Remote
Work location
Contract Pressure Vessel Engineer (PE) — ASME Section VIII Div 1 / PVHO-1 Anyone
About the job
Summary
We manufacture premium hard-shell mild hyperbaric chambers. We have a Ø76 in (1930 mm) 304L stainless chamber, MAWP 14.7 psig, that is ready to fabricate at the shell and blocked everywhere else.
This is an engineering role, not a CAD role. We have established the designs we fabricate these overseas. We have STEP files and solidworks files. We need to firm up the metal shop plans and conduct a proper analysis for the unit to be safe.
A prior contractor delivered a drawing package and an FEA that did not survive technical review. The head geometry is neither manufacturable nor code-compliant as drawn; the FEA reports a peak stress 2.6× material yield with no conclusion, and was run at a different diameter than the drawings. We are not asking anyone to review that work. We are asking you to specify the replacement.
We are behind schedule. Shell fabrication is out for quotation now.
Code position — settled, not open for discussion
No ASME code stamp this round. No U-stamp fabrication, no Authorized Inspector, no National Board registration.
MAWP is 14.7 psig, below the 15 psi threshold in ASME VIII-1 U-1(c)(2) and below the exemption in Tennessee Code §68-122-105 for unfired pressure vessels.
The vessel will nonetheless be designed to ASME VIII-1 rules, with PE-sealed calculations. That is the point of this engagement.
ASME PVHO-1 applies as a design and documentation standard. There is no stamp program for it.
Confirm and document all of the above... read more
We manufacture premium hard-shell mild hyperbaric chambers. We have a Ø76 in (1930 mm) 304L stainless chamber, MAWP 14.7 psig, that is ready to fabricate at the shell and blocked everywhere else.
This is an engineering role, not a CAD role. We have established the designs we fabricate these overseas. We have STEP files and solidworks files. We need to firm up the metal shop plans and conduct a proper analysis for the unit to be safe.
A prior contractor delivered a drawing package and an FEA that did not survive technical review. The head geometry is neither manufacturable nor code-compliant as drawn; the FEA reports a peak stress 2.6× material yield with no conclusion, and was run at a different diameter than the drawings. We are not asking anyone to review that work. We are asking you to specify the replacement.
We are behind schedule. Shell fabrication is out for quotation now.
Code position — settled, not open for discussion
No ASME code stamp this round. No U-stamp fabrication, no Authorized Inspector, no National Board registration.
MAWP is 14.7 psig, below the 15 psi threshold in ASME VIII-1 U-1(c)(2) and below the exemption in Tennessee Code §68-122-105 for unfired pressure vessels.
The vessel will nonetheless be designed to ASME VIII-1 rules, with PE-sealed calculations. That is the point of this engagement.
ASME PVHO-1 applies as a design and documentation standard. There is no stamp program for it.
Confirm and document all of the above... read more
Summary
We manufacture premium hard-shell mild hyperbaric chambers. We have a Ø76 in (1930 mm) 304L stainless chamber, MAWP 14.7 psig, that is ready to fabricate at the shell and blocked everywhere else.
This is an engineering role, not a CAD role. We have established the designs we fabricate these overseas. We have STEP files and solidworks files. We need to firm up the metal shop plans and conduct a proper analysis for the unit to be safe.
A prior contractor delivered a drawing package and an FEA that did not survive technical review. The head geometry is neither manufacturable nor code-compliant as drawn; the FEA reports a peak stress 2.6× material yield with no conclusion, and was run at a different diameter than the drawings. We are not asking anyone to review that work. We are asking you to specify the replacement.
We are behind schedule. Shell fabrication is out for quotation now.
Code position — settled, not open for discussion
No ASME code stamp this round. No U-stamp fabrication, no Authorized Inspector, no National Board registration.
MAWP is 14.7 psig, below the 15 psi threshold in ASME VIII-1 U-1(c)(2) and below the exemption in Tennessee Code §68-122-105 for unfired pressure vessels.
