AVEVA E3D Design for Plant and Piping

What Is AVEVA E3D Design

AVEVA E3D Design is a multi-discipline 3D plant design application used by EPC contractors, owner-operators, and design houses to model piping, structural steel, equipment, cable trays, HVAC ductwork, and instrumentation in a shared database environment. It is the direct successor to AVEVA PDMS (Plant Design Management System), which was for decades the dominant 3D piping design tool across European, Asian, and Middle Eastern EPC projects.

E3D replaced PDMS not as a clean-sheet rewrite but as a modernized platform built on the same DABACON database engine. Engineers who spent years working in PDMS will recognize the data hierarchy, the catalog structure, and much of the design philosophy. What changed is the user interface, the underlying architecture (64-bit, .NET-based), and the performance characteristics when handling models with millions of components.

If you have worked on offshore platforms in the North Sea, LNG plants in Southeast Asia, or refinery expansions in the Middle East, you have almost certainly encountered PDMS or E3D. The installed base is enormous, and the migration path from PDMS to E3D has been a defining topic in piping engineering departments since AVEVA began pushing the transition around 2015.

Heritage: From CADCentre to AVEVA E3D

The lineage of E3D matters because it explains why the software works the way it does, and why so many companies remain committed to it despite competition from Hexagon Smart 3D and Autodesk Plant 3D.

The Timeline

Era	Product	Key Characteristics
1970s-1980s	CADCentre PDMS	Developed at Cambridge, UK. One of the first 3D plant design systems. Command-line driven.
1990s	PDMS (under AVEVA Group)	CADCentre rebranded. PDMS became the standard for European EPCs. Client-server architecture with DABACON database.
2000s	AVEVA PDMS 12.x	Mature product. Widespread adoption in Asia (Samsung, Hyundai, Chiyoda). Added graphical enhancements but kept the same core.
2010s	AVEVA E3D Design 1.x-2.x	Modern 64-bit application. .NET user interface. Same DABACON backend. Replaced the old PDMS GUI.
2018	Schneider Electric acquisition	AVEVA merged with Schneider Electric’s software division. E3D became part of a larger industrial software portfolio.
2020s	AVEVA E3D Design 3.x	Cloud connectivity via AVEVA Connect. Continued modernization. Integration with AVEVA Unified Engineering.

The critical point is that PDMS did not die; it evolved. The DABACON database that stores every pipe component, structural member, and equipment item in a PDMS project is the same database that E3D reads and writes. This backward compatibility allowed companies like Technip (now Technip Energies), Saipem, and Worley to migrate ongoing projects from PDMS to E3D without rebuilding their models from scratch.

Why the Heritage Matters for Piping Engineers

When you open E3D and create a pipe run, you are working with a data structure that was designed in the 1970s and refined over five decades. The hierarchy of WORLD, SITE, ZONE, PIPE, BRANCH, and individual components (elbows, tees, flanges, valves) is deeply embedded in how PDMS and E3D organize piping data. Every piping component sits in this hierarchy, and It matters for working efficiently in the software.

This also means that E3D carries some legacy constraints. The DABACON database is not a standard relational database like Oracle or SQL Server. It is a proprietary object-oriented database, and that has implications for data extraction, reporting, and integration with other systems.

Why European and Asian EPCs Prefer AVEVA

The global 3D plant design market has two dominant players: AVEVA (E3D/PDMS) and Hexagon (Smart 3D, formerly Intergraph PDS/SmartPlant 3D). The split is partly geographic, partly historical, and partly technical.

Geographic and Historical Factors

PDMS was developed in the UK and adopted early by British, Dutch, and Scandinavian engineering companies. From there, it spread to their international offices and joint ventures. When Samsung Engineering, Hyundai Engineering, and Chiyoda Corporation built their 3D design capabilities in the 1990s and 2000s, many chose PDMS because their European partners and clients were already using it.

