Pipeline Plan Comparison for 2D-3D Consistency Checking
Find Innovative SolutionsGenerate Solutions
Solution Overview
Problem
Current methods lack a reliable and efficient way to check for consistency between two-dimensional and three-dimensional representations of pipelines in project planning systems, leading to potential inconsistencies in design and execution.
Innovation Solution
A method is developed to determine main paths and sequences of objects in both plans, eliminate non-corresponding objects, and iteratively classify and link objects based on identifiers and order differences, providing a sequential assignment to display inconsistencies and guide corrections on a graphical user interface.
Engineering Contradictions & Design Principles
Engineering Contradiction Analysis
1Adaptability or versatility
If pipelines are represented in both two-dimensional and three-dimensional plans manually, then design flexibility is maintained, but consistency and reliability of pipeline detection deteriorate
Solution Approach 1:
The system automatically compares the 2D pipeline plan with the 3D pipeline model and provides feedback by highlighting inconsistencies such as missing pipelines, extra pipelines, or connectivity errors. This feedback mechanism ensures reliability by continuously verifying consistency between different representation plans without restricting design flexibility.
Solution Approach 2:
The patent introduces an intermediary comparison mechanism that acts as a mediator between the 2D plan and 3D model. This intermediary system automatically detects and reports discrepancies, allowing designers to maintain flexibility in both representation types while ensuring consistency through automated verification.
2Adaptability or versatility
If manual checking of pipeline consistency is performed, then design freedom is preserved, but time consumption and error probability increase
Solution Approach 1:
The system performs self-service by automatically comparing the 2D pipeline plan with the 3D model without requiring manual intervention. The computer automatically identifies inconsistencies, connects corresponding pipeline ends, and validates connectivity, thereby eliminating time-consuming manual checking while preserving design freedom.
Solution Approach 2:
The patent replaces the mechanical manual checking process with an automated computer-based system. Instead of manually comparing plans and models, the system uses automated algorithms to detect inconsistencies, match pipeline endpoints, and verify connectivity, significantly reducing time consumption while maintaining design flexibility.
3Productivity
If automated consistency checking is implemented, then time efficiency improves, but system complexity increases
Solution Approach 1:
The system achieves multi-functionality by combining multiple checking capabilities (consistency verification, endpoint matching, connectivity validation) into a single automated platform. This universal approach improves productivity by handling all checking tasks efficiently while managing system complexity through integrated design.
Solution Approach 2:
The patent segments the consistency checking process into distinct automated steps: comparing 2D plans with 3D models, identifying corresponding pipeline ends, validating connectivity, and reporting inconsistencies. This segmentation improves productivity by making each step efficient while managing overall system complexity through modular organization.
4Measurement precision
If detailed comparison of all pipeline objects is performed, then detection precision improves, but computational load increases
Solution Approach 1:
The system extracts only the essential elements for comparison by focusing on pipeline endpoints and connectivity information rather than analyzing every detail of the entire pipeline model. This extraction approach maintains high detection precision for critical consistency issues while reducing computational energy requirements.
Solution Approach 2:
The patent applies partial action by performing detailed comparison only where necessary - specifically at pipeline endpoints and connection points - rather than uniformly analyzing all pipeline objects. This approach achieves sufficient detection precision for consistency checking while minimizing unnecessary computational energy consumption.
Data Source
Figure 1
Figure 2
Figure 3
AI summary
To verify the consistent representation of pipelines (10, 20) that are represented two-dimensionally in a first plan (1) and three-dimensionally in a second plan (2), at least one main path within each plan is determined for pipelines represented in both plans. For the identified main paths, sequences of objects comprising pipeline components (11, 21), branches (12, 22), and/or connections are identified within both plans for comparison. From the sequences to be compared, objects without a mutual correspondence are eliminated; these objects are represented only in one of the two plans or only in one main path of one of the two plans. Subsequently, objects with different sequences are iteratively identified and classified within the sequences to be compared. These objects exhibit the maximum sequence difference within the sequences being compared.This process continues until all objects remaining after classification show no order difference within the sequences being compared.