and manipulation. Then checking (with lots of blood), then the hunt for whom ever was available for back drafting. The net result: loss of ownership, loss of learning from one's own mistakes, poor presentation, i.e. too much information in a single plan or section making it difficult to read. Too many sections, and bad dimensioning practices. Another aside comment: Why don't the younger designers know how to dimension? I see far too much double dimensioning, and one that really irritates me is dimensioning from a match line.

Now, don't get me wrong, I've worked with some very excellent younger engineers and designers who appreciate the old guy's grey hair, but I've also had to explain my hours to PE's who have no control on their project.

I'm getting on my soapbox here, aren't I? (Calm down Richard, calm down). I'm speaking in generalizations of course, not by any means intending to tar everyone with the same brush.

Exposure to the new world and plain old logic told me that constant manipulation of a drawing file was taking longer than getting your thinking straight first, before moving forward. Many discussions (in the pub) had me convinced that our industry lost it's way, that we did far too much shooting from the hip. We'd become reactive rather than proactive. 3D, while interesting and in many ways fascinating, and I can now say an excellent tool, didn't in itself seem the answer to me.

[...]

At this time I was a novice to using 3D for design, but I decided not to break with these two principles. My first principle was respect for the individuals on my squad. I did not bounce people around. The designers started and finished an area. The checking has changed with 3D. It is more of an ongoing process now, but I made sure that it was theirs from beginning to end, including generating their own iso's. My second principle was to study before going into detail. Call it a perception; I believe manipulation takes more time than redrafting. We did the previously mentioned first and second stages in the model. Froze it, x-ref'd it and started a new detailed model. Things weren't trouble free, however the problems were more CAD related. I really felt that if manipulating a 2D CAD drawing file didn't work well, then manipulation of a 3D data base model could only be worse. Plus I'd heard enough stories of corrupted data bases and problems with iso generation. Our clash detection was minimal and iso production almost trouble free (so I'm told by those on my squad with previous 3D experience). Were my principles on their own a deciding factor? Not entirely, but I think this is the right track. To be clear, I was extremely lucky to be able to assemble just an amazing group of people, including two squad leaders with 3D experience who I could bounce ideas of off, and who helped me in decision making.

I know that there is more than one way to skin a cat, and by hook or by crook, by tenacity and hard work, all projects get done. Our project did come in on time and on budget, and while that's not definitive proof
(many projects do), the team firmly believes we did the right thing.
Received on Sun Oct 16 21:00:00 2005