How do you guys deal with detailing multiple nozzles around a vessel? In the past in CAD we 'rotate' all nozzles to 0 and 180 degrees, basically flat with the view. This is technically incorrect, but in 2D, you can get away with it (draughtmans license). In 3D, not so easy. We resorted to creating more views to show the vessel correctly. See the last image.
We have an EVAP as an example. See the 3D, and the AutoCAD 2D. Any ideas/solutions?
Solved! Go to Solution.
Granted, we don't detail anything quite this large.... but, when we detail nozzle locations we do a plan view indicating a datum for the "0" degree start point, then place an angle indicator on each successive nozzle from there... including a tag relating it to a nozzle schedule. With such a large vessel, I would suggesst doing this in as many section views as needed to get them all in and make it clear to the reader. I've attached one example, maybe not the best... just the first one I found.
Not a good example (too small) but another example along the lines of what cbenner mentioned above. This is what we usually do. This example is tiny but several vessels we do have a nozzle schedule that take up an entire drawing.
Thank you for the responses. We do plan views, as attached in the image. However, in the previous attachment (The elevation), all the nozzles are drawn in a 'rotated' position, either 0 or 180 deg, whichever is closest for that nozzle. So, if you look at L1 and S1 (Next to the man in the elevation), their true orientation is 165, but in the elevation, that would look obscured. You see that its a draughting cheat.
Just wondering if its worth trying to replicate this in Inventor drawings (which we have completed already) in the future.
I think it's "possible" to do by using positional representations and such (I haven't tried it) but it seems like more work to me than is worth it to be honest (but that's only because I've never done it). The fabricators that I work with to build the vessels we design have made more than a couple of comments about how they like that our drawings represent "exactly" what they are going to build not a bunch of "AutoCAD blocks slapped together" as they put it.
Sorry I couldn't be of more help but maybe positional representations will do the trick. I'm not that educated about them but from what I remember during my training it could be simple enough if the constraints are set up the way I am thinking.
Sort of like this?
Or (not necessarily your problem, but another drafting convention that is unsupported)
I copied these pictures from
but you will find similar examples in every drafting manual/handbook/textbook I've ever seen.
If you can get a satisfactory answer out of Autodesk please let us know.
We do as jeanchile suggested. In the Master positional representation the tank is modelled such that all attachments have an angular constraint. We then create a positional representation named Elevation with an override on those constraints so the attachments are at 0 and 180 degrees (or wherever we wish).
All views in the attached drawing set are of the Master positional representation except the view labelled Elevation Representation. You can also see the use of the Nozzle Schedule, and on the second page 3D views are included.
Hope this helps.
I thought of using PosReps, but the problem is the cutouts in the vessel. Like you say, too muh trouble than its worth. I think with something this detailed, simplified drawings make a big difference. The inventor version of our drawings just seem....heavy. Tough to describe, but ya, they require a greater deal of scrutiny to know what you're looking at. But thanks for the comments.
Dan, you've nailed it! Like I've mentioned before, 3D doesn't really allow for this. Pros and cons, I guess. Will keep you posted about an ADESK response.
Log into access your profile, ask and answer questions, share ideas and more. Haven't signed up yet? Register