Efficiency with redundant single/three line diagrams

[SteveO NE]

As an engineer out on my own that never worked for a large firm, I sometimes find I've been missing some slick ways to make things be a bit more efficient.

Most of the work I do doesn't require separate redundant single line diagrams and three line diagrams - its either controls points or single line diagrams. However, a handful of financiers of some renewable projects want 3-lines and SLDs of the entire system which is redundant and adds no value in my viewpoint - its a balanced system and we already call out connection details where relevant, like say the SBJ, transformer connection diagrams, disconnect connection diagrams, so we are left with updating the 400 tweaks everyone inevitably wants to an otherwise simple drawing but now need to make sure we update the SLD and 3-phase diagram exactly the same each time. For some projects it is of course valuable but I mean we are talking about a couple of fused disconnects and an inverter, and everything is the same on all phases.

Is this normally done a different way to be able to just work from a single design and be able to maintain a SLD/3LD from a single design? Some viewport trickery with layers? Maybe it is what it is, and I just need to charge more, when someone wants this, but sometimes you don't know what you are missing until you are enlightened by someone who know which tool to use to do it. I am working in AutoCAD and/or BricsCAD so recommendations for either would work for me.

Thanks!

 

[JoeStillman]

A 3LD of an entire system is certainly redundant. Maybe you could get by with one typical 3-line for repetitive elements? In my work, which is general electrical construction in all types of buildings, we NEVER do a 3-line. We do, however, see them as part of the shop drawing submissions for a piece of switchgear or a generator.

This violates the principal I learned early on: "Only say it once!" Every time you repeat something, you multiply the possibility of disagreeing with yourself. You wind up making things less understandable instead of more complete.

Do the people that require 3-lines actually know how to read them?

 

[SteveO NE]

Maybe you could get by with one typical 3-line for repetitive elements?

This is exactly what we do unless forced to otherwise - we have detail drawings of how to wire the disconnect, or the transformer, or the inverters, etc. So sticking those components onto a drawing just to draw extra lines is a waste of time and again, exactly as you say, an opportunity to mess up. This latter point is why any time we are required to show the same thing on multiple pages its a single block or viewport that is guarantees its identical in every single place it appears because more than once you will forget to update one of them and cause a problem down the line.

Of course, lets not mention that electricians take and throw the page in the trash anyway because its just harder to read.

Do the people that require 3-lines actually know how to read them?

Most of the time its an out of touch engineer that works for an investor and feels like it makes things more engineery and official. They require it because they require it and cannot really answer the question of what value it adds.

Its nice to see I'm not alone thinking the requirement is just a terrible idea.

 

[petersonra]

We do three lines so when our shop wires it there is a place to mark on the drawing each wire as it is wired. Plus we make all the wire numbers unique and keyed to an index that is printed on the drawing. Then our QA inspectors can verify what was wired. Near impossible to do off a one line

We don't usually do one lines because generally there is no value to us to do one. But sometimes a customer wants one.