ISA TRANSACTIONS

ISA Transactions 41 2002 389394

Editorial viewpoint

A P&ID standard: What, why, how?

Frederick A. Meier*
412 Colony Woods Dr., Chapel Hill, NC 27517, USA

Introduction This paper is written for all who develop and use P&IDs. It will aid in solving the long existing and continuing problem of confusing information on P&IDs. Some of this confusion can be explained because there is no agreement on what information should be included on a P&ID or even what the P&ID letters stand for. The P is sometimes piping and sometimes process. The I is sometimes instrument and sometimes instrumentation. The D is sometimes drawing and sometimes diagram. P&IDs are also called ow diagrams, often preceded by engineering or controls or other descriptors. For simplicity, we will call the document a P&ID. There is no universal standard for the development of P&IDs. ISA-5.1 is an excellent exible document to dene instrument symbolism. In this paper I have used ANSI/ISA-5.1 1984 as my denitive reference, although I am aware that the document is under review and revision. P&IDs in many locations have been developed over the years by many different developers. Revisions to reect process improvements and additions may have been documented by many different individuals, some using symbolism and format that differ from the original and from each other. Therefore the symbolism and the format are not consistent and the P&IDs are subject to misunderstandings. To solve this problem, I suggest that every organiza*E-mail address: famjp@aol.com

tion that develops and/or uses P&IDs produce their unique standard. The standard would include a typical P&ID or P&IDs plus legend sheets to dene all types of relevant process information. It should include not only the basic symbolism for instrument and control, but also typical sketches with explanations of repetitive complex advance control schemes and other information important or unique to that location. It should be the basis for all P&ID work done at that location. In this paper, for simplication, we will call this set of documents the standard. The following pages develop the concept of the standard and pose some of the questions that the standard can answer. The acronym P&ID is widely understood to mean the principal document used to dene the details of how a process works and how it is controlled. The ISA Dictionary denition for P&ID tells what they do, show the interconnection of process equipment and the instrumentation used to control the process. In the process industry a standard set of symbols is used to prepare drawings of processes. The instrument symbols used in these drawings are generally based on ISA-S5.1. 1 In this paper the ISA standard will be referred to as ISA-5.1.

ISA-S5.1 refers to ISA Standard ANSI/ISA-5.1-1984, Instrumentation Symbols and Identication.

0019-0578/2002/$ - see front matter 2002 ISAThe Instrumentation, Systems, and Automation Society.

390

Frederick A. Meier / ISA Transactions 41 (2002) 389394

P&ID development Although the P&ID is the overall document dening the process, the rst document developed for a process is often the PFD, the process ow diagram or drawing. Most would agree that as a minimum the PFD shows a material balance and major equipment and process ows, pressures, and temperatures. Some PFDs show much more detail, sometimes including major instrumentation, and some PFDs show signicant details of the control schemes. Once a PFD is available, P&ID development commences. P&IDs develop in steps. The key personnel, perhaps piping, process, and project specialists, lay out a rst try showing vessels, equipment, and major piping. Since it often requires additional space, the instrumentation is added next, followed by the contributions of the specialists in electrical, equipment, mechanical, vessel, and other disciplines. The developmental process is an iterative one with a P&ID developing in several steps to a nished document complete with all necessary detail, and eventually the P&ID will be issued for construction. It is important throughout the life of a P&ID that everyone works with the same information. Therefore everyone needs the same revision of the P&ID and that revision must reect all current information. This is true not only during engineering design and construction but equally true after the plant is in operation. There must be a central control of P&IDs, which will have responsibility to revise, reissue, and distribute P&IDs as necessary throughout their life. This control group or person must have enough experience to judge when a reissue should be made, enough knowledge to know that the revision is consistent with the standard, and enough authority to make the decision stick. Of course, all proposed changes must be analyzed, reviewed, and approved by specialists before general reissue.

