Numbering sequence
Thread Content
Similar problems encountered in the two projects. 1. Equipment number: There are multiple tanks in the tank area, some of which belong to the second phase; naturally, they are located at the edge of the tank area. When assigning numbers, the designers followed a specific coding rule to number the tanks, pipelines, and instruments. As a result, the tanks from the second phase were assigned the number xx01, while the other tanks were numbered sequentially thereafter. I asked them to change the numbering of those tanks from the second phase to a higher number, but they refused, saying that this did not violate the coding rules specified in the design. 2. For two devices, the pipeline numbers start from device number two; the pipeline numbers for the pipelines connected to device number one are assigned sequentially thereafter. Both of the numbers don’t seem to violate the coding rules specified in the design guidelines, but they look quite awkward. What reasoning can be used to convince them?
As long as it’s not repeated, that’s fine. 100X can be created in the first phase and 200X in the second phase
Since it won’t be changed, then create equipment lists for Phase 1 and Phase 2 to distinguish them.
The jars of phase two are around 1001, while the rest of those from phase one are numbered 1002 and below.
We have a unified design, and it’s possible that the owner won’t install the equipment for phase two.
I understand what you mean, but if the designers refuse to cooperate and don’t listen, then this is the only way to get things sorted out. What else can we do? Go to their boss and ask them to suppress it?
I’m the reviewer; I originally thought it was a natural thing. I didn’t expect to run into such an stubborn person; I couldn’t think of any reason to persuade him at first.
When you start doing it, defining things clearly will make things much easier; making changes later on might be troublesome, as no one wants to put in extra effort. Is that okay for the project manager?
In fact, regarding numbering, in addition to having unified regulations, two other points need to be taken into account: 1. The numbering sequence for equipment, processes, and instruments should be basically consistent. 2. There must be a certain order to ensure that the total of the assigned numbers is as small as possible. Of course, except for those projects that require blank spaces due to incomplete information.
You’re professional, so you obviously know this, but these days there are more and more young people, and the generation gap is becoming increasingly apparent. There are certain things that we can’t understand or communicate about. If we try to teach them, people will accuse us of being pedantic and underestimating their abilities; if we don’t teach them, they’ll criticize us for not doing enough and for acting like wise men after the fact. Ah, it takes time to find a balance.
I don’t think the review process should be this strict. The numbering sequence of equipment, processes, and instruments should be generally consistent, but it is not necessary for them to be exactly identical. During verification, it is sufficient to ensure that the numbers of the equipment and instruments do not overlap or conflict with each other. What do you care about someone else’s number? Besides, do process drawings need to be reviewed now as well? (Are you the inspector or the owner?) ）