EPC Contractor	Primary 3D Tool	Notes
Technip Energies	AVEVA E3D / PDMS	Long-standing AVEVA user; French-Italian heritage
Saipem	AVEVA E3D / PDMS	Italian EPC; deep PDMS expertise
Samsung Engineering	AVEVA E3D / PDMS	Korean EPC; adopted PDMS for LNG and refinery work
Hyundai Engineering	AVEVA E3D	Korean EPC; transitioned from PDMS
Chiyoda Corporation	AVEVA E3D / PDMS	Japanese EPC; used PDMS for decades on LNG projects
McDermott (CB&I legacy)	Smart 3D	U.S. heritage; Intergraph roots
Bechtel	Smart 3D	U.S. EPC; standardized on Intergraph/Hexagon
Fluor	Smart 3D	U.S. EPC
Wood (Amec support Wheeler)	AVEVA E3D	UK heritage; PDMS legacy

The pattern is clear: American EPCs tend toward Hexagon Smart 3D, while European, Asian, and Middle Eastern contractors lean toward AVEVA. There are exceptions, and some companies maintain competency in both platforms to serve different clients.

Technical Preferences

Beyond history, there are genuine technical reasons why some piping engineers prefer the AVEVA approach.

PDMS and E3D use a multi-user database architecture where multiple designers work simultaneously in the same model, with changes visible in near-real-time. Smart 3D also supports concurrent access, but the underlying mechanism (Microsoft SQL Server with a workshare model) works differently.

AVEVA catalogs, while not simple, are structured in a way that many piping engineers find more intuitive for smaller and mid-sized projects. The catalog setup is considered lightweight compared to Smart 3D, where configuring reference data from scratch is widely regarded as a heavier task.

The PML (Programmable Macro Language) scripting environment also plays a major role. PDMS and E3D support PML for automating repetitive tasks, creating custom forms, and extending the application. Many AVEVA-centric companies have built extensive PML libraries over decades. Moving to a different platform means abandoning those customizations.

Architecture: AVEVA E3D vs Old PDMS

Understanding the architectural differences between E3D and PDMS helps explain why AVEVA pushed the migration and what piping engineers gain (or lose) in the transition.

PDMS Architecture (Legacy)

Characteristic	Detail
Platform	32-bit application running on Windows
Database	DABACON stored as flat files on a shared network drive or server
User interface	Custom GUI built with PDMS’s own windowing framework
Customization	PML 1 and PML 2
Graphics	Single-threaded rendering with limited hardware acceleration
Memory constraint	Project sizes practically limited by the 32-bit ceiling (around 2-3 GB of addressable RAM)

E3D Architecture (Current)

Characteristic	Detail
Platform	64-bit application with no practical memory ceiling for model size
Database	Same DABACON format, ensuring backward compatibility with PDMS
User interface	.NET-based with Windows Presentation Foundation (WPF) elements
Graphics	Hardware-accelerated 3D rendering using DirectX
Customization	PML 1, PML 2, and .NET API
Review integration	AVEVA NET for model review and data sharing
Cloud support	AVEVA Connect compatibility for cloud-based licensing and collaboration

What Changed for Piping Engineers

The day-to-day experience of routing pipes in E3D is similar to PDMS, but several improvements matter in practice:

Aspect	PDMS	E3D
Model navigation	Slower on large models; 32-bit memory limits	Faster; 64-bit allows loading more data
Graphics quality	Basic; functional but dated	Improved rendering; better transparency and shading
User interface	Custom widgets; memorize commands	.NET ribbon interface; more discoverable
Catalog browser	Text-based catalog navigation	Visual catalog browser with component previews
Clash detection	Basic built-in; relied on AVEVA Clash Manager	Improved built-in clash tools; still integrates with Clash Manager
Customization	PML only	PML plus .NET API
Large model handling	Struggled beyond 500,000 components	Handles millions of components with proper hardware

The DABACON database itself did not fundamentally change. This is both a strength (migration is straightforward) and a limitation (the database architecture still carries legacy constraints compared to SQL-based alternatives).

Multi-Discipline Design in E3D

E3D is not a piping-only tool. It supports multiple engineering disciplines in a single shared model, which is required for clash-free plant design.

