Industry sources estimate there are half a million people involved in the plant sector who use a popular generic computer aided design (CAD) software, at least occasionally, and that this represents approximately 89% of the

industry’s CAD users. So, one may conclude there are up to 560 000 individuals involved in some aspect of piping and plant design that use a CAD program.

For several years, there has been a trend toward 3D for plant design, yet the vast majority involved still use 2D. With 3D considered superior to 2D by its users, why has it not swept away the latter altogether given changes in communications, technology, society and the world economy? There may be several underlying causes.

Diverse company types and sizesThe plant design market can be segmented by type and size of company, location, industry, type of application, type of user and various other criteria. Companies that use CAD programs for plant design include owners and operators of facilities that are independently or publicly owned such as Shell, ExxonMobil and BP, as well as companies that primarily own and operate facilities for downstream hydrocarbon processing. Companies in the owner/operator category may also be directly or indirectly controlled by central governments, such as China’s Sinopec. Most of these

Gary Carson, Equamark Inc., USA, discusses the advances in communications, technology

and society that present potential game changers in the plant design sector.

| HyDrocarbonEnginEEring | Reprinted from January 2011

owner/operator companies also use some type of 3D CAD and all will use 2D within some work groups.

Large engineering, procurement and construction (EPC) firms that provide engineering, design and construction services for owner/operator companies all use some type of 3D CAD software for plant design, and some may still use 2D in certain groups and/or for specific tasks.

The most extensive category involved in the use of CAD for plant design is engineering firms that perform subcontracting work for the EPC firms or for owner/operator companies. This is where much of the design and engineering work is actually performed. Some in this category may still be using primarily or exclusively 2D. Conversely, others have adopted 3D with enthusiasm.

2D in the plant design sectorA majority of those involved in CAD in the plant design sector work in 2D. They may be involved in designing piping, steel/structural and diagramming processes and instrumentations, electrical systems, and other schematics as part of plant facilities. Many are content with their familiar 2D CAD programs and see no reason to graduate to 3D CAD for plant design.

The case for 2DA major advantage of 2D is its relatively low cost. Many smaller subcontractors hired to do portions of the work on large, enterprise and grassroots projects do not have access to comprehensive 3D enterprise solutions, nor do they have the budget to implement them. Many have not yet implemented the more affordable 3D solutions that have gained popularity in recent years, so they use 2D to provide the required deliverables. Others using 2D are in work groups doing specific tasks for which 2D is considered sufficient. The user’s familiarity with 2D systems is a major factor in their continued use. Most know how to use these systems and have adapted them to serve most of their needs.

A disadvantage of 2D is that the design of anything sophisticated or complex is more challenging. Another is that most 2D packages lack intelligence. These are ‘dumb’ programs, meaning the associated data are separate and not contained in the drawing. This results in

multiple updates being required to various data any time a design change is made. In addition, with 2D CAD there is no way to view a finished facility or installation as a model. Only an experienced designer can visualise the finished facility from a 2D drawing.

This ultimately means reviews and approvals take longer and are less likely to identify potential problems with the design. As a rule, 2D programs lack integration and collaboration with other disciplines involved in design, project management, and engineering analysis because they do not share a 3D, or physical world. This further slows down the design and completion of the project, increasing the associated costs.

The case for 3D3D plant design programs boast a considerable advantage over 2D because they provide plant design deliverables that are fully intelligent. Models, drawings and other deliverables incorporate complete, accurate and consistent data, and the systems keep everything in synch. This intelligence saves time and increases efficiencies. In the domain of the large EPC firms developing mega projects, the leading 3D solutions are Intergraph® SmartPlant and AVEVA® PDMS®.

Today, the benefits of 3D design are no longer limited to the large EPCs using the top plant design solutions. As mentioned, most of the plant design community use basic CAD platforms such as Autodesk AutoCAD® and Bentley MicroStation®. For them, leaving their chosen platform is not an option, and whatever is selected must be able to leverage the investment in knowledge and money that these smaller companies and workgroups have made using these platforms.

One solution that bridges this gap is the Intergraph CADWorx® Plant Design Suite. It is easy to learn and use for most because it is AutoCAD based. Users have reported becoming fully productive within days, not months, developing accurate 3D models of the facility or installation at each stage for the various stakeholders to review. This makes approvals faster as it is clear how the finished facility will look and fit together. Users can also identify potential errors and clashes.

More importantly, the CADWorx program also provides the unique advantage of integration between plant design and engineering pipe

Figure 1. Arya Engineers & Contractors, Pvt. Ltd., india, specialises in detailed piping engineering services, and has seen a 50% improvement in efficiency by leveraging the 3D capabilities of intergraph CADWorx Plant Professional.

Reprinted from January 2011 | HyDrocarbonEnginEEring |

stress analysis and pressure vessel analysis software (Intergraph CAESAR II® and PV Elite™, respectively). Designers and engineers can share information at every stage, working in collaboration. This integration ensures greater accuracy, eliminates errors, reduces rework and streamlines the entire design process. This saves man hours and expenses, and produces a better design for stakeholders. Users have reported exceptional results with these solutions and an overall pleasant design process.

