Design Smarter: A Layered Approach to Efficient Pipe Routing

In complex industrial facilities like chemical plants, refineries, and power plants, routing pipes is much more than simply connecting point A to point B. The ideal pipe route must be economical, maintainable, safe, and constructible. Yet, traditional routing techniques often struggle under real-world constraints — space limitations, design standards, and cross-discipline clashes.

This blog introduces a layered, rule-driven approach to pipe routing — one that mirrors how a vehicle navigates a city, while honoring engineering principles and spatial discipline.

Rethinking Pipes Like Vehicles

Imagine a pipe as a car trying to move between two parking spots:

• Exiting the origin (equipment) is like navigating out of a parking lot.
• Reaching the destination involves maneuvering into another tight space.
• In between? A mix of local streets, expressways, and flyovers — all governed by road rules and infrastructure.

This analogy guides how we structure our routing approach.

A Three-Layered Strategy

We break down routing into three distinct layers:

1. Planning Layer: Engineering First

Before any automated routing begins, we plan the “first and last mile” — the connections at both ends.

Standardized Equipment Connections

Every pump, heat exchanger, or compressor has a predictable inlet/outlet geometry. So why redraw every time?

• Define pre-fabricated pipe stubs based on equipment standards.
• Include elbows, reducers, and associated valves or gauges.

Standardized Pipe Rack Exits

Just like buildings have standard fire exits, your pipe rack should have:

• Defined connection modules with instruments, valves, and strainers.
• Templates that ensure constructability and inspectability.

These two actions drastically reduce layout complexity at the interface points.

2. Space Allocation Layer: Route Discipline

Designated Routing Levels

Think of these like flyover decks:

• A pipe may move at man-height initially, then rise to a pipe rack level, and descend again.
• Levels are predefined by:
  • Process vs Utility
  • Clearance needs
  • Structural availability

The Highways: Process vs Utility Corridors

To avoid future conflicts:

• Reserve clear lanes along structural columns for routing.
• One for process lines, the other for utilities.
• Staircases and other equipment are pushed to non-conflicting corners.

Example: On a floor ABCD with the rack on side A–B, assign:

• A–B for piping
• C–D for staircases

This gives automated routing algorithms “safe zones” to operate within.

Routing Layer: Automated, But Controlled

With rules, levels, and connection points in place, the final leg is computational:

• Use grid-based pathfinding (like Dijkstra or A*) to determine the optimal route.
• Apply penalties for elbows to favor straighter paths.
• The search space is now safe, constrained, and standards-compliant.

By only applying algorithms after engineering intelligence has been embedded, we avoid the classic pitfalls of blind automation.

Benefits of This Approach

Challenge	Solved By
Random elbows and loops	Predefined stubs + elbow penalties
Cross-discipline clashes	Pipe corridors + level segregation
Maintenance nightmares	Entry/exit standardization
Routing failure in tight spaces	Early constraint injection
Software overreach	Rules before algorithms

Where to Apply This

• Greenfield projects needing clean early routing
• Brownfield modifications with tight spatial constraints
• Projects with short timelines and modular construction ambitions

This method reduces rework, clarifies responsibilities, and creates audit-friendly, traceable layouts.

Ready to Route Smarter?

By combining engineering expertise with computational methods, you can build a smarter, faster, and safer piping system.

This isn’t just routing. This is intelligent infrastructure design.