Integration of Analytical Software and 3D Platform in Plant Design and

Engineering: A Paradigm Shift for the Upcoming and Revamped

Process Plants
Anirban Datta*1, Gautam Gangopadhyay 1
Richard Design Services India Private Limited (A fully owned Subsidiary of Richard Industrial Group, USA), Kolkata1,
ani_dat@yahoo.co.in*

ABSTRACT
Industrial and process plant design engineering for greenfield as well as retrofitted/revamped projects are now
heavily dependent on different design and analytical software, particularly in 3D environment. Over the last decade,
this has become industry standard, by reducing time, cost and resource involvement in plant design, along with
imparting accuracy in layout and quantity. Also, decreasing competency and knowledge in practising engineering
personnel has also set the ground for reliance on engineering software.
KEYWORDS Plant, Software, Design, Analysis, 3D
INTRODUCTION
Since last decade, the design engineering for industrial plants – oil and gas, petrochemical, power (coal/gas based),
fertilizer, steel and metallurgical, etc – has grossly being driven with the assistance and back up of modelling and
analytical software. Manual drawing preparation and design calculations have now become almost extinct. The 90s
had seen the emergence drafting software like AutoCAD (developed and marketed by Autodesk Inc.), replacing the
drawing boards. The new millennium took design engineering to the next level – developing total plant layout in
three-dimensional virtual environment, with a realistic view of plant in constructed condition. This had been
integrated with computer aided engineering (CAE). Manual engineering calculations, be it for civil, structural,
equipment, piping, electrical or automation, are now practically replaced with computerized analysis. This has not
only reduced the time of design, but has also increased the accuracy. In an environment where the cost of design
engineering is just 1% to 2% of the total project cost (and project proponents would like to get it reduced further), it
is now practically impossible to complete the plant design without the aid of software platforms. In addition, there
are two more driving forces behind this: (i) tight schedule of completion for engineering design to open the front for
execution/construction, and (ii) shortage of competent engineering personnel in design engineering field.
PLANT LAYOUT
Overall plot plan or overall plant layout is a master plan, which shows the footprint of each unit/facility within the
plot boundary for different process industries, namely, Refinery, Chemical/Agro-Chemical/Petro-Chemical/ Organic
and Inorganic Chemical, Fertilizer, Pharmaceutical, Metallurgical and Power Generation.
Development of overall plant layout or plot plan requires certain pre-requisites in form of data/information, such as:
(i) Process Data
• Knowledge on the type of plant
• Size/capacity of the process unit
• Sequence of process flow
• Type of hazard
• Overall operating philosophy
• Raw material receipt and product dispatch philosophy
• Storage Philosophy
(ii) Meteorological Data
• Ambient Temperature thoughout the year
• Rainfall – maximum, average, minimum
• Predominant wind direction and intensity (wind rose)
• Seismic zone
• Wet and Dry Bulb temperatures
• Flood level of the site
462 33rd Indian Engineering Congress, Udaipur, 2018: Technical Volume
(iii) Civil
• Plane table survey map
• Contour survey map (at 10 m grid)
• Soil bearing capacity
• Nature of soil
• Rail/road access to site
(iv) Electrical
• Location of Electric Supply Point
• Supply voltage levels and fault levels and required voltage level(s) for the plant
• Power distribution/evacuation scheme
(v) Utilities
• Source and/or terminal point of raw water
• Quality of water available at terminal point
• Water consumption for process(s)
• Requirement of different types of utilities e.g. steam, air, nitrogen, demineralised water, etc.
(vi) Statutory Requirements
• Central/State Industrial Development Corporations
• Central/State Pollution Control Boards
• Factory Inspectorate
• State Electricity Boards
• Chief Controller of Explosives
• Static and Mobile Pressure Vessel Rules
• Tariff Advisory Committee (TAC)
• Aviation Laws
• Chief Inspector of Boilers
• Oil Industry Safety Directorate (for oil and gas installations)
• Food and Drug Administration (if applicable)
• Ministry of Environment and Forest
Until the beginning of this millennium, overall plant layout (Figure 1) meant to be a large drawing, preferably
drawn on an A0 size paper; and perhaps it was the only design document for a project, which was subject to
modification/revision until the commissioning of the plant. Further, the overall plant were sub-divided into unit
specific plans, wherein the process equipment, piping, structural grids, electrical cable trays, HVAC ducts, etc.
pertaining to that particular were to be shown. Construction and erection of these items were done with paper
drawings, with adequate sectional views and isometrics in some cases.
However, with emergence of 3D software platforms, this entire process is now carried out with the aid of software,
which not only enables placing all components of a process plant, but also the generation of construction drawings is
now a matter of a click of computer mouse. Moreover, the clash/interference between pipes, equipment, structure,
electrical cable tray, ducts can be checked and resolved in very effective and error-free manner; so that the
construction/erection can be progressed with a fast pace, thus reducing the project completion time.
In addition, bill of materials for civil, structural, piping, electrical, instrumentation and automation items has become
very easy and accurate, as those can be readily extracted from software platform itself.
ENGINEERING PROCESS FOR A TYPICAL EPC PROJECT IN 3D PLATFORM
Figure 2 represents 3D model generated for earthwork [1].
Once the design criteria for foundations of equipment and structure are established, design calculations for sizing of
foundations are done in STAAD-PRO, RISA, or other software with international repute, and are modelled in 3D
platform.
Figure 3 shows a snapshot of foundation model [1].
33rd Indian Engineering Congress, Udaipur, 2018: Technical Volume 463
This enables the front for placing structural members over foundations; viz. mechanical equipment supporting
structures,
ures, pipe rack structures, cable and duct supporting structure, etc.
Mechanical equipment/piping engineering teams proceed with design/selection calculations for equipment/piping,
such as design of fabricated pressure vessels as well as static and dynamic stress analysis of interconnecting piping
in compliance with international and project specific codes & standards. First of all the integrity/stability of the
equipment/piping are ensured in form of stress compliance. Once these are frozen, the load data are transmitted to
civil/structural engineering teams.
After capturing the structures in 3D model, equipment, piping, cable trays, ducts are placed in 3D. Figure 4 shows
an integrated 3D model of a process unit [2].