Supported Disciplines

Discipline	E3D Module	Typical Elements Modeled
Piping	Piping Design	Pipe runs, fittings, valves, flanges, gaskets, bolting, supports
Structural	Structural Design	Steel beams, columns, bracing, platforms, ladders, handrails
Equipment	Equipment Design	Vessels, tanks, heat exchangers, pumps, compressors
Cable Tray	Cable Tray Design	Cable trays, ladder racks, tray fittings, supports
HVAC	HVAC Design	Ducts, dampers, diffusers, duct supports
Instrumentation	Instrument hookup	Tubing runs, instrument stands, junction boxes

In practice, piping and structural make up the vast majority of the model content on most projects. Equipment models are often created early in the project (sometimes imported from vendor 3D models) and serve as the “obstacles” around which piping and structural steel are routed.

The real value of multi-discipline modeling is clash detection. When a piping designer routes a 12-inch line through a pipe rack, E3D can immediately flag if that line intersects a structural brace, a cable tray, or another pipe from a different system. Without this, designers would be working blind, and clashes would only be discovered during construction, at enormous cost.

Piping Design in E3D

Piping is the core discipline for most E3D users, and the software provides a specification-driven approach to pipe routing that enforces design rules as you model.

Specification-Driven Design

Every pipe component placed in E3D is governed by a piping specification (pipe class). When a piping designer starts a new pipe run and assigns it to spec “A1A” (for example, carbon steel, ASME 150#, for general hydrocarbon service), the software restricts the available components to only those defined in that specification. You cannot accidentally place a stainless steel flange on a carbon steel line, because the spec will not allow it.

This is fundamentally different from working in generic CAD software like AutoCAD, where the designer must manually ensure every component matches the spec. In E3D, the spec is enforced at the database level.

Creating a Pipe Run: The Workflow

Here is what actually happens when a piping designer routes a line in E3D.

The process begins with creating a new PIPE element in the database hierarchy, assigning it a line number (e.g., 6”-P-1001-A1A), and linking it to the correct piping specification. Within that pipe, the designer creates a BRANCH, which represents a continuous run of piping from one connection point to another. A single pipe may have multiple branches (main run plus off-takes).

Next, the designer sets the bore group, which defines the nominal pipe size. In E3D, this is called the “bore” and can be set per branch. When the designer places components, they automatically match the bore.

With the bore group established, routing begins. The designer places tube (straight pipe) segments and fittings using one of several methods. Point-to-point routing lets you click on start and end positions, with E3D proposing a route that includes elbows. Manual placement gives full control over each component’s exact position and orientation. E3D also offers auto-routing that attempts to find a path between two points, though experienced designers often prefer manual control in congested areas.

As the route takes shape, fittings are placed from the catalog. E3D knows the geometry of each fitting (face-to-face dimensions, bore, connection type) and ensures they connect properly. A 90-degree elbow will be placed with the correct center-to-face dimension for the selected size and schedule. Valves and specialty items follow the same principle: the designer selects the valve type from the specification, and E3D places it with the correct face-to-face dimension, weight, and connection geometry.

Pipe supports can be placed as catalog items or modeled as structural elements. E3D allows linking supports to pipe elements for tracking purposes. Once routing is complete, the designer runs a clash check against other disciplines to verify that the new piping does not intersect existing steel, equipment, or other pipes.

Bore Groups and Component Selection

E3D uses the concept of “bore groups” to manage pipe sizes within a branch. A bore group defines the nominal size (e.g., 6 inch) and allows for size changes through reducers. When a branch includes a reducer from 6 inch to 4 inch, E3D creates a new bore group for the downstream section, and all subsequent components match the new size.

This approach keeps the model consistent and prevents errors like placing a 6-inch flange on a 4-inch section of pipe.

Catalog and Specification Database

The catalog is the foundation of spec-driven design in E3D, and it is one of the areas where AVEVA and Hexagon take fundamentally different approaches.