The vessel will nonetheless be designed to ASME VIII-1 rules, with PE-sealed calculations. That is the point of this engagement.
ASME PVHO-1 applies as a design and documentation standard. There is no stamp program for it.
Confirm and document all of the above in the design basis memo, including what it means for shop selection, and flag anything we have wrong.
We have 0.3 psi of headroom to the 15 psi threshold. Where MAWP and the relief device set pressure land is a design-basis decision we want stated once, in writing, and held.
The immediate problem
The chamber head as currently modelled is an annular dish:
Parameter As modelled
Outside diameter Ø76.000 in (1930.4 mm)
Central opening Ø38.5716 in (979.7 mm) — 50.8% of head diameter
Wall thickness 5.0 mm (0.1969 in)
Dish depth 3.3465 in (85 mm)
Knuckle radius R1.5748 in (40 mm)
Meridian radius R81.601 in outside / R81.404 in inside
Verified against the supplied STEP model:
Inside crown radius (81.404 in) exceeds the outside diameter of the skirt (76.000 in) — outside UG-32(e).
Knuckle radius is 1.93% of crown radius against a 6% minimum — outside UG-32(e) by roughly a factor of three.
The Ø38.57 in central opening at 50.8% of head diameter is beyond what UG-32 / UG-37 / UG-39 reinforcement rules reach.
At 3.35 in of dish on a 76 in diameter, the component behaves closer to a flat plate in bending than a dished head in membrane. The 5 mm wall was chosen on membrane reasoning that does not apply.
The meridian is modelled as a toroidal surface with a 500 mm axis offset. No head former has tooling for it.
The shell is not in question. Hoop stress at 3 mm runs about 15% of yield. It is separately packaged and going out to bid.
Scope of work
Phase 1 — Design basis and head specification (critical path)
Establish and document the design basis: MAWP, design temperature, corrosion allowance, cycle count, material specification, joint efficiency, relief device set pressure, and the governing code path.
Specify the head form and thickness by calculation. Candidate forms scoped on our side — ASME F&D, 2:1 semi-elliptical, or flat annular closure plate — but the choice and its justification are yours. Head depth drives overall chamber length and therefore the floor group, rib set and rail mounts, so state the dimensional consequence of your choice.
Design the reinforcement for the Ø38.57 in central opening. State your intended route before starting — design-by-rule, U-2(g), Appendix 1-10, or design-by-analysis per VIII-2 Part 5.
Assess whether a UG-101 proof test is the better route to establish MAWP. Since no stamp is being pursued and the head geometry is not reached by design-by-rule, we want proof testing evaluated as a genuine alternative to a design-by-analysis argument, not dismissed. Tell us what it would require.
Phase 2 — Balance of pressure boundary
Reinforcement design for the side opening in the shell: 53.875 × 18.000 in on the OD, corner radii R3.937 in, centred at 171°04′. Internal and external rings are modelled but carry mismatched forming radii (R108.218 vs R81.601) and do not seat.
Head rib grid: confirm whether required at your specified head thickness, and size it if so. Currently 8 left / 8 right at 12.7 mm.
Closure ring group and door interface: internal ring 25 mm, external ring 10 mm. Sealing arrangement is undefined — no gasket, groove or fastener detail exists in the model.
Bolting, if applicable.
Hydrostatic test pressure and the test-condition stress check.
Weld joint efficiency, NDE extent, and any PWHT position.
Confirm whether acrylic glazing exists in the design. A Panel Frame sits 1.37 in off the shell ID with no glazing, gasket or fastener modelled. If there is a viewport, PVHO-1 Section 2 applies and needs to be in scope.
Deliverables
Design basis memo (Phase 1, first deliverable).
Sealed and signed calculation set covering every item above, in a form a fabricator can build from and a third party can check.
Geometry specification — dimensioned definition of each pressure-boundary component sufficient for our draftsman to produce manufacturing drawings without interpretation. Sketches, tables and annotated screenshots are fine. We do not need CAD files from you.
