regulations and conventions design of storage tanks

[Dario01]

Good morning to all,
I address you for the first time and hope you can help me to address a small issue (I have not found any other threads to link the speech).

the question concerns the graphic representation of the storage tanks (executed with cad 2d): always the company where I work (well before my arrival) carries out a view from the top of the tank with the positioning of its mouths and man steps, and a side view that identifies the relative heights of these accessories. Now the problem is that the positioning of the accessories in sight from the top and side can not coincide: faith, for the position regarding the axis of the reservoir, only the view from above, while the lateral one serves only to identify what height they are placed (it is not a classic orthogonal projection: e.g. if the nozzle n1 to the left in sight from above does not stand on the side view, it is put right; this to avoid having to do a thousand sections in case of many accessories on the tank).
coming from the mechanical world I did not know this 'convention', and in fact it must also be explained to many customers who are scattered when they analyze the design.
I ask whether there is a norm (iso, uni, etc.) or a convention that establishes the rules for this type of drawings (I have done a research but without outcome), and your experiences about it.

Thank you for your attention and availability
Dario

 

[Teo-77]

Good morning.
Although the original message is a little dated (about a year ago) I think the answer can still serve someone.
I doubt that there is a rule on this, but I think it is a practice widely used in carpentry. the objective is to draw as little as possible in order to avoid errors of reading the vents are numbered n1, n2,....both on the view from above, and on the side view. the view from above is always the dominant one. for my precaution, on drawings of this kind, I tend to behave like this:

- on the elevation view I write "front view (falsa view)"
- above the cartiglio I write "for the real arrangement of the vents use the view in the plant"

I can't tell you if from an academic point of view it's correct but for my experience I've seen that those who build tanks are used to reading the design this way. with regard to the customer/commercial side often happens to have to illustrate the project by explaining the design. I personally think that it is understandable because not being people trained at work is justified not knowing certain norms and/or conventions.

 

[Pastameccanica]

Good morning to all,
I address you for the first time and hope you can help me to address a small issue (I have not found any other threads to link the speech).

the question concerns the graphic representation of the storage tanks (executed with cad 2d): always the company where I work (well before my arrival) carries out a view from the top of the tank with the positioning of its mouths and man steps, and a side view that identifies the relative heights of these accessories. Now the problem is that the positioning of the accessories in sight from the top and side can not coincide: faith, for the position regarding the axis of the reservoir, only the view from above, while the lateral one serves only to identify what height they are placed (it is not a classic orthogonal projection: e.g. if the nozzle n1 to the left in sight from above does not stand on the side view, it is put right; this to avoid having to do a thousand sections in case of many accessories on the tank).
coming from the mechanical world I did not know this 'convention', and in fact it must also be explained to many customers who are scattered when they analyze the design.
I ask whether there is a norm (iso, uni, etc.) or a convention that establishes the rules for this type of drawings (I have done a research but without outcome), and your experiences about it.

Thank you for your attention and availability
Dario

Hey, dario,
I've found myself, or I'm still in the same situation. Yes, the use of false views, in my opinion, dates back to the time of drawing manual with the tecnigraph. so doing you saved time and work. then continued with the system also with the advent of cad 2d. Now, in the company where I work, they introduced the 3d sofware and from the point of view of the table I am no longer used false views. to represent everything it takes more tables, but you provide more details. However, I assure you, that those in the workshop were accustomed to false views, it struggles to read the design with real projections. . .

 

[mirkocapecchi]

Good evening,
I'm myrko and I have the usual dario problem working with solidworks...

I would like to know if the only solution is to create multiple sheets and sections, but leaving all real views (new method) and not false views (old method) .
of course the workshops and our suppliers have always worked in the old method so I would say that using the 3d method you will have to change.

I ask for advice to you on other methods of unwinding and setting of tanks/silos/drying columns.

