A minor issue regarding the position of pipe ends from the piping team to the equipment team (experience sharing)

It is indeed a detail issue that deserves my attention even more.

Well, I’ve encountered such problems as well. In my case, it was during installation; after the equipment was installed, it turned out that some of the openings did not align with the positions of the pipes. And since it’s a pressure vessel, it’s generally difficult to change the orientation of its connections on-site.

The poster’s lessons are worth learning by everyone*. The poster did not develop good habits; before designing the piping system, one should carefully read the technical specifications and flow diagrams, paying special attention to any specific instructions. It is best to consult with the technical experts before starting the design process. Additionally, since the process requirements aren’t specified, the original poster should also consider the operational aspects. Meeting process specifications, ensuring neatness and aesthetics, and facilitating operation are the basic principles of pipeline design; designing in accordance with these principles should prevent such problems from arising.

It is essential to thoroughly understand the flowcharts before carrying out professional piping design; after that, requests are made to the relevant downstream teams. As for requesting changes to the equipment specifications from the equipment design team, this is a very common issue – I encounter various such problems almost every time I work on a project. There are frequent revisions required, and sometimes even after the equipment has been ordered, further changes are still necessary. Many of these problems arise from discrepancies between different teams, or due to negligence on the part of the designers themselves, but they can all be resolved through careful revisions； There is also the issue of lack of experience; for example, collisions between equipment openings and equipment ladders, as well as with pipes and instruments. These problems can be gradually improved through more work over time ； Finally, there are installation difficulties arising from the discrepancy between the construction work and the drawings; the equipment and pipelines have already been prepared and in place, so the only option is to make design changes.

Design flaws always exist, because designers are not the ones who carry out the actual work; they may not be able to take into account all the problems that could arise during implementation.

Don’t you have a co-signing system? This is fundamentally a problem related to process flow control; if the engineering team forgets to include instructions in the PID settings, how can you know that such requirements exist? It is impossible to expect piping engineers to fully understand all the requirements of the process; it is necessary to avoid errors by working within the framework of the process flow.

PID is the most crucial; with a well-thought-out PID design, piping can be arranged on-site based on it. What designers fear the most is a lack of on-site experience.

It’s a minor issue; there’s no need to worry too much about it. It’s impossible to achieve perfection in design.

Adding one more valve will solve it!

Ask about the position of the pipe outlet right after taking over? The key to piping is to understand PID; annotations are very important, as well as any specific requirements, before proceeding with piping. Only by going through it can you understand.

Or to be clear about the premise: I’ve never heard of anyone completing the construction of a petrochemical plant on-site with hundreds of PIDs. The core of design lies in collaboration; excellent design stems from management, and understanding this requires experience.

I strongly agree; the orientation of the nozzles must be approved by relevant specialized departments, such as process and instrumentation teams. Also, the equipment requires verification of the positional relationship between the nozzle and the internal components of the equipment. It is right to work diligently, but a reasonable design process must be the foundation; no single discipline alone can achieve perfection.

Creating pipes that are both beautiful and functional is not an easy task; first of all, one needs a clear three-dimensional mindset, and it’s important to observe the site frequently – practice plays a key role.

To work with piping, one needs to have certain experience as well as spatial imagination. At first, various problems will surely arise, and that’s the case for everyone. But as one does this work more often, fewer such issues occur, and past mistakes can be naturally corrected over time. As for spatial imagination, it requires a certain degree of talent; or else one can by visiting the site frequently and observing things from different angles to improve their sense of three-dimensional space

It is highly recommended to draw a 3D diagram of the equipment during piping work~ Although it’s time-consuming, it helps avoid many problems and is very intuitive.

Yes, piping needs to be designed using 3D software; creating a 3D model based on the PID diagram from the very beginning makes things much more intuitive. It’s essentially a simulation of the actual site, which helps to compensate for the lack of three-dimensional perception.

Such a situation does occur, but our company’s regulations on \"inter-disciplinary requirement submission\" stipulate that the requirements for equipment access points proposed by the piping department to the equipment department must be approved by both the process engineering department and the automation control department. This can basically prevent the above issues from occurring. Share and progress together with everyone!

Details determine success or failure, and they deserve sufficient attention!