A disadvantage of 3D plant design for some is that of perception. A number of people involved in plant design remember early attempts at using more complicated 3D software that required a lot of time to learn and set up in order to become productive. Because of the overheads involved, they never saw the economies of scale that larger EPC firms were able to realise. This led some to abandon these promising tools and go back to the familiar 2D programs they had used in the past.

Those who try the new, user friendly CAD platform based programs have been pleasantly surprised and are reaping the rewards of better quality deliverables that are created more quickly and accurately than ever before.

The case for enterprise 3DEnterprise level 3D plant creation and management solutions are designed for large capital projects, linking hundreds of designers and engineers from multiple global locations. These are discussed separately because they tend to be used primarily by larger companies for grassroots and greenfield projects, and they have their own software platforms designed for these types of projects.

These enterprise level 3D programs are rules based, with the project manager establishing rules and various other parameters unique to the project requirements prior to start of engineering and design work. These rules are needed because there may be hundreds

of people from various disciplines dispersed around the world all working on the same project or on components and installations that will go into the facility. Everything must fit once construction and assembly begins.

These parameters ensure integrity of the design on mega projects, an advantage considered necessary because any error could have a profound impact in other areas and would be expensive to correct later in the process. This is vital as projects can cost hundreds of millions of dollars. Enterprise 3D programs provide a comprehensive range of software tools and capabilities, and can handle the demands in processing capabilities and data integrity associated with projects involving a global network of users and hundreds or thousands of drawings, documents, and databases.

A disadvantage of these large project solutions is price. They are comprehensive solutions that are more expensive to purchase and implement, in part due to the hardware and related systems required when hundreds of users require access. They are often beyond the budget of small and medium size firms. They also take longer to set up and begin to use because rules have to first be established. Thus this major advantage for mega size projects can also be a disadvantage.

Green minds, grey toolsAs older designers and engineers retire, they are increasingly being replaced by young engineers with less knowledge and experience. Even though these ‘green’ designers and engineers have been nurtured on a 3D world of video graphics and games, they are often forced to use the legacy tools and forms of expression that their forebearers have just managed to master. In the design world these tools are often no more than electronic versions of drafting boards and pencils where the focus is to output a set of standardised drawings that only become useful when printed on paper for viewing.

The problem is that so many practices, procedures and methods in design offices endure because they are the methods with which people are familiar. Consider sections and elevations in the 3D modelling world. It is undeniable that they are useful, and the information derived from them can be put to effective use. However, the amount of detail placed into sections and elevations are out of proportion to the benefits they deliver. In the 2D world, designers needed such detail so that they could produce fabrication isometrics and accurate bills of materials (BOMs). Because current 3D plant systems create fabrication isometrics and generate BOMs automatically, such detail is not required and is in fact a waste of the designer and the company's time.

The future of caDEconomic growth in developing parts of the world brings with it greater demand for energy and goods. This increases the need for facilities that require design and engineering support that in turn need CAD and other design and engineering tools. Global industrial expansion translates to global use of these solutions. Relaxation of centrally planned economies in Asia, especially China, and educational and industrial expansion in India and other regions have led to further industrial expansion, with resulting expansion of engineering and design needs. These needs include CAD solutions.

Expanding technology and communicationsAdvances in and increasing adoption of technology, such as faster and more distributed processing, greater integration capabilities, expanded internet access, and the growth of mobile communications are major contributors to the expansion of CAD usage in the plant design sector. The rapid expansion of the world wide web and internet access have made information accessible virtually anywhere in the world while the decreasing cost of advanced technologies and mobile

Figure 3. Pipe support modelling was easer and more accurate due to bidirectional links between plant design and pipe stress analysis packages.

Figure 2. By fully embracing 3D technology the 20 person team of Collaborated Engineering Design Office, Ltd., South Africa, was able to produce over 6500 piping isometrics from over 3000 lines, on time and under budget.

| HyDrocarbonEnginEEring | Reprinted from January 2011

communications place these systems within the reach of most players in the CAD industry, even at the smallest and most remotely located firms. CAD in the plant design sector is no longer the exclusive domain of centralised engineering and design offices. It is now global.

More integration and collaborationOne of the most important advances in 3D plant design solutions is in integration. The leader in this trend remains the Intergraph CADWorx Plant Design Suite, which shares information back and forth with the company’s engineering analysis programs. By allowing engineers and designers to collaborate at each step, this saves time and expense for all stakeholders.

This integration and collaboration has changed the way designers and engineers work together and produced major improvements in efficiencies, cutting man hours by more than half. In 3D CAD systems for plant design, we expect to see other developers work toward more integration and collaboration between plant design and engineering.

The integration will not stop there. At its recent CADWorx University conference in Houston, USA, Intergraph showed attendees a new capability of linking CADWorx output into Intergraph SmartPlant® Enterprise 3D designs to allow for greater and more efficient coordination and design of larger projects.