Standardization To understand a book, it must be written in a language we know, in which words have specic meanings. It must be printed in a format with which we are familiar. A book written in Japanese Kanji read from right to left may be beautiful and interesting to look at and readable if you know

Japanese, but if you are not familiar with the language, it is totally incomprehensible. So it is with P&IDs. If we understand the language and the format, the book is readable. The language of P&IDs is the symbolism and the format is how the symbolism is presented. The language of the instrument and control portion is based on ISA-5.1, or as ISA denes The standard offers the foundation for that common language. 2 However, there are several major problems that develop: First, ISA-5.1 is a very exible standard. For example, it uses every letter of the alphabet to dene process variables, or as the standard says, measured or initiating variables. There are several lettersC, D, G, M, N, and Owhich are users choice, and X as unclassied to be selected by the P&ID developer to dene any variable not listed directly and used as the rst letter of an instrument identier. This gives ISA-5.1 exibility but makes exact standardization impossible. For example, to identify a conductivity analyzer, one location might use the users choice letter C for conductivity and another might use the standard letter A for analysis, with a conductivity modier shown above the identifying bubble. Still another location might use C for capacitance. Without reference to the standard, this use of letters will cause misunderstanding and confusion. To be understood these letters must be dened somewhere and of course their denitions will vary from plant to plant; therefore the standard is the logical place for denitions of this type. Second, ISA-5.1 is a consensus standard, to quote Its weakness is generally that of not being specic enough to satisfy the special requirements of particular interest groups. 3 Engineering contractors, user engineering groups, and other P&ID developers develop sets of symbols. Since they are based on a exible standard, as technology changes they have a tendency to change. One developers set does not always agree with anothers. Additionally, an engineering contractor might work repetitively with a particular client, or perhaps specialize in a particular branch of the process industry, and their P&IDs will reect this and will not be universally understood.
2 3

ibid. ibid.

Frederick A. Meier / ISA Transactions 41 (2002) 389394

391

My career has included many years in the development and use of P&IDs as an instrument engineer, chief instrument engineer, and engineering manager. For the last ten years, I have been an ISA instructor, teaching documentation of control system projects and have had hundreds of students in classes I have taught. Many of my students are very young, very bright engineers and technicians who have been assigned the job of reworking their plant P&IDs to a single standard because the existing P&IDs are confusing operations, and maintenance personnel. It is indeed fortunate that they are young and bright because, I predict, the reworking will be a time consuming and very difcult undertaking. Third, if P&IDs are not consistent within a location, the task of updating the P&IDs may become onerous or even impossible. One student mentioned 15 to 20 sets of P&IDs developed by many contractors over a 20 to 30 year period. None were developed to a plant standard. Arthur Little, Inc., after developing Process Hazard Management PSM plans for petroleum reneries saw the seriousness of the problem of inconsistent and out of date P&IDs and made statements such as: The cost of updating P&IDs for the PSM analysis could double the cost. 4 The most universal deciency is keeping P&IDs up to date. 4 Fourth, the P&ID will have many uses during its existence. For example, an engineering contractor might use the P&ID to develop an early estimate of project cost. The estimators may need details early in the project for control valves, including size, body type, materials of construction, type of actuator, presence of positioners and hand jacks, and the extent, size, and type of block and bypass valves and drains. Therefore all of this information is included on the P&ID. Since it would cost more money and man hours to remove it, the information stays on the P&ID, even though it is more detailed than required. Since this information was added early, it would require revision as the project proceeds. All of the accurate information will be available later on the valve specications and other project documents. This information
4

ISA Training Course FG 15. Revision 2.1 Slide 34.

