What are the differences between CAD Piping and PDS3D Piping for piping work?
Thread Content
What are the differences between using CAD for piping design and PDS for it? I think, first of all, with CAD it is necessary to know the exact dimensions of valves, flanges, special fittings, etc. Special specifications for pipe supports are also required (they need to be listed separately). However, PDS3D already includes the exact dimensions of valves, flanges, etc. in its data. In my opinion, there is more to learn when using CAD for piping design.
CAD is convenient for drawing, but errors cannot be detected. If PDS is used, many more parameters need to be entered, but errors will not occur.
PDS has a database that allows for the extraction of material tables and the generation of axonometric drawings... CAD lacks these functions, resulting in lower work efficiency.
Wow, someone can directly use PDS for piping – that’s amazing! We still use CAD first and then transfer the data to PDS; PDS can generate material lists and wiring diagrams.
Using CAD for piping, especially when there are no external databases or drawing libraries available, takes too much time for drawing; in fact, most of the time is spent on creating drawings rather than on actual design work. Moreover, the inspection process is complicated. There are currently two approaches to using PDS for design. One is the more traditional method, which involves first creating a rough layout using CAD, and then carrying out 3D modeling with PDS; this approach is less efficient ； Another approach represents a current trend: after conducting piping studies or route analyses for critical pipelines such as those that affect equipment layout, pipelines carrying precious metals, and large-diameter pipelines, the piping layout is directly created in PDS 3D. This method saves time on drawing layouts and is more efficient, but it requires a high level of skill from the piping specialists. Designers need to be proficient in using PDS/PDMS as well as possess knowledge related to piping engineering; furthermore, it is necessary to optimize and adjust the overall engineering design workflow and interfaces. From what I understand, very few domestic design institutes are currently able to achieve this in practice; only a handful of high-level engineering companies are implementing it or preparing to do so. This post was last edited by Pipeline Engineer on 2008-1-23 at 11:48.]
I agree with the opinion above; generally, large-diameter pipes made of alloy steel, stainless steel, and carbon steel have a significant impact on piping design, so it is crucial to determine their paths in advance. However, from the design perspective, the special pipes are determined during the initial design stage after the process design is completed (the piping layout in CAD has already been finalized); during the construction drawing design phase, it should simply be a matter of using the paths defined in CAD to create the model. In design institutes, it is common to see that during the construction drawing design phase, due to the significant differences between the final specifications of existing equipment and machinery and those identified in the preliminary studies, the design of large-scale piping systems is primarily carried out using CAD plans, with PDS piping used as a supplement. After the PDS model is completed, individual line diagrams are prepared for stress analysis; various supports are added, and loads as well as material lists are determined. It’s still difficult to go straight to PDS.
Who has the installation software for PDS3D? Please share it.
Server version~~~ The price is high; the installation files are in the hands of specialized personnel, so the possibility of a gun version is extremely low.
Personally, I think using PDS is better as it saves time and is convenient and intuitive. Abroad, PDS 3D direct design is now the standard, and China is also gradually moving in that direction. :lol