Overview
This case study is less about one finished object and more about how design decisions are checked against pressure-vessel code, manufacturing constraints, and existing drawings.
During my mechanical engineering co-op I worked with Autodesk Inventor, AutoCAD, and Codeware COMPRESS on deaerator heater and storage-tank design tasks.
Confidentiality
Design context
A change that looks small in CAD - such as a nozzle, flange, saddle plate, or wear plate - can affect code compliance, material requirements, fabrication, and the rest of the drawing package.
| Area | Value |
|---|---|
| CAD | Autodesk Inventor |
| Drawings | AutoCAD |
| Code calculations | Codeware COMPRESS |
| Context | ASME Section VIII pressure equipment |
Engineering process
- Understand the affected feature. Identify what is changing and which nearby geometry, connections, and calculation inputs depend on it.
- Update the model and drawing. Make the CAD change while keeping clearance, weld access, and fabrication practicality in mind.
- Review the calculation model. Update or inspect COMPRESS inputs and warnings to find the governing limit.
- Resolve the limiting condition. Compare practical alternatives and keep the CAD, drawing, and calculation model consistent.
Example decision
A useful public example is a nozzle connection where a flange rating or local geometry becomes the limiting constraint. The portfolio story is the reasoning: identify the limit, compare an alternate arrangement, verify it, and document the change.
Show a simplified nozzle/head sketch with generic callouts rather than a production drawing.
Design for manufacturing
A calculation can pass while the design is still awkward to fabricate. Supports, plate sizing, nozzle access, weld details, and shop fit-up all matter.
Calculation view
Does it satisfy code?
Loads, thickness, pressure limits, material properties, radiography, and component ratings.
Production view
Can it be built cleanly?
Clearance, fit-up, weld access, plate sizing, drawing clarity, and shop practicality.
Takeaways
- I became more comfortable moving between 3D CAD, 2D drawings, and engineering calculations.
- I learned to treat software warnings as clues to the governing design constraint rather than errors to simply clear.
- I saw how small drafting changes can affect fabrication and compliance.
- I learned the value of traceable revisions and clear design intent.
Final portfolio assets
The finished page should use one recreated vessel diagram, one sanitized CAD screenshot, a small design-decision callout, and a short reflection on code-based design and manufacturing constraints.