may make the P&ID appear crowded. Plant operators might rather see a generic valve symbol. For example, the bow tie combined with the spring and diaphragm actuator might be used as the symbol for all control valves. Additionally, plant operations might want control valve blocks and bypass valves identied with tags on P&IDs to facilitate their operator training and instructions. To the P&ID developer this adds needless clutter and complexity to the P&ID. P&IDs are developed for the design and construction of a plant. They may be used for this purpose for three or more years. After this period plant operations may use the document as long as the plant is in operation, perhaps 10 to 30 years. The standard should therefore reect requirements for information useful during operations, training, maintenance, HAZOPS, safety reviews, and other uses. Fifth, ISA-5.1 is dedicated to the language of P&IDs. It does not address in any detail the format of P&IDs. Consequently, the formats vary with industry segments and contractors. A P&ID for a water treating plant might be difcult or even impossible for a renery specialist to understand. The previous paragraphs dene some of the types of problems that will be addressed when the P&ID developer and user each have a standard and can sit at the same table and resolve differences. The agreement will probably be a compromise, as most good agreements are. To the P&ID developer anything that is different or special to the project adds cost, confusion, misunderstanding, and prolongs schedule. The developer would, of course, want to be compensated for the costs and have the complexity reected in the schedule. To the user, having a set of P&IDs requiring signicant retraining and explanation before plant personnel can use them effectively is also an added cost and will affect the training cost and schedule. Consequently, agreement should be reached early when there is still sufcient lead time to cover these extra costs and possible schedule extensions. Without agreement on a standard, misunderstandings can occur, and misunderstandings cause unsafe conditions and accidents. There are no universal standards that address the format to be used in developing P&IDs. The format used has been developed over the years and there are guidelines that serve as an incomplete de facto standard. Some of these are:

392

Frederick A. Meier / ISA Transactions 41 (2002) 389394

The process ows from the left of the P&ID to the right. P&IDs are developed as C size ( 22 34 in.) but must be legible when reduced to B size ( 11 17 in.) for ease of use in the ofce and in the eld. P&IDs should show sufcient information to dene the process without crowding the P&ID. One to three pieces of equipment with auxiliaries is sufcient for one P&ID: To reduce clutter use typical sketches or details. When piping gets complex, use auxilliary P&IDs. Use notes to add understanding and clarity. Show relative elevations of equipment but do not include specic elevation.

5. How closely should ISA-5.1 be followed? Since it is a consensus standard, it is not a legal document and many have revised it to serve their use. For example, ISA-5.1 is very clear that a control valve in an instrument loop will be designated by two letters. The rst letter denes the process variable in the loop and the second, a V. The valve in ow loop FIC-2 would therefore be designated FV-2. Even so, some use a three-letter designation FCV-2. P&IDs certainly show piping and major equipment. There is agreement that piping must be identied by some sort of sequential number, but how much more information should be included? The following are questions relating to piping: 1. How should piping be identied? a. b. c. d. e. By By By By By sequential number specication number pressure and temperature rating process uid a combination of some or all of these

Questions How much information should be shown on a P&ID? Since the P&ID may have different uses, this question is a difcult one to answer. The following questions relate to instrumentation: 1. What type of instrument numbering system should be used? a. b. c. d. Major equipment based Serial Parallel Specication based

2. How should piping climatization be shown? a. b. c. By symbols only By word description Not shown on P&ID, but included elsewhere

2. How should the fail position of control valves be shown? a. b. c. d. Arrows and bars Letters, FC, FI, FL, FO Shading part of the symbol Not at all

Major equipment needs to be identied, but there is a wide variation in the information shown on the P&ID. 1. How much information about the equipment should be shown? a. b. c. d. e. f. g. h. Capacity Design ow, presure, temperature Driver horsepower Identifying letter Identifying number Identifying tag Material of construction Size

3. Should the following items be shown? a. b. c. d. Converters Air supplies Positioners Power supplies

4. Should all control valves be tagged? In some of the sketches in ISA-5.1, control valves do not have tag numbers and therefore some do not show control valve tags on P&IDs.

2. What identifying letters should be used? The list below is a typical set of letters. There are many other sets, each different: C - Columns and towers D - Drums and vessels E - Heat exchangers and coolers

Frederick A. Meier / ISA Transactions 41 (2002) 389394

393

F - Furnaces and heaters K - Compressors and blowers P - Electric motors T - Turbines V - Those not included above 3. How should equipment climatization be shown? a. b. c. By symbols only By word description Not shown on P&ID, but included elsewhere

c. d.