The link should allow smaller subcontractors doing project work as part of a larger installation to have their CADWorx models intelligently referenced inside of SmartPlant 3D mega projects. Others are expected to work toward emulating more of this type of integration and collaboration.

Greater intelligence and intuitive capabilitiesToday’s CAD programs for plant design provide high levels of intelligence. They can manage comprehensive types of data and keep everything properly associated, stored and managed. They are also providing more artificial intelligence with intuitive capabilities, and can solve problems for users that in the past would have required the knowledge of a seasoned designer or engineer. This development trend will become even more important with so many new engineers and designers entering the workforce.

More built in knowledge Software developers in the CAD sector are building in more knowledge, a trend with all types of software. This knowledge makes use of the software easier, more foolproof, and more efficient. This built in knowledge will help younger, less experienced designers and engineers become productive much more quickly as they replace the more experienced designers and engineers who are retiring.

The trend toward greater knowledge will become absolutely essential to the industry if it is to maintain its productivity. This built in knowledge may also help address the challenges associated with a more diverse workforce, as people from multiple languages and cultures interface on the same project. If these systems contain the knowledge normally associated with years of experience on the job, this will help the industry maintain efficiencies and high levels of productivity.

The real world case for 3D in australiaTo meet increasing fuel demands in New South Wales, Australia, Sydney Ports Corporation undertook a project to double its container port facilities at Port Botany. With a target completion in 2011, the expansion is one of the largest port projects to be undertaken in the country. Vopak Sydney Terminals Pty Ltd., operator of the bulk liquids storage facility at Port Botany, selected Bilfinger Berger Services Pty Ltd (BBS), for engineering and design for the new container port for the facility. BBS had recently lost several experienced drafters in quick succession and felt that their existing CAD system was inadequate for such a project, so the company decided on the Intergraph CADWorx Plant Design Suite. The software allowed BBS to automate piping isometric drawings, extracting service information from the piping database. This made the whole process easier and faster and eliminated checking.

Figure 4. Whether created manually or automatically, as this piping isometric was using iSOgEn® from Alias, Ltd., 2D output remains an important design deliverable.

Figure 5. it would be hard to tell if this general arrangement was generated from a 3D model or created wholly in 2D. Unlike purely 2D output, deliverables created from the 3D model can be automatically updated as changes occur.

Reprinted from January 2011 | HyDrocarbonEnginEEring |

CADWorx Design Review allowed stakeholders to easily review the 3D models at each stage to ensure the accuracy of the design. Overall, CADWorx saved an estimated 60% compared to previous methods.

The real world case for 3D in South africa Collaborated Engineering Design Office Ltd. (CEDO), Johannesburg, South Africa, was hired to produce documentation, including design and cost estimating for one of the largest gas processing plants ever built in South Africa, with a capacity of 250 000 tpy. The client provided CEDO with basic product flow and 2D diagrams related to its licensed processes from Randall Gas and PDH, USA. CEDO provided technical engineering and services that incorporated the design of interconnecting piping, equipment and waste services, including all isometric drawings. Due to seemingly impossible deadlines combined with the project’s scope, they selected Intergraph CADWorx Plant Professional as their best option and for controlling project flow. CEDO generated mechanical, piping, civil and structural layouts in 3D, ensuring a smooth project flow. Since the program allowed them to constantly check for interferences and clashes in the model, the advantages carry over to the construction phase and CEDO completed the piping design and produced all of the mechanical, piping, civil and structural design layouts. Automatically generating isometric drawings with full bills of material saved them many hours. They generated 6500 automatic piping isometric drawings for more than 3000 lines, a full set of mechanical design drawings for all plant vessels plus all the required layouts and other deliverables. Even with a constant increase in the scope of work during the project, they produced more than 10 000 documents with accurate design information in only six months, a task that would have normally required 10 months or longer.

conclusionWhile the argument can be made that all CAD users should move to 3D for the advantages described, there are some who are served satisfactorily by their current 2D packages. If this is the situation, then there is no urgency to change. Even a basic 2D program can do drawings and diagrams if automation of other deliverables is not required and there are no associated databases to include and manage.

If more is expected, then the 2D system will need a degree of intelligence and automation tools, plus the ability to manage associated databases and other information. For most, this would suggest a move to 3D with one of the more affordable programs being the most obvious option. Many of those using a ‘dumb’ 2D CAD program could benefit from the advantages of intelligent 3D plant design with minimal investment. Those who have done so report positive outcomes and now wonder why they waited.

If an engineering firm or owner/operator is tasked with a large project, they may consider an enterprise level 3D plant design solution if they have not already implemented such a program. This is especially important if there are a large number of users or if the project is large or complex where optimum control is required. Most involved in overseeing mega projects are already using some type of enterprise 3D program.

Some large EPC firms and owner/operator companies using an enterprise level 3D solution, such as SmartPlant may also consider a program like CADWorx as a user friendly, affordable and complementary tool for designing installations and facilities that are part of a mega project or to design installations for retrofitting into existing facilities. That would provide the best of both worlds.