Discussion on piping design software

We are still using AutoCAD for piping work, and it’s extremely inconvenient. Other specialties generally use the official Tianzheng version of CAD, which is very user-friendly and comes with many functions. However, this version has not been developed for the process engineering and piping specialties. A similar option is Tianzheng’s plumbing software, but its compatibility is still not high. 3D software is now popular for process piping, but it’s actually not very convenient. Although it’s powerful, it’s expensive and difficult to learn, which hinders its widespread use.

Our company uses both CAD and PDMS; it depends on the client’s requirements. Both of these drawing software programs have their own advantages.

It seems to be the words of someone who has really never used it before; the difficulty with 3D software lies in understanding its structure and working procedures, as well as breaking away from the habits associated with 2D drawing. Once you become proficient with one set, it becomes much easier to work with another set. Domestic products are easier to get started with, as the instructions are in Chinese, and they use a data management system that differs from that of foreign products, making them easier to understand and use. Foreign software is difficult to use due to language barriers, and moreover, its databases are highly specialized, which makes it challenging for those who are not familiar with databases. Additionally, the so-called tutorials available online are incomplete and lack detail, making self-study very difficult. Proper training for foreign software also doesn’t take long. Our previous company used PEDS, while now we use SPDA. We didn’t receive any training; the software vendor simply demonstrated it a few times and explained the process, and we were able to get started within a few days. With the experience from PEDS, I was able to create a model for AUTOPLANT within a week as well. Working with PDMS can be extremely troublesome at first, but once things get underway it’s not that complicated. At the end of last year, I worked with a large domestic company using SMARTPLANT; this year I collaborated with another party using PDSOFT. It seems that both methods are more or less the same – the goal is identical, just the approach differs. If it were really as difficult as the person on the 2nd floor said, no one would have developed it by now. As for convenience, once you become proficient in using such software, it saves at least half of the time and effort required. Tasks that are tedious, such as drawing valves and pipe fittings, generating ISO drawings, and keeping track of materials, are all completed automatically – so how can it be considered inconvenient? The factors that currently hinder widespread adoption, in my opinion, are: 1. Being overly reliant on foreign software leads to being deceived by scammers who charge high prices; are these foreign products really that much better than domestic ones? The cost of one license for foreign software is enough to equip an entire team with domestic software. I have worked with the factory complex, using both SPDA and SMARTPLANT for modeling. SPDA is definitely much faster than SMARTPLANT; with SPDA, one person can complete a whole production section’s model along with the related drawings in just one week, while it takes several people using SMARTPLANT to finish the model. The advantages of domestic software are very evident. It’s hard for many people to believe, but SMARTPLANT has fewer editing functions than SPDA; for example, when it comes to copying pipes, SPDA uses a pipe-copy command – you enter the new pipe number and relative position in the window, and the new pipe is created. Using foreign software, first copy the pipelines; after copying them to the desired location, select the copied pipelines and assign new pipeline numbers by modifying their properties. In sections with many similar pipelines such as pump sets or heat exchanger groups, this can be done with just a few mouse clicks using SPDA. With SMARTPLANT, however, it’s necessary to redefine the properties for each pipeline individually, which is certainly not fast. The model created by SMARTPLANT is also extremely rough; the valve handwheels and control heads are all conical in shape. I really don’t see why a price difference of several dozen times is worth it 2. It’s a matter of mindset; China isn’t short of anything, all it needs is more and more overtime. The client only requires drawings; it doesn’t matter what material is used. Foreigners will definitely walk away if they see that the drawings were created manually using CAD, but domestic clients aren’t like that. That’s why smaller companies prefer to work themselves to death rather than spend money on software. Last year, one of the property owners insisted that we provide a model, so I asked him ； How do you pronounce it? Upon hearing that money was needed to buy a browser, and that it would only allow viewing of models without the ability to access data, the owner quickly decided against it. This is the typical attitude of local tycoons in China: they’re willing to spend thousands of yuan to get a woman’s smile, but they feel extreme pain at the thought of spending even a single penny on something legitimate. This is the reality in the domestic market: there is no pressure, so no one cares. 3. Domestic software vendors still need to strengthen and further refine their business and promotion strategies; last year, when PDMAX was all over the internet, they hadn’t managed to sell even a single copy of it! And the highly excellent SPDA, which has been developed for over a decade (at least I consider it to be the best in China), is little known – there are few introductions and discussions about it on the Internet. All our software vendors should learn a thing or two from these people from Hunan who work at Siwei*; if their software can’t be promoted, they really need to reflect on that. This post was last edited by Boring Pavilion Grand Scholar on 2009-3-14 01:15.]