interconnection diagrams ISA Process & Instrumentation Diagrams. 5

P&I

The standard goes no further in dening an ISA Process & Instrumentation Diagram. ASME: American Society of Mechanical Engineers. There are several ASME standards which contain bits and pieces of information that might be helpful in developing P&ID standards including: ANSI Y14.15a Interconnection Diagrams ASA Y32.11 Graphical Symbols for Process Flow Diagrams ASA Z32.2.3 Re-designated ANSI/ASME Y32.2.3 Graphical Symbols for Pipe, Fittings, Valves and Piping. IEEE: The Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers. IEEE has published the following: standards which include the symbols for electrical drawings. but a few might be useful on P&IDs. IEEE Std 315-Graphic Symbols for Electrical and Electronic Diagrams. This standard is also recognized as ANSI Y32.2 and CSA Z99 ANSI/IEEE Std 315A-Supplement to Std 315. There are other industry groups that address P&IDs in their publications: 1. OSHA: The Occupational Safety and Health Administration issued its Process Safety Management Standard in 1992. The document, 29 CFR 1910.119 Process Safety Management of Highly Hazardous Chemicals, paragraph d Process Safety Information requires that all installations handling certain hazardous materials will have P&IDs, but does not dene them further. OSHA standards are law in the United States and therefore must be followed. 2. PIP: The Process Industry Practices group, a coalition of process industry owners and engineering/construction contractors is developing recommended practices for all areas of the engineering-procurementconstruction process, including P&IDs and the eld of instrumentation. PIPs address is
5

Signicant standards There are many standards, both industry and specialized, containing references to P&IDs that may be helpful during P&ID development. ANSI/ISA-5.1-1984 Instrumentation Symbols and Identication. This is the most widely used standard for symbols used to dene measurement and control schemes. The ISA-5.1 diagrams show symbols for the measurement and control portion of the P&ID. ISA-5.3-1983 Graphic Symbols for Distributed Control/Shared Display Instrumentation Logic and Computer Systems. This standard was developed to supplement ISA-5.1 as computer, logic, and distributed control became popular. It claries the symbols for these technologies. It contains a few sketches to aid in development, but no real guidance in helping to develop a standard P&ID. SAMA Standard PMC 22.1Functional Diagramming of Instrument and Control Systems. SAMA, The Scientic Apparatus Makers Association, no longer supports the document, however, it is still in use in some industries. It details the functions of the control system showing, for example, the modes of control in a controllerthe proportional gain , integral reset , and derivative rate which are rarely, if ever, included on P&IDs. PMC 22.1 states that P&IDs are needed. To clarify the type of diagram with which this standard is concerned, it is assumed that in designing a complex measuring, control or computational system the following types of diagrams will be required: a. b. functional diagrams detailed schematic diagrams

SAMA Standard PMC 22.1-1981.

394

Frederick A. Meier / ISA Transactions 41 (2002) 389394

3208 Red River, Austin, Texas 78705-2650, and their phone is 512 473-2968. 3. API: The American Petroleum Institute, in API Recommended Practice 750 Management of Process Hazards mentions P&IDs as follows: The mechanical design information should include the materials of construction, piping and instrument diagrams process and instrument diagrams P&IDs . 6 They go no further in describing P&IDs. 4. ISA has formed a Standards Subcommittee SP5.7Development and Use of Process Flow Diagrams and Piping and Instrument Diagramsto develop a standard for use in industry. Conclusions The preceding information will not magically create a standard, but it is a start. The development and maintenance of the standard will not be easy and will be time consuming. Once a standard is developed there is one further step that should be considered very carefully. That is what should be
6

done about the pre-standard P&IDs? To achieve overall consistency, it would be necessary but very expensive to rework all the old P&IDs and to educate all those using them. There is help in this paper but there will also be unanswered questions. In my opinion all the time and effort is worth the results. When design, maintenance, and operations engineers, specialists, and technicians have to speak many different P&ID languages because different people developed their P&IDs, it is costly, confusing, and dangerous.
Frederick A. Meiers career spans 50 years of experience as a control systems engineer, chief engineer, and as an engineering manager in the oil, chemical, and engineering industries in the United States, Algeria, Canada, Germany, Japan, and the United Kingdom. He has held professional engineer licenses in New York, New Jersey, California, Alberta, Manitoba, and Saskatchewan. Fred has a U.S. Army Electrical Degree, a Mechanical Engineering Degree Stevens Institute of Technology , and an MBA Rutgers University . Since his rst retirement he served as an ISA staff engineer, since his second retirement, as an ISA instructor and consultant.

API Recommended Practice 750.