AVEVA Catalog Structure

In AVEVA E3D (and PDMS before it), the catalog is stored within the DABACON database as a hierarchy of catalog elements. The structure is organized in four levels. At the top sits the CATA (Catalog World), which contains all catalog data. Within it, SECT (Section) elements group components by type, such as all flanges or all elbows. Each section contains SCOM (Standard Component) entries that define a generic component type, for example “90-degree long radius elbow, butt-weld.” Finally, each SCOM holds one or more SPCO (Specific Component) entries that define a size-specific instance, such as “6-inch, schedule 40, A234-WPB.”

The piping specification references these catalog components. A spec entry says, in effect: “For a 6-inch 90-degree elbow in this pipe class, use SPCO /ELBOW-BW-LR-6IN-S40.”

Building and Maintaining Catalogs

Catalog creation is one of the most labor-intensive tasks in setting up E3D for a new project. It involves:

1. Defining component geometry using parametric templates (called “generic types” or GMTYPEs in AVEVA terminology). AVEVA provides standard GMTYPEs for common piping components per ASME B16 standards.

2. Creating specific components with actual dimensions. For a butt-weld elbow, this means entering the center-to-face dimension, bore, outside diameter, and weight for each size and schedule combination.

3. Building piping specifications that reference the catalog components. Each spec entry maps a component function (e.g., “elbow, 90-degree”) to a specific catalog component for each size range.

4. Bolt and gasket tables that define which bolts and gaskets to use with each flange type and pressure class.

AVEVA provides standard catalogs based on ASME, EN, and other standards, but every project requires customization. Clients specify proprietary fittings, exotic materials, or non-standard dimensions, and the catalog must accommodate these.

AVEVA Catalog vs Smart 3D Reference Data

Aspect	AVEVA E3D Catalog	Smart 3D Reference Data
Storage	DABACON database	SQL Server databases (reference data + catalog)
Setup tool	Catalog & Spec Administrator	Reference Data application (Bulkload workbooks)
Parametric approach	GMTYPE templates	Symbol-based approach with parametric rules
Complexity of initial setup	Moderate; steeper for custom components	High; bulkload process is notoriously complex
Flexibility	Good for standard components; custom GMTYPEs require effort	Very flexible but requires deep understanding of the data model
Community resources	AVEVA forums, PML scripts for catalog generation	Hexagon forums, bulkload templates from community
Typical setup time (new project)	2-6 weeks depending on scope	4-12 weeks; reference data is often the bottleneck

Piping engineers who have set up both systems generally agree that Smart 3D reference data requires more upfront effort, particularly the bulkload process where catalog data is imported from Excel workbooks through a multi-step validation process. AVEVA’s catalog setup is not trivial, but the learning curve is considered less severe.

MTO Extraction from E3D

Material Take-Off (MTO) is one of the primary outputs of any 3D piping model. E3D generates MTOs by querying the database for all piping components and producing a list that can be used for procurement, fabrication, and construction.

How MTO Works in E3D

E3D supports MTO extraction through several methods. AVEVA provides built-in report templates that query the database and output component lists; these can be customized using PML or the .NET API to match project-specific MTO formats. The dedicated AVEVA Report Engine connects to the DABACON database and generates formatted reports with output to Excel, CSV, and other formats. Some companies go further and develop custom extraction tools using the E3D API to pull MTO data directly from the database and feed it into their procurement systems.

MTO Data Content

A piping MTO extracted from E3D typically includes:

Data Field	Description
Line number	Pipe designation (e.g., 6”-P-1001-A1A)
Component type	Elbow, tee, flange, valve, tube, etc.
Size	Nominal bore (and outlet bore for reducers/tees)
Schedule/Rating	Wall thickness schedule or pressure rating
Material	ASTM/ASME material specification
Quantity	Number of pieces
Unit	Each, meters, feet (depending on component type)
Weight	Unit weight and total weight
Spec reference	Pipe class code
Tag number	For tagged items like valves and instruments

MTO Accuracy

The MTO is only as accurate as the 3D model, and several common issues affect that accuracy. Components that were not modeled (gaskets and bolt sets are sometimes skipped for visual clarity) will be absent from the MTO output. Tube lengths in the model may not account for cutting tolerances or spool fabrication requirements, leading to pipe length discrepancies. Bulk items like paint, welding consumables, and insulation are never modeled individually and must be added to the MTO through separate processes. Finally, if the model is not updated after field modifications, the MTO will diverge from reality.