Figure 1 Typical overall plot plan fo

for a process plant Figure 2 3D model for earthwork

Figure 3 3D model for foundation Figure 4 Integrated 3D model of a process unit

There are three stages of completion and review of plant 3D model, viz. 30%, 60% and 90%, involving concurrence
by all stakeholders up to that stage. Each of these stages are to be defined at the start of design engineering so that
every stakeholder are on same page of what is to be accomplished prior to and during the reviews, and the
engineering team remain focused on the parameters to be established in model reviews. Table 1 shows a sample
model review matrix, indicating the check points [3].
Ground Rules
1. Inclusion of pipe size of 6” and above in 30% model is a judgment call. Some areas, racks for instance, may
require that 2” and above be modeled at this stage.
2. All model review comments are to be addressed immediately following the model review session.
3. No changes to approved or frozen items are allowed without approval from Project Engineering Manager.
IFA – Issued for Approval
IFE – Issued for Engineering
IFC – Issued for Construction
It is worthwhile to mention that these 30%, 60% and 90% 90% plant 3D model completion and review stages have been
standardized over last 10 years and followed world
world-wide.
wide. Also, the 100% complete model means ‘As-Built’,
‘As i.e.
after 60% review, civil and structural construction would commence, and after 90% review, mechanical, piping,
electrical, instrumentation, HVAC erection would progress. Between 90% and 100%, the plant model may be
required to be updated to address the issues raised by construction group. However, unless there are major changes,
revised drawingss are need not to be extracted at this stage.

