The model
In the last decade, physical modeling was quite common, a requirement that is slowly giving away to virtual computer models in 3D. One of the reasons for this change is that precision modeling is tough using physical material, labor intensive and, it’s quite expensive. There are other limitations such as the inability to capture changes in real time.
While I really appreciate the modern technology using the virtual 3D modeling, walk-throughs and all that, I sorely miss the real models. It’s a pity that not many see real scaled models as useful as they see the virtual ones.
One of the classics showcased here (from my current project, an artist’s impression). I’m extremely happy to note that my company is one of those few ones that still see the value in such models.
That’s a very nice model Chetan. I’m little curious here to know what sort of CAD systems are widely used in designing offshore structures like the one you posted? For Injection Mould design and modelling (which I do for living) I found Unigraphics, ProE, Catia quite popular among major players in my Industry. Even our small design firm where I work uses Unigraphics for all modelling and design work, we do have to keep up with the big guns you see.
May 2, 05 at 11:12We use a variety of applications, each one specific for its intended task. For parametric modelling, we use software like CadCentre’s PDMS and Intergraph’s PDS extensively.
Specifically for structural 3D modelling, we use BOCAD that helps us generate material volume quantity and cutting plans in material optimization.
At any specific time, there are different teams working on the same model, like for example Electrical and Instrumentation department groups model their cable tray systems and equipment, Piping team will be on equipment and piping systems, HVAC on their ducting, etc. Each discipline work in their own domain and do not affect or disrupt other discipline’s work.
Structural model can either be modelled in PDMS or is imported from BOCAD. Once a revision is ready, we run clash checks to ensure that the model is in good shape to go. Then we go in for a detailed review. The cycle continues until we capture virtually everything before the final walkthrough review and delivery.
Our modelling is not restricted to parametric design alone. For stress analysis models, we use SACS, USFOS and SESAM.
May 2, 05 at 14:38Wow! that was an insightful reply. Obviously its a big world of specialist CAD software. I’m feeling like that frog in a well
May 5, 05 at 09:10I moved over to offshore structures 3 years back and has been previleged to design a topside flare module of an FPSO using SACS. I first came in contact with the SACS SYNTAX you design for Texpad before stumbling on your website.
Mar 1, 06 at 00:31Iam about designing a 3- leg jacket and in the course of practising modeling using template in SACS, the batter of the third leg seem not to be correct as I DO NOT GET AN EQUILATERAL TRIANGLE WHEN I TAKE SCTION THROUGH ANY OF THE ELEVATION. THE QUESTION IS , IS THERE NO EXCEL SHEET DEVELOPED TO get the geometry right without the rigour of the template or may be am not getting something right. I will also be interested in flare boom modelling at an inclined angle.
Thanks
No, because you really don’t need one, for it is basic high-school plane geometry. If you don’t understand slopes and projections, then I think you should try refreshing your basics than trying to get hold of spreadsheets.
As for your problem: I think you’re using true batter. You should be using apparent batter, because SACS input is per plane (or projection). So, if your jacket legs have a two way batter, then apparent batters in X an Y should be defined. If you still don’t understand batters, try planes. Model the top plane using a reference joint. Then model the bottom plane. Then connect your legs. Simple?
Mar 4, 06 at 23:18I think from your explanation I should have use apparent batters in X and Y. Thanks
Apr 19, 06 at 23:35