Experienced piping engineers always review the raw MTO output and apply manual adjustments before releasing it for procurement. A 5-10% contingency on bulk materials is common practice.

Integration with AVEVA Diagrams (P&ID)

AVEVA Diagrams (formerly AVEVA P&ID) is AVEVA’s schematic design tool for creating Process and Instrumentation Diagrams. The integration between Diagrams and E3D is one of AVEVA’s key selling points, allowing data consistency between the 2D schematic world and the 3D model.

How the Integration Works

The integration relies on a shared data backbone, typically AVEVA Unified Engineering or AVEVA NET, which acts as a data hub between applications.

1. P&ID creation in AVEVA Diagrams. The process engineer creates the P&ID, defining pipe lines, equipment, instruments, and their connectivity.

2. Data transfer to E3D. Line numbers, equipment tags, instrument tags, and piping specification assignments flow from Diagrams to E3D. The piping designer receives a “design brief” that tells them which lines to route, what spec to use, and which equipment to connect.

3. Design-to-model comparison. AVEVA provides comparison tools that check whether the 3D model matches the P&ID. If the P&ID shows a 6-inch line with three valves and the 3D model only has two, the comparison flags the discrepancy.

4. Change management. When the process engineer modifies the P&ID (adds a valve, changes a line size), the change is tracked and propagated to the 3D design team for implementation.

This integration is valuable on large projects where the P&ID and 3D model are developed in parallel by different teams. Without it, maintaining consistency between the two requires manual cross-checking, which is error-prone and time-consuming.

Integration with AVEVA Instrumentation

For piping engineers, instrumentation hook-ups are a recurring design task. AVEVA Instrumentation manages the instrument database (tag numbers, specifications, loop diagrams), and its integration with E3D bridges the gap between the instrument data world and the 3D model.

Instruments defined in the instrument database can be placed in the 3D model at their correct process connection points, and tubing runs from instruments to junction boxes or marshaling panels can be routed within E3D. Throughout this process, instrument tag numbers, connection types, and process data remain synchronized between the instrument database and the 3D model.

This matters for piping engineers because instrument connections affect pipe routing. A flow meter with specific upstream and downstream straight-run requirements constrains where the piping designer can place elbows and fittings. Having the instrument data available in E3D ensures these constraints are respected during design.

Isometric Drawing Generation

Piping isometrics are the primary deliverable for fabrication and construction. E3D generates isometrics through two paths.

AVEVA Isodraft

Isodraft is AVEVA’s own isometric drawing generator. It reads the piping data from the E3D database and produces isometric drawings in AVEVA’s format. Isodraft provides automatic isometric layout from 3D model data, BOM generation on the drawing, weld numbering, spool break identification, and dimension annotation. Output options include AVEVA Drawing format (for further editing in AVEVA Draw) or DXF/PDF for distribution.

Isogen (by AVEVA, formerly Alias)

Isogen is an alternative isometric engine that has been part of the AVEVA portfolio since AVEVA acquired Alias Ltd. Many EPC companies prefer Isogen because of its mature output formatting and widespread industry acceptance. Isogen produces PCF (Piping Component File) format, which is an industry standard for exchanging piping data between software systems.

E3D can export piping data to Isogen, which then generates the isometric drawing. The output can be configured to match company-specific drawing standards, including title blocks, BOM formats, and annotation styles.

Which to Use?

Factor	AVEVA Isodraft	Isogen
Integration with E3D	Native; tightly coupled	Via PCF export; well-supported
Output format	AVEVA Drawing, DXF, PDF	IDF/PCF, DXF, PDF
Industry adoption	Primarily AVEVA shops	Widely used across all 3D platforms
Customization	AVEVA drawing templates	Isogen option switches and styles
BOM format control	Moderate	Highly configurable
Spool drawing support	Yes	Yes

Many companies use Isogen even within an all-AVEVA environment because their drawing standards and fabrication workflows were built around Isogen output decades ago.