464 33rd Indian Engineering Congress, Udaipur, 2018: Technical Volume

Table 1 Model progress and review matrix

Required by Review 30% Review 60% Review 90% Review

Stage
Process Design
Process Studies Complete ---- ----
Process flow diagram IFE IFC ----
and mass balance
Piping and IFA IFE IFC
instrumentation
diagram
HAZOP ---- Complete 
Line sizing Critical lines complete All lines complete 
Line list IFA IFE IFC
Piping specifications Approved ---- 
Vendor Information
Valves Prelim. data for 6” and above Approved data for 4” and above Certified data for all
sizes
Special Items Prelim. data for 6” and above Approved data for 4” and above Certified data for all
sizes
Equipment Prelim. Approved Certified
Instruments Prelim. Approved Certified
Mechanical and Piping Design
Plot Plan IFA IFE IFC
Equipment layout Major equipment modelled to Equipment locations (coordinates) Equipment modelled
prelim. data finalized modelled to approved data to certified data
Piping stress analysis 6” and above critical lines All critical lines stress checked; other Stress analysis
stress checked; other lines lines under review complete
under review
Piping modelling 6” and above lines modelled 4” and above lines modelled All lines including
drains and vents
modelled
Pipe supports All major pipe supports All pipe supports modelled ----
modelled
Utility stations/eye Not started Preliminary locations modelled Final locations
wash/Safety showers modelled
Civil/Structural Design
Foundations Major foundations modelled All foundations modelled ----
Concrete / steel Beams / columns / major Minor members modelled ----
structures members modelled
Design for Constructability / Operability / Maintainability / Safety / Environment
Constructability Road access; crane movement Field erected equipment/piping/skid Filed mounted hydro-
and reach test drains and vents
located
Operability Platforms, ladders and stairs, Ergonomic aspects; e.g. valve access ----
access-way
Maintainability Davits, monorails and cranes, Removal clearance, e.g., ----
access between heat exchanger tube bundle
equipment, width and height removals, O/H
requirements under pipe and cranes above rotating equipment
cable racks
Safety and environment Escape routes, roads, paved  ----
areas and drainage.
Design for Future Expansion
Land To be identified ---- ----
Facilities Future pipe rack ---- ----
requirements, e.g., widths,
number of levels
33rd Indian Engineering Congress, Udaipur, 2018: Technical Volume 465
Clash/Interference Check and Resolving
Automated clash checking is run on integrated plant model. This is a periodic activity, done by respective
engineering discipline lead engineers.
The six types of clash checks to be run are: Piping to Piping, Piping to Equipment, Piping to Steel, Piping to t
Electrical, Piping to Building, and Equipment to Steel. Figure 5 shows some typical interferences found in clash run
of plant 3D model.

