P&ID
P&ID
(OP)
Hi there,
Is there someone who knows or has a description whow a P&ID should look like? We've got quite a discusion about at our engineering department
bye
Is there someone who knows or has a description whow a P&ID should look like? We've got quite a discusion about at our engineering department
bye





RE: P&ID
Thread798-60922
Good luck
TISM
RE: P&ID
RE: P&ID
RE: P&ID
Available from www.din.de (also English version)
RE: P&ID
PID Definition :The P&ID establishes the equipment sizing and defines the piping, controls, and instrumentation requirements for the processes and operating systems including the appropriate support utilities.
For more information(P & ID symbols etc) visit
http://www.pip.org/downloads/Sample-PID.pdf
sj77
RE: P&ID
During the course 2003-2004 I have to teach a topic called flow diagrams: pictorial representations
I have no idea where can I find the rules, pics, etc for this purpuse.
If anyone could help me....
thanks a lot
RE: P&ID
www.isa.org
saxon
RE: P&ID
IF you REALLY want to generate a good procedure, go to a senior designer(15 to 20 yr.s plus) and ask them to generate a procedure for you. Two things will happen, one the pressure to get something out will be off your shoulders, and two you stand a good chance of getting something that will REALLY work! My 2 cents, GOOD LUCK! ...Mark
RE: P&ID
In the next generation (the one after yours), process engineers and computer jockeys must be the author and creator to maintain an edge. Your analogy harkens back to the days when we scribbled our memos and report on paper and gave them to a secretary to type up.
Your options are few, adapt to the new era or be left in the past.
RE: P&ID
Sounds great to be able to pass off the responsibility to the computer program. However, you are still responsibile for the result. The methods are yours. The program is there to use and the seller or creator of the program takes no resposibity for the results(In the future they make take responsibility but then one would expect that they would do the whole project as a turn-key project.) Thus one requires a method to assure that the result(s) are correct. Does one run a dummy typical program that has been proved by a back up hand calculation? How does one know that it is equivalent.
How is a checker supposed to check the work?
When two entities are involved then how does one establish that the others work is acceptable?
11echo
Agree with your point, as I understand it, that one needs competency. GIGO gives GO. Experience is a result of work. No matter how it has been gained.
My thoughts on the original post. A P&ID is the step between the PFD and construction calculations and drawings. How much information is to be presented? Debatable. If too much then one will have many revisions and run the risk of people working from an outdated document. Too little information can lead to insufficient information.
One has to find a happy medium in the industry and a company's operating procedures. (Don't forget about the insurance companies requirements)
RE: P&ID
I feel at times like the guy in the old space monster movie! He has seen "the monster" and is trying to warn the towns folks as to what is coming! BUT no one will believe or listen to him! (notice I put myself in the hero role here!*G*) ...I guess time will tell. ...AGAIN my own ranting & ravings! ...Mark
RE: P&ID
In this general discussion, I believe Assumptions has come closer to the real crux of the question. 11echo and RGCook both have valid and important concerns. However, the reality of what P&ID's should reflect are:
1) They should be readable and incorporate all the ACTUAL piping and instrumentation existing in the actual process (or unit) IN AN ACCURATE, AS-BUILT MANNER.
2) They should be interpreted, defended or challenged by engineers during the required HAZOP(s) that legally have to occur before any unit is commissioned or changed.
3) They should be constantly under a controlled state and be subject to PSM (Process Safety Management) and MOC's (Management of Change procedures).
4) They should be compete with required vessel and instrument identifications and safety ratings relative to potential hazards (such as set pressures, switch positions, alarms, etc.)
What I am stressing here is that the P&ID is the INSTRUMENT OF RECORD as far as the USA government (through OSHA) is concerned -- and they are CONCERNED!! Regardless of how we all feel about government meddling in free enterprise, the truth of reality is that operating engineers (especially Plant Managers) are legally responsible to the government in the US for safe operation of all processing plants - PERIOD! If we do not comply with OSHA's requirements, they will (& can) pad lock the front gate. They can also put plant managers in jail for not complying.
I'm not preaching fear or revolt; I'm stressing the importance of generating and maintaining accurate, readable, and efficient P&ID's. Notice that I'm not even mentioning esthetics. I am presuming a PROFESSIONAL quality, which preempts and demands everything 11echo is correctly concerned about. I cannot visualize a P&ID generated (or modified) without an engineer being directly involved (& responsible)! How could this be possible when the drawing(s) are destined to be subjected to a HazOp? Any organization that tolerates this deserves what it gets - which will be the wrath of OSHA. As an example, it is not rare today that major companies (such as DuPont, etc.) demand that all P&ID's be stamped as correct by a registered engineer. This is not passing the buck, nor posterior protection; rather, it is to ensure that the enterprise is taken seriously and is covered by liability - where this is all coming from. As engineers we are responsible. And this won't go away. P&ID's and their quality are important - but more important is their accuracy and their detail that allows control of the operating process for safety reasons.
It's not about a drawing; it's about telling a detailed, accurate, engineering description of what's out there and how it is controlled.
Art Montemayor
Spring, TX
RE: P&ID
P&IDs in Autocad with well-engineered block attributes(visible and invisible) can save up to 65% of detail engineering manhours and gives a better accuracy than 'manually' cross-referenced construction drawings and documents. With a mouse click you can retrieve and generate equipment list, line list, instrument index, I/O list, alarm settings, piping bulk materials except elbows, vessel nozzle schedules, PID drawing index of 100 drawings in just 1 hour. Using VBA you can fill in extracted data into your equipment & instrument data and calculation templates.
209larry
RE: P&ID
RE: P&ID
RE: P&ID
Still I was suspicious because the PID's from USA that I saw all had a certain similitude that, I assumed before, should come from a standard.
Now the smoking gun.
ANSI Process Flow Standards. ASA Z32.2.3-1949.
RE: P&ID
RE: P&ID
For example some people show all the System inputs and outputs in some form on the P&ID, others do not. Some use packages like InTools to extract the IO List but this is rarely complete either in having all the IO or all the fields such as the IO Address
Some carefully arrange the P&ID’s to only show one 'Unit' (in the S88 sense) others put as much equipment as possible on a P&ID and when it is full start the next one. The worst I have seen (lots) have equipment split across two or more P&ID’s
Some try to make flows go left-right and others do not. Often the P&ID is used by the automation supplier as a basis for the process graphics. But P&ID's are mostly drawn with no thought whatever for operation or procedural logic. And the resulting graphics are not IMHO good.
Another thing is that often a process has several virtually identical equipment items (eg Several batch reactors) but instead of drawing it once they draw the same diagram each time. Of course the tag numbers on each must be different but this can be achieved by having one diagram and a good Unit based tag numbering scheme.
By the way, tag numbering schemes are often as inconsistent as P&ID's, - but they are topic in themselves
RE: P&ID
please note this thread: Thread403-76603
Art M. posting is exactly what i learned/practiced, being in the oil & gas industry. p&id's are the bible and are frequently referred to by design engineers in the epc business.
in other mentioned thread, i thank wilg for clarifying the differences and in this thread, FrancisL observations are also noted.
lately, having reviewed "incomplete" (meaning not to the detailed level i'm accustomed to nor including spec requirements) hvac drawings/schematics for construction purposes does not provide a "degree of confidence" that required equipment or features are included in system.
different industries have different meanings or interpretations for same terminology. communication is key in understanding the terminology used in other industries, other than primary practice.
thanks and good luck!
-pmover