Clash Detection: AVEVA Clash Management

Clash detection is non-negotiable on any project where multiple disciplines share space. In E3D, clash detection operates at two levels.

Model-Level Clash Detection

Within E3D, designers can run local clash checks to verify that newly routed piping does not intersect existing model elements. This is a quick, interactive check that the designer runs during modeling.

AVEVA Clash Management (Project-Level)

For full-project clash detection, AVEVA provides a dedicated Clash Management application. It runs clash detection across the entire model, checking all disciplines against each other, and categorizes every clash by severity (hard clash, soft clash, clearance violation). Each clash is then assigned to a responsible designer for resolution, and the system tracks resolution status through a defined workflow: new, assigned, resolved, approved. Management can pull clash statistics at any time for reporting purposes.

On a typical large project, the first full clash run can produce thousands of clashes. The piping discipline usually generates the most, simply because piping occupies more space than any other discipline. Resolving these clashes is a major engineering activity that can take weeks on a complex plant.

AVEVA E3D vs Smart 3D (SP3D): Detailed Comparison

This is the comparison that every piping engineering manager evaluates when selecting a 3D design platform. Both tools are mature, capable, and widely used. The differences are real but often come down to organizational preference and existing infrastructure.

Side-by-Side Comparison

Aspect	AVEVA E3D	Hexagon Smart 3D
Database	DABACON (proprietary object-oriented)	Microsoft SQL Server (relational)
Architecture	64-bit, .NET UI, single-server or distributed	64-bit, .NET UI, SQL Server with workshare
Catalog management	DABACON-based catalog; GMTYPE parametric system	SQL-based reference data; bulkload workbooks
Catalog setup effort	Moderate	High; reference data is often the biggest bottleneck
User interface	Ribbon-style .NET; improved from PDMS but still has learning curve	Ribbon-style .NET; considered more modern by some users
Piping routing tools	Spec-driven; bore groups; point-to-point and manual routing	Spec-driven; route pipe tool with similar capabilities
Auto-routing	Basic; most designers prefer manual routing	Basic auto-route available; same caveat applies
Scripting/customization	PML (unique to AVEVA) plus .NET API	VBA and .NET API
P&ID integration	AVEVA Diagrams via AVEVA Unified Engineering	SmartPlant P&ID via SmartPlant Foundation
Isometric generation	Isodraft and Isogen	Isogen (bundled)
Clash detection	AVEVA Clash Management	SmartPlant Clash Optimizer
Model review	AVEVA E3D Viewer, AVEVA NET	SmartPlant Review (SPR), HxGN SDx
Large model performance	Good with 64-bit; depends on network and DABACON server	Good; SQL Server handles large datasets well
Licensing	Named user or concurrent; AVEVA Connect subscription	Named user or concurrent; perpetual or subscription
Cloud offering	AVEVA Connect (cloud licensing, some cloud deployment)	HxGN SDx with cloud components
Dominant regions	Europe, Asia, Middle East	North America, parts of Middle East
Dominant EPCs	Technip Energies, Saipem, Samsung, Chiyoda, Wood	Bechtel, Fluor, McDermott, Jacobs
Training time (piping designer)	4-8 weeks to basic proficiency	4-8 weeks to basic proficiency; longer for reference data admins
Total cost of ownership	Lower for catalog setup; comparable for licensing	Higher upfront for reference data; Oracle/SQL Server costs

Where E3D Wins

E3D’s most significant advantage is faster catalog setup. Getting a project started is typically quicker because the AVEVA catalog structure requires less initial configuration than Smart 3D’s reference data. Companies migrating from PDMS also benefit from a direct upgrade path with full backward compatibility; there is no equivalent migration path from PDS (Intergraph’s legacy tool) to Smart 3D that is as seamless. The PML scripting ecosystem, accumulated over decades within AVEVA-using companies, represents institutional knowledge that is extremely difficult to replace. And the shared database model for multi-user concurrent design is something many engineers find intuitive and productive.