If the client does not request it, CAD is generally used, as it makes modifications easier and reduces design time; it is also possible to work on the piping for several projects simultaneously. If the client insists on a 3D model, then PDMS is used. Although it provides a more intuitive view, creating a 3D model takes longer and modifications are more complicated.

I don’t have a positive opinion of PDMS; aside from the fact that its project manager is convenient, it doesn’t offer many advantages in terms of data management, graphing, and other aspects. Its real advantage lies in its networking capability; multiple people can work together on design simultaneously. It requires close collaboration from a team – those responsible for managing databases, establishing structures, setting up equipment, and creating pipelines. My friend’s company does this in exactly this way, and the efficiency is very high. It’s really difficult for individuals to use this thing; just the database alone can be overwhelming. I suggest that friends on the 6th floor use other software for model design, such as AUTOPLANT or SPDA based on the ACAD platform. In my opinion, these tools are very convenient for modeling, making modifications, and analyzing materials; once you become proficient with them, work will be much faster than drawing manually in CAD. Of course, I don’t recommend that individuals use any software; the operation of any software requires certain procedures and conditions, and it needs corresponding management systems in organizations or teams as well as cooperation from various specialists. For example, in the past, for manual piping work, equipment diagrams were not necessary; it was sufficient to have the plan dimensions correct, with the elevations being specified later. But in 3D model design, the structure and equipment must first be represented through drawings before a 3D model can be created; therefore, the relevant departments need to work closely together. For the manufacturing process, the determination of the plan must be strict; no arbitrary and drastic changes are allowed. In particular, the grading table needs to be established uniformly; a manually created piping grading table is useless, but it represents a core issue in 3D model design. As for \"being able to work on several piping projects at the same time,\" I’m not sure what my friend means. When I’m busiest, I work on three projects in the morning, afternoon, and evening respectively, all on the same system without any interference between them! “If the client doesn’t request it, CAD is generally used, as it’s easier to make changes and the design process takes less time.” Based on this statement, I really doubt whether this person has actually used 3D modeling software before; not to mention anything else, just generating ISO drawings and calculating material quantities requires quite some effort, while with such software all one needs to do is click a few times with the mouse. If manual work isn’t already efficient, then software has no purpose. If software piping is used skillfully and managed effectively, it saves half the effort and time compared to traditional manual methods. This post was last edited by Boring Pavilion Grand Scholar on 2009-3-15 22:29]

CAD for piping is quite convenient

Using MicroStation SE

I’m currently working hard to learn CADWorx Plant; it seems like a good software. But I can’t find a detailed tutorial. I used Proe before; it seems that Proe is somewhat underutilized for 3D design in factories, and it also cannot generate ISOGEN files directly.

Most foreign engineering companies use PDS for petrochemical projects, holding around 70% of the market share. In China, companies such as Chengda also use PDS for such tasks. PDMS is mainly used in the electricity and marine sectors; large-scale projects generally do not employ PDMS, even though it is much more convenient than PDS. PDS requires the support of many third-party software applications, which makes it more complicated, but it is highly mature in the petrochemical industry. Most design institutes in China use CAD for 2D drawing and do not pay much attention to 3D models

CAD cannot handle new things