I've been working in the motion control field for about eight years and have worked on many automation projects. I now find myself in a new job and faced with developing my own electrical prints for control systems for the first time. I'm wondering if anyone has any suggestions as to the best resources to be studying in the way of print development, drawing standards and best practices. I'm not looking for a guide to control systems but the best way to convey the design of a control system to others.
Thanks,
Dave

 

Dave:
No doubt, you have a witnessed a mixed bag of documentation. One reference document to use is the"NFPA 79 Electrical Standard for Industrial Machinery 2xxx Edition".
Excellent reference, and it covers the elementaries, PLC interconnects, and the panel elevations.
Process Flow Diagrams (PFD) and Piping and Instrument Diagrams are available through the ISA. Some documentation numbers to check are ISA s5.1 "Instrument Symbols and Identification", ISA s5.4"Instrument Loop Diagrams", and ISA s51.1"Standard Process Instrumentation Terminology".
I do not have the SAMA document number for the "SAMA Logics". Possibly someone else reviewing the post will mention it.
Interesting enough, there was a post over the last 2 to 3 months which mentioned some good reference. You might want to explore.
Designs at times are abberations of the above. However, the final documentation for the project; that is to say the "Drawings of Record" or the "
AS-Builts" should be true to the accepted Reference Documentation.
I neglected to mention most Equipment Manufacturers have depots of info on the websites which can be employed. many in AutoCad or MicroStation. Mostly AutoCad or PDF.
Personally, my designs incorporate P&ID's, ECD's and SAMA Logics. Heavily noted as well.
Hope this is of worth.
Good Luck!
Regards,
Paul Dackermann

 

I believe it is no longer legally-correct to use the term "As-Builts"

Regards,
Phil Corso, PE
Boca Raton, FL
[[email protected]] ([email protected]) {[email protected]}

 

> I believe it is no longer legally-correct to use the term "As-Builts"

Just why is that Phil? And what would the legally correct term be?

Bob Peterson

 

"Drawings of Record"

Regards,
Phil Corso, PE
Boca Raton, FL
[[email protected]] ([email protected]) {[email protected]}

 

Legally-correct???

As long as you take the effort to go through every element in the drawings to verify that it is in fact "as-built", and that every item that exists is represented in the drawings, then you should feel confident enough to use the phrase "as-built".

Otherwise, do the weenie lawyer thing and use the phrase "as-recorded".

Anthony Kerstens P.Eng.

 

Bob, I may have spoken too soon, in generalizing. My recollecion is that the article was in the:

"Florida Board of Professional Review", published in early 2000"

I apologize for putting you on "high" alert!

By the way, the "As-Built" issue came about because of a requirement from a client to whom we supplied drawings on a "floppy!"

We had to certify that hard copy drawings were made from the "floppy". If you'd like I can repeat the statement prepared by our legal counsel, but it may not cover a like situation in your location.

Regards,
Phil Corso, PE
Boca Raton, FL
[[email protected]] ([email protected]) {[email protected]}

 

I have usually seen "record" drawings reflect the status of the equipment at the time the installation was completed and turned over. "As builts" (or sometimes "as shipped") seem to reflect equipment status as it shipped from the manufacturer.

Bob Peterson

 

I've used "as-built" to refer to the actual status of the installation at the completion of the project. Mind you, at the start of the next project, it is usually a good idea to do another as-building exercise!

Bruce.

 

To All:
I regret I equated "As-Builts" and "Drawings of Record","Record Drawings" as synonomous.
I should strike the sentence. However, it did raise a point of discussion, and as well justified.
The understanding by definition of "Record Drawings" and what the minimum expectation is as delineated in the specifications for a project has created some dilemas and "misunderstandings".
Depending upon the scale or size of the project, the level of excellance of the "contractural group"; and I state "contractural group" losely and vaguely as the hierarchy would evolve in a "Bid and Spec" environment.
Fortunately, or unfortunately, depending upon the perspective; I have been involved in the design, commissioning,start-up, documentation and training for projects ranging from $50K to $3M+.
The perspective I refer to is to defines a range as well; which includes Instrumentation and Control System Manufacturers,various process industries, as well as consulting firms.
I realize I am deviating. However,the "Best in Breed" typically are the benchmark. Many that would fit the category are as listed on the "Engineering News Record"(I am not stating this to cause an uproar, or to single out. Insert whatever organization or consortium that fits.)
The rationale simply is this. I don't want to sound as if on "the soap box".
Instrumentation and control systems for an international firm normally is a stand alone respectable discipline.
Consulting, and construct firms of the smaller local variety tend to "delegate", or include the responsibility as adjunct too.
Some of the aforementioned partner with a system integrator(for better or worse), or with a dedicated instrumentation and controls engineer that can steer and/or fullstop handle the duties necessary. This is a good thing!
Hopefully this is making sense.
Most importantly; at the end of the day some standard is followed.

Regards,
Paul Dackermann

 

Wow Dave, you must have been, or are, or will be... a lawyer!


...I'm sorry Paul, but you had me so discombobulated, I called you Dave. Ergo, you are a lawyer... although you rite like a injuneer!

Regards,
Phil Corso, PE
Boca Raton, FL
[[email protected]] ([email protected]) {[email protected]}

 

The passage in my first reply which mentions a string chock full of reference was in fact a January 10, 2003 entry by Phil Corso. Some good stuff on that list! Would not mind securing a copy of the aforementioned myself.

Best Regards,
Paul Dackermann

 

To Paul Dackerman:

Contact me off-list!

Regards,
Phil Corso, PE
Boca Raton, FL
[[email protected]] ([email protected]) {[email protected]}

 

I agree with you about it.
The term "AS BUILT" means exactly the phase of construction, assembing or installing is finished. But, not exactly just in this moment. It is necessary to confirm all records with the reality in field before starting a new project or when we need to make a maintenance schedule.

Regards,

Juan P. Marval
QA/QC Instrument Engineer
Maturin - Venezuela
([email protected])