Where Smart 3D Wins

Smart 3D’s SQL Server backbone gives it an edge in IT environments. Standard relational database technology is something IT departments understand and can support, and it integrates more readily with enterprise systems like SAP and Oracle ERP. The SmartPlant Foundation (SPF) and its successor HxGN SDx provide a mature data management platform that ties together multiple Hexagon applications, including Smart 3D, SmartPlant P&ID, SmartPlant Materials, and SmartPlant Instrumentation. Once configured, Smart 3D’s reference data system is very flexible for handling complex or non-standard components. And in the North American market, where projects are primarily in the U.S. Gulf Coast, the vendor support, contractor workforce, and client expectations often favor Smart 3D.

The Honest Assessment

Neither tool is objectively “better.” The choice depends on your company’s existing infrastructure, workforce skills, and project requirements. Switching from one platform to the other is a multi-year, multi-million dollar decision that affects every design project. Most companies choose one and stick with it. For a detailed look at the competing platform, see Smart 3D (SP3D) for piping design.

AVEVA E3D vs AutoCAD Plant 3D

AutoCAD Plant 3D is Autodesk’s 3D piping and plant design tool. It occupies a different market segment from E3D.

Aspect	AVEVA E3D	AutoCAD Plant 3D
Target market	Large EPC projects (refineries, LNG, offshore)	Small to mid-size projects; brownfield, revamps
Database	DABACON (multi-user)	AutoCAD DWG files (file-based) or Vault for collaboration
Multi-user concurrent design	Yes, native	Limited; file-based locking
Catalog depth	Deep; covers all pipe components per ASME, EN, etc.	Adequate for standard components; limited for exotic specs
Spec-driven design	Yes, enforced at database level	Yes, but less strict enforcement
Model size capacity	Millions of components	Practical limits around tens of thousands of components
Isometric generation	Isodraft or Isogen	Built-in isometric generator; Isogen compatible
Learning curve	Steep; 4-8 weeks minimum	Moderate; 2-4 weeks for AutoCAD users
Cost	High (enterprise licensing)	Lower (AutoCAD-tier licensing)
Typical users	Large EPCs, offshore engineering	Small engineering firms, owner-operators, maintenance

AutoCAD Plant 3D is not a competitor to E3D on a 500,000-component refinery model. It serves smaller projects where the overhead of setting up E3D (database, catalogs, project administration) is not justified. If you are designing a small piping modification in an existing plant, Plant 3D is a reasonable choice. For a greenfield LNG facility, it is not.

AVEVA E3D and Projectmaterials: Complementary Roles

AVEVA E3D and Projectmaterials serve different stages of the EPC piping workflow, and they complement each other rather than compete.

Where E3D’s Job Ends

E3D produces the 3D piping model and generates the MTO. The MTO is the bridge between engineering and procurement. Once the MTO is extracted, the engineering deliverable (from E3D’s perspective) is complete. The quantities, specifications, and material descriptions go to the procurement team.

Where Projectmaterials Takes Over

Projectmaterials handles the procurement cycle that follows the MTO:

Workflow Stage	Tool	Activity
3D design and modeling	AVEVA E3D	Route pipes, place fittings, generate model
MTO generation	AVEVA E3D	Extract quantities and specifications from model
MTO handover	Transition point	MTO moves from engineering to procurement
RFQ creation	Projectmaterials	Build Request for Quotation packages from MTO data
Supplier identification	Projectmaterials	Access piping supplier database; identify qualified vendors
Bid evaluation	Projectmaterials	Technical and commercial comparison of supplier offers
Purchase order management	Projectmaterials	Issue POs, track deliveries, manage documentation

This division makes practical sense. E3D is an engineering design tool; it excels at 3D modeling, specification enforcement, and generating accurate quantities. It does not manage supplier relationships, evaluate bids, or track purchase orders. Projectmaterials fills exactly that gap, with particular depth in piping products (pipes, fittings, flanges, valves, gaskets, bolting) where product knowledge and supplier relationships directly affect procurement outcomes.