If FEA is used: full stress linearization and classification per VIII-2 Part 5, with paths shown, allowables stated, and a written conclusion. Not a contour plot.
Written statement of every assumption we need to verify. read less
We manufacture premium hard-shell mild hyperbaric chambers. We have a Ø76 in (1930 mm) 304L stainless chamber, MAWP 14.7 psig, that is ready to fabricate at the shell and blocked everywhere else.
This is an engineering role, not a CAD role. We have established the designs we fabricate these overseas. We have STEP files and solidworks files. We need to firm up the metal shop plans and conduct a proper analysis for the unit to be safe.
A prior contractor delivered a drawing package and an FEA that did not survive technical review. The head geometry is neither manufacturable nor code-compliant as drawn; the FEA reports a peak stress 2.6× material yield with no conclusion, and was run at a different diameter than the drawings. We are not asking anyone to review that work. We are asking you to specify the replacement.
We are behind schedule. Shell fabrication is out for quotation now.
Code position — settled, not open for discussion
No ASME code stamp this round. No U-stamp fabrication, no Authorized Inspector, no National Board registration.
MAWP is 14.7 psig, below the 15 psi threshold in ASME VIII-1 U-1(c)(2) and below the exemption in Tennessee Code §68-122-105 for unfired pressure vessels.
The vessel will nonetheless be designed to ASME VIII-1 rules, with PE-sealed calculations. That is the point of this engagement.
ASME PVHO-1 applies as a design and documentation standard. There is no stamp program for it.
Confirm and document all of the above in the design basis memo, including what it means for shop selection, and flag anything we have wrong.
We have 0.3 psi of headroom to the 15 psi threshold. Where MAWP and the relief device set pressure land is a design-basis decision we want stated once, in writing, and held.
The immediate problem
The chamber head as currently modelled is an annular dish:
Parameter As modelled
Outside diameter Ø76.000 in (1930.4 mm)
Central opening Ø38.5716 in (979.7 mm) — 50.8% of head diameter
Wall thickness 5.0 mm (0.1969 in)
Dish depth 3.3465 in (85 mm)
Knuckle radius R1.5748 in (40 mm)
Meridian radius R81.601 in outside / R81.404 in inside
Verified against the supplied STEP model:
Inside crown radius (81.404 in) exceeds the outside diameter of the skirt (76.000 in) — outside UG-32(e).
Knuckle radius is 1.93% of crown radius against a 6% minimum — outside UG-32(e) by roughly a factor of three.
The Ø38.57 in central opening at 50.8% of head diameter is beyond what UG-32 / UG-37 / UG-39 reinforcement rules reach.
At 3.35 in of dish on a 76 in diameter, the component behaves closer to a flat plate in bending than a dished head in membrane. The 5 mm wall was chosen on membrane reasoning that does not apply.
The meridian is modelled as a toroidal surface with a 500 mm axis offset. No head former has tooling for it.
The shell is not in question. Hoop stress at 3 mm runs about 15% of yield. It is separately packaged and going out to bid.
Scope of work
Phase 1 — Design basis and head specification (critical path)
Establish and document the design basis: MAWP, design temperature, corrosion allowance, cycle count, material specification, joint efficiency, relief device set pressure, and the governing code path.
Specify the head form and thickness by calculation. Candidate forms scoped on our side — ASME F&D, 2:1 semi-elliptical, or flat annular closure plate — but the choice and its justification are yours. Head depth drives overall chamber length and therefore the floor group, rib set and rail mounts, so state the dimensional consequence of your choice.
Design the reinforcement for the Ø38.57 in central opening. State your intended route before starting — design-by-rule, U-2(g), Appendix 1-10, or design-by-analysis per VIII-2 Part 5.
Assess whether a UG-101 proof test is the better route to establish MAWP. Since no stamp is being pursued and the head geometry is not reached by design-by-rule, we want proof testing evaluated as a genuine alternative to a design-by-analysis argument, not dismissed. Tell us what it would require.