Thank you very much

Mysteries

 

[Cadinpiedi]

the conventions of the boiler shop are a world apart. the imperious method is that of false views and is widespread on a world scale, beginning with the data sheets issued by rdo from engineering companies to the final documentation. at the time of the acquisition of the order by the manufacturer the design of the piping plant is far from being defined, so the boiler emits a rev_0 with a list preliminary drafts waiting for the binding confirmation of the orientation bucchelli from the engineering company or the final customer. The date of delivery is also very often linked to the date of delivery, and the builders always hope that the approval delays in order to be able to dilate the delivery goes from itself that the culture of the boiler workers is strongly linked to this convention. the tractor of the openings on the funds and on the fasciami reason in terms of gradiage of degrees regarding the axes 0° 90° 180° 270° of the main plant, it can be enough a simple sheet showing the list of vents with the gradations regarding the axes mentioned above. in a 2d design place that "n" bushings insist on the same radius is sufficient a section with only one stamp showing the ray and the name n1,n2,n3 etc. with the advent of the 3d this system goes a little in crisis because the object stamp has to stand in its real position and therefore requires an ad hoc section.
the designer then emits a rev_0 with the necessary sections crossing the fingers and hoping that the orientation bushings is confirmed without too much overturning, nb almost never happens... and then you have to start over again.
when you are lucky it can be that "n" vents we have the same size and radius of positioning, and then just use the convention of false sight.
It is also true that it is taking more and more foot the demand of the engineering companies to have a step model of the tank to be inserted in the layouts of the plant because of course they also work on 3d base, but the final result does not change, it is always necessary to specify where the stamp stands.

 

[mirkocapecchi]

the conventions of the boiler shop are a world apart. the imperious method is that of false views and is widespread on a world scale, beginning with the data sheets issued by rdo from engineering companies to the final documentation. at the time of the acquisition of the order by the manufacturer the design of the piping plant is far from being defined, so the boiler emits a rev_0 with a list preliminary drafts waiting for the binding confirmation of the orientation bucchelli from the engineering company or the final customer. The date of delivery is also very often linked to the date of delivery, and the builders always hope that the approval delays in order to be able to dilate the delivery goes from itself that the culture of the boiler workers is strongly linked to this convention. the tractor of the openings on the funds and on the fasciami reason in terms of gradiage of degrees regarding the axes 0° 90° 180° 270° of the main plant, it can be enough a simple sheet showing the list of vents with the gradations regarding the axes mentioned above. in a 2d design place that "n" bushings insist on the same radius is sufficient a section with only one stamp showing the ray and the name n1,n2,n3 etc. with the advent of the 3d this system goes a little in crisis because the object stamp has to stand in its real position and therefore requires an ad hoc section.
the designer then emits a rev_0 with the necessary sections crossing the fingers and hoping that the orientation bushings is confirmed without too much overturning, nb almost never happens... and then you have to start over again.
when you are lucky it can be that "n" vents we have the same size and radius of positioning, and then just use the convention of false sight.
It is also true that it is taking more and more foot the demand of the engineering companies to have a step model of the tank to be inserted in the layouts of the plant because of course they also work on 3d base, but the final result does not change, it is always necessary to specify where the stamp stands.

You know exactly what you say.
Therefore for 3d files (solidworks ) it is almost necessary to make two assemblies, with correct position vents and with false view positions, but in this way it doubles the work because with the modifications/revisions that will be present on the project the designer takes 45 times the system.
a 2d file with many sections would create enough problems to the supplier because one changes we say the method of making the tank/silos/drying column.

the only perhaps is to baptize fewer possible angles for the vents and to make a few sections (0° 45° 90° 135°......... 315° - 360° )

 

[Cadinpiedi]

You know exactly what you say.
Therefore for 3d files (solidworks ) it is almost necessary to make two assemblies, with correct position vents and with false view positions, but in this way it doubles the work because with the modifications/revisions that will be present on the project the designer takes 45 times the system.
a 2d file with many sections would create enough problems to the supplier because one changes we say the method of making the tank/silos/drying column.

the only perhaps is to baptize fewer possible angles for the vents and to make a few sections (0° 45° 90° 135°......... 315° - 360° )

premise: I do not know solidworks, but the strategy is to try to use the features of the software that you have available to ensure that the changes are less painful possible. nice to say, but in practice when dealing with a column of distillation where the mouths are more than twenty, and anyway also in case they are few, make two models having to make double updates, double balls, double project data tables, in print management etc., can give the sture to a sequence of errors and forgetfulness. better to arrange with a single model by choosing how to create the possible sections in the table that are the most flexible. Sorry not to have a prêt-à-porter solution, but for example for the bushings on the fasciame it is necessary only elevation, while dn, norm, tronchetto, service, qt, are already defined in the distinct mouths, so to decrease the amount of sections you can use a frontal view with the vents in a hidden position, even if this will cause the purists to hover, so much serve for the identification will go the brand of the stamp. In short, you have to see how the tank is shaped and adapt. Good luck