For EPC piping teams, the workflow is: design in E3D, extract the MTO, then hand it to the procurement team working with Projectmaterials or a similar procurement platform. The two tools sit in sequence, not in parallel.

AVEVA’s Cloud Strategy

AVEVA has been moving toward cloud-based delivery through its AVEVA Connect platform. For E3D users, this means changes in licensing, access, and data management.

AVEVA Connect

AVEVA Connect replaces traditional on-premise license servers with cloud-based license management. Designers authenticate online, and license allocation is handled centrally. This enables flexible scaling: teams can add designers during peak project periods and scale down afterward without managing physical license dongles. The data backbone connecting P&ID, 3D, and engineering data management through AVEVA Unified Engineering is also increasingly delivered through cloud services.

E3D on Cloud

AVEVA has been working toward cloud-hosted E3D instances where the application runs on cloud infrastructure and designers access it through high-performance remote desktop connections. This is still evolving, and most large EPC projects continue to run E3D on local servers for performance and data security reasons.

Practical Reality

As of now, most piping engineers still use E3D installed locally on their workstations, connecting to a DABACON database on a project server (either on-premise or hosted in a private cloud). The full “E3D in the browser” experience is not yet a reality for production use on large projects. Cloud licensing through AVEVA Connect is widely adopted; cloud-hosted design sessions are still maturing.

Training and Learning Curve

E3D has a significant learning curve, as does any enterprise 3D design tool. Here is what to expect.

For Piping Designers New to E3D

Phase	Duration	Focus
Basic training	2 weeks	Navigation, pipe routing fundamentals, catalog browsing, basic commands
Supervised practice	2-4 weeks	Route pipes on a real project under mentorship; learn project-specific standards
Independent work	After 4-6 weeks	Handle routine routing tasks; still need support for complex situations
Advanced proficiency	6-12 months	Complex routing, PML customization, catalog modifications, clash resolution

For Engineers Migrating from PDMS

If you already know PDMS, the transition to E3D is relatively smooth. The database structure is the same, the piping hierarchy is the same, and many commands have equivalent functions. Expect 1-2 weeks to become comfortable with the new interface. PML scripts may need minor modifications to work in E3D, but the language itself is unchanged.

For Engineers Migrating from Smart 3D

Migrating from Smart 3D to E3D (or vice versa) is a larger undertaking. The design philosophy is similar (spec-driven, multi-discipline, database-backed), but the specific workflows, database structure, catalog management, and customization tools are all different. Allow 4-8 weeks for a Smart 3D-experienced designer to become proficient in E3D.

Training Resources

AVEVA offers official training courses through its own programs and authorized training partners, available in both classroom and virtual formats. The AVEVA community forums provide additional support, including user-contributed PML script libraries and best practice guides. Most large EPCs also run in-house E3D training programs tailored to their specific project standards and workflows. A growing library of YouTube tutorials and online courses rounds out the options, though quality varies significantly across unofficial sources.

The most effective learning approach combines formal training with hands-on project work under an experienced mentor. No amount of classroom training replaces the experience of routing 500 pipe lines on a real project with real deadlines and real clash reports.

Summary

AVEVA E3D Design is a mature, capable 3D plant design platform with deep roots in the piping engineering world. Its heritage from PDMS gives it a massive installed base and decades of accumulated project data, catalogs, and customization scripts. For EPC companies already in the AVEVA ecosystem, E3D is the natural choice for 3D piping design.

The decision between E3D and Smart 3D is rarely about technical superiority. It is about organizational history, workforce skills, client requirements, and the broader software ecosystem each tool fits into. Both platforms produce accurate 3D piping models, generate reliable MTOs, and support the engineering deliverables that drive procurement and construction.

What E3D does not do is manage the procurement process that follows the MTO. That is where tools like Projectmaterials take over, handling the RFQ-to-PO cycle with piping-specific product knowledge and supplier management capabilities. Together, E3D for design and Projectmaterials for procurement cover the piping workflow from 3D model to delivered materials on site.