Unlocking Efficiency: Best Practices for 3D Model Review in EPC Projects

In the fast-paced world of Engineering, Procurement, and Construction (EPC) projects, efficiency is paramount. One of the key areas where efficiency can be significantly enhanced is during the 3D model review process. By adopting best practices, project teams can streamline workflows, improve collaboration, and reduce costly errors. This article delves into the essential strategies based on author experience that can unlock efficiency in 3D model reviews, ensuring projects are completed on time and within budget.

The sequential correlation of engineering, procurement, and construction phases in EPC projects heavily relies on 3D models. During the engineering phase, detailed 3D models are created to visualize the design, identify potential issues, and ensure all components fit together seamlessly. These models are then used in the procurement phase to specify and source the necessary materials and equipment accurately. Finally, during the construction phase, the 3D models guide the assembly and installation processes, ensuring that the project is built according to the design specifications. By integrating 3D model objective that refer to the sequential phase, EPC projects can achieve greater accuracy, reduce rework, and enhance overall project efficiency.

Normally during detail engineering the 3D model review are divide into 3 phase, 30%, 60% and 90%. Let’s start with understanding the sequence principle and typical content of 3D model that need to be available during the review,

·?????? 30% 3D Model Review

o?? At this stage, the design is roughly 30% complete. The primary focus is on laying out the major design elements of the project. This includes establishing the overall plant layout and the main changes due to FEED punch or new input introduced during the early stage of detail engineering.

o?? Only the large-diameter critical lines are routed and modeled (normally up to 8” diameter). The aim is to identify any major design issues early on and set a basis for further development.

o?? This review helps in setting the cost and timeline for the project and provides a foundation for the subsequent design phases. At this stage the primary structure is mostly had their first run and simulation without any concern

·?????? 60% 3D Model Review

o?? By the 60% review, the design is more detailed and refined. This stage involves a more comprehensive review of the design, including the routing of all major piping and equipment. At this stage P&ID are had gone through HAZOP review and updated accordingly. Primary structure is freeze and first run of stress analysis for big bore pipe/critical lines are complete.

o?? The focus is on ensuring that all disciplines (such as piping, electrical, and structural) interface are well-coordinated and that there are no clashes or conflicts in the design. In addition, its shall provide assurance that main design principle are workable without any major constraint.

o?? This review helps in identifying any remaining issues and making necessary adjustments before moving towards finalization. By the end of the review, the primary structure assembly drawing and big bores/critical lines isometric are validated and issued for fabrication. In addition, space envelope for main equipment well defines complete with handling/maintenance reservation to be utilized as one of criteria during the procurement evaluation.

·?????? 90% 3D Model Review

o?? The design is now about 90% complete. All the details for each discipline are put in-place (small bore piping, cable tray, piping support, safety items, F&G location). Final issuance P&ID are normally approved with integration of supplementary design interconnection from vendor documentation. Constructability aspect and Safety study recommendation are integrated.

o?? The focus is on Final details and refinements made to the model, including final clash check, verifying that all design elements meet the project specifications and standards and ensuring that the design can be constructed as planned.

o?? After the 90% review, massive automatic document issuance will be start for piping isometric, structural detail drawing, various disciplines support and detail layout. Final MTO will be retrieve from the database for procurement finalization. This milestone will initiate the start of full gas fabrication/ construction activities.?

In author experience below is 3D model review main challenges during detail engineering which normally leading to EPSCC schedule delayed and cost implication,

?? Understanding of the design input and sequence. Each phase of the model review will be feed by certain level document input maturity. Effective review will require participant to understand what kind of assessment need to be applied based on the phase. In addition, some of the freeze subject on the later stage shall not be challenge unless major safety aspect is foreseen. For example: Detail handling of pump motor can’t be asked during the 30% 3D model review or Request to re-locate equipment during the 90% 3D model review.

?? 3D model review is not a detail design review. 3D model review participant is quite often trap to have a detail design review during the session. These detail discussion on the design shall be performed separately before and outside the 3D model review. Otherwise, it will consume the review period, producing unnecessary punches (because client always right ??) and we are losing the essence of the 3D review objectives.

?? Late input from vendors and third-party safety study. This constraint is very tricky during current period where the market is extremely fully loaded with unavoidable bottleneck either from vendor or third-party safety study. For some critical equipment or main safety study can lead to significant changes in the overall 3D model which will affect the review readiness. For example: late input from compressor vendor which required re-routing of the inlet and outlet lines or Depressurization study result which led to significant increase to the flare header.

?? Satellite design office activities synchronization. Today most of Engineering house or EPSCC are having a satellite office in India or other part of Asia as the “Satelite Design Office”. This situation needs to be properly controlled in perspective of 3D model development. If it isn’t well managed, we will foresee many inconsistencies on the 3D model, dimensional issues, and many unnecessary clashes. Having integrated system like AVEVA Global can help to mitigate, however its not completely remove the risk.? ??

In conclusion, implementing best practices for 3D model reviews in EPC projects is essential for unlocking efficiency and ensuring project success. By adhering to structured review stages—30%, 60%, and 90%—teams can identify and resolve issues early, optimize design accuracy, and enhance collaboration across disciplines. These practices not only mitigate risks but also pave the way for smoother project execution, ultimately leading to timely and cost-effective project delivery. Embracing these strategies will empower EPC teams to achieve excellence and drive innovation in their projects.