Figure 5 Clash / Interferences

After the clash run, the lead engineer(s) are required to document the clash test report
report (to be extracted from software
itself) and initiate action resolve.
Model Closure and Handing Over
Normally, after commissioning of the plant, the engineering company is supposed to hand over the 3D model (both
native models and integrated model) to client.
client. However, among all the project deliverables, the 3D models are often
least understood and least discussed at initial stage of engineering, and later become the most controversial. Unless
those are not specifically mentioned in the engineering contract
contract as a deliverable, the engineering company may not
be willing to hand them over to client, although clients assume that they have paid for the models. Even when those
are listed in the contracts or the engineering company is willing to hand them over, theythe may still be unwilling to
hand over the customizations/configurations/set-ups
customizations/configurations/set ups that they have incorporated to the software. Due to this, the
models often tend to be almost unusable for future expansion/modification work by another engineering company.
In order to resolve this fiasco, there are some ground rules to be set at the time of award of design engineering
contract [3] –
(a) For those on the engineering company side of the fence:
(i) The software platform which would be used needs to be clearly informed to the client and agreed upon
(ii) Software version/release;
(iii) Exclusions in the model (but can be available at an additional pre-agreed
pre cost).
(b) For those on the client side of the fence:
(i) It is to be understand that the models and databases are having many intricacies;
(ii) The software, version of software, client’s requirements and expectations in terms of usability are needed to
be documented and agreed upon with engineering company;
(iii) If there is lack of the in-house
house expertise, an outside independent consultant/agency
consultant/agency should be engaged to
assist client to define the parameters of the 3D model.
MAJOR ADVANTAGES OF 3D PLANT DESIGN OVER 2D DESIGN
(i) Equipment, piping, foundations, structures, cable trays, ducts can be placed at accurate coordinates.
(ii) Possibilities of clash/interference
lash/interference between facilities are minimised.
(iii) Visualisation of the entire unit/plant would have more clarity.
(iv) Database built-upup by engineering company are repetitive, i.e. those can be used for future projects.
(v) Lack of availability of skilled design manpower can be overcome.
466 33rd Indian Engineering Congress, Udaipur, 2018: Technical Volume
(vi) Engineering completion schedule and man-hour used for design engineering would be much less.
(vii) Real-time navigation over the model is possible, which help the construction group
INTEGRATION OF 3D MODELLING SOFTWARE WITH ANALYTICAL SOFTWARE
Followings are some of the widely used 3D plant modelling software platforms, which are now used worldwide:
(i) Plant Design System (PDS), developed by Intergraph;
(ii) Plant Design and Management System (PDMS), developed by AVEVA;
(iii) Smart Plant 3D (SP3D), developed by Intergraph;
(iv) CADWorx, developed by Intergraph;
(v) AutoPlant, developed by Bentley;
(vi) AutoCAD Plant 3D, developed by Autodesk.
Above software, platforms are used in tandem with design review software platforms such as:
(i) SmartPlant Review (SPR), developed by Intergraph;
(ii) Navisworks, developed by Autodesk.
On the other hand, there are analytical software, which have now become industry standards:
(a) CAESAR II, developed by Intergraph, used for pipe stress analysis,
(b) PV-ELITE, developed by Intergraph, used for pressure vessel design,
(c) PRG Suite, developed by Paulin Research Group, used for used for finite element analysis,
(d) AutoPIPE, developed by Bentley, used for pipe stress analysis,
(e) STAAD-PRO, developed by Bentley, used for civil and structural design.
These software have been developed based on code compliance requirements stipulated in international codes and
standards, viz. ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessels Code, ASME Pressure Piping Code, etc.
These analytical software have linkage with 3D modelling software (but not both ways in some cases), i.e.
equipment, piping or structures modelled in 3D platform can be imported in the respective analytical platform, and
after carrying out precision design, the same can be exported back to 3D platform.
The major advantage of using these analytical software is ease of performing repetitive calculations, and obtaining
error-free, code-complied results. As an example, the scope of the pipe stress analysis has increased exponentially in
the past 30 years. This is due to the stringent regulatory requirements for the modern process plants. For example, in
the 1960 s, the pipe stress analysis and support design effort level required for a typical petrochemical plant was
about 4000 man-hours. Same was the case for a nuclear power plant as well. Nowadays, the pipe stress and support
effort level required for a petrochemical plant has increased by ten folds to about 50,000 man-hours. The effort
required by a nuclear power plant has grown thousand folds to reach as high as 2 million man-hours. This shows an
exponential growth in the design engineering man-hours involved, which also increases the probability of getting
sub-standard/erroneous output from some of the engineering personnel. An efficient pipe stress analysis computer
program does not only play the role of a time-saving tool by significantly reducing the cost of designing a plant, but
also greatly improves the quality of the plant by ensuring compliance with code [4].
NEW HORIZON – LASER SCANNING, 4D AND 5D SIMULATION
If first decade of new millennium experienced the emergence and establishment of plant design engineering in 3D,
second decade thrusted upon emergence of laser scanning as well as 4D and 5D simulation. Laser scanning has
emerged as an effective tool to generate 3D navigable view of existing industrial plants which would undergo
retrofitting/revamping. This is particularly important for age-old plants, of which the ‘As-Built’ drawings are not
available, or even if available, not legible. But without having the information of existing facilities, it is practically
impossible to design and install new ones. In such cases, laser scanning has been proved to be an effective tool,
through which image of the existing facilities are first captured, and then those images are processed to obtain a 3D
model of the plant with maximum accuracy. Next step is to use this model as background, and modelling the new
facilities over this, which enables the designer to visualize the entire facility, minimising deployment of personnel at
project site for survey and information gathering.
At present, the thrust is upon 4D and 5D simulations. In 4D simulation, the fourth dimension is time. Plant 3D
model can be integrated with project construction schedule and construction/erection sequence, which would

33rd Indian Engineering Congress, Udaipur, 2018: Technical Volume 467

simulate the step-by-step execution of the project in computer. This has been proved to be a very effective project
planning and monitoring tool.
In 5D simulation, cost is the fifth dimension, which can be integrated with 3D model and execution sequence, so
that the project authority can have a clear picture of cash flow at any point of execution.
CONCLUSION
The design engineering for industrial plants are relying more on software tools, and this would see an upturn in next
decade, not only due to advancement in software development, but also attributable to shortage of competent
engineering manpower. It is not the intent of the software to play a complementary role to replace basic engineering
skill and concept, but it would definitely act as a supplement to the designing, drafting, checking and compliance
process. New-age engineers would not only have to possess the engineering knowledge and skill, they would also be
required to be conversant with software tools. Also, there would be requirement of continuous updation and
upgradtion of the competency.
REFERENCES
1. Herve Baron, Oil & Gas Engineering Training Suite, Volume 190, 199, pp - 181, 186, 522, 528,
2. Herve Baron, The Oil & Gas Engineering Guide – Plant Layout – Audiobook, pp – 33
3. Richard G. Beale, Paul Bowers, Peter Smith, Process Piping Design Handbook, Volume Three: Planning Guide to Piping
Design, Gulf Publishing Company, pp – 73-75
4. Liang-Chuan (L.C.) Peng, Tsen-Loong (Alvin) Peng, Pipe Stress Engineering, ASME Press, pp – 2

468 33rd Indian Engineering Congress, Udaipur, 2018: Technical Volume