Phase 2 — Balance of pressure boundary
Reinforcement design for the side opening in the shell: 53.875 × 18.000 in on the OD, corner radii R3.937 in, centred at 171°04′. Internal and external rings are modelled but carry mismatched forming radii (R108.218 vs R81.601) and do not seat.
Head rib grid: confirm whether required at your specified head thickness, and size it if so. Currently 8 left / 8 right at 12.7 mm.
Closure ring group and door interface: internal ring 25 mm, external ring 10 mm. Sealing arrangement is undefined — no gasket, groove or fastener detail exists in the model.
Bolting, if applicable.
Hydrostatic test pressure and the test-condition stress check.
Weld joint efficiency, NDE extent, and any PWHT position.
Confirm whether acrylic glazing exists in the design. A Panel Frame sits 1.37 in off the shell ID with no glazing, gasket or fastener modelled. If there is a viewport, PVHO-1 Section 2 applies and needs to be in scope.
Deliverables
Design basis memo (Phase 1, first deliverable).
Sealed and signed calculation set covering every item above, in a form a fabricator can build from and a third party can check.
Geometry specification — dimensioned definition of each pressure-boundary component sufficient for our draftsman to produce manufacturing drawings without interpretation. Sketches, tables and annotated screenshots are fine. We do not need CAD files from you.
If FEA is used: full stress linearization and classification per VIII-2 Part 5, with paths shown, allowables stated, and a written conclusion. Not a contour plot.
Written statement of every assumption we need to verify. read less
Summary
We manufacture premium hard-shell mild hyperbaric chambers. We have a Ø76 in (1930 mm) 304L stainless chamber, MAWP 14.7 psig, that is ready to fabricate at the shell and blocked everywhere else.
This is an engineering role, not a CAD role. We have established the designs we fabricate these overseas. We have STEP files and solidworks files. We need to firm up the metal shop plans and... read more
We manufacture premium hard-shell mild hyperbaric chambers. We have a Ø76 in (1930 mm) 304L stainless chamber, MAWP 14.7 psig, that is ready to fabricate at the shell and blocked everywhere else.
This is an engineering role, not a CAD role. We have established the designs we fabricate these overseas. We have STEP files and solidworks files. We need to firm up the metal shop plans and... read more
Summary
We manufacture premium hard-shell mild hyperbaric chambers. We have a Ø76 in (1930 mm) 304L stainless chamber, MAWP 14.7 psig, that is ready to fabricate at the shell and blocked everywhere else.
This is an engineering role, not a CAD role. We have established the designs we fabricate these overseas. We have STEP files and solidworks files. We need to firm up the metal shop plans and conduct a proper analysis for the unit to be safe.
A prior contractor delivered a drawing package and an FEA that did not survive technical review. The head geometry is neither manufacturable nor code-compliant as drawn; the FEA reports a peak stress 2.6× material yield with no conclusion, and was run at a different diameter than the drawings. We are not asking anyone to review that work. We are asking you to specify the replacement.
We are behind schedule. Shell fabrication is out for quotation now.
Code position — settled, not open for discussion
No ASME code stamp this round. No U-stamp fabrication, no Authorized Inspector, no National Board registration.
MAWP is 14.7 psig, below the 15 psi threshold in ASME VIII-1 U-1(c)(2) and below the exemption in Tennessee Code §68-122-105 for unfired pressure vessels.
The vessel will nonetheless be designed to ASME VIII-1 rules, with PE-sealed calculations. That is the point of this engagement.
ASME PVHO-1 applies as a design and documentation standard. There is no stamp program for it.
Confirm and document all of the above in the design basis memo, including what it means for shop selection, and flag anything we have wrong.
We have 0.3 psi of headroom to the 15 psi threshold. Where MAWP and the relief device set pressure land is a design-basis decision we want stated once, in writing, and held.
The immediate problem
The chamber head as currently modelled is an annular dish:
Parameter As modelled
Outside diameter Ø76.000 in (1930.4 mm)
Central opening Ø38.5716 in (979.7 mm) — 50.8% of head diameter
Wall thickness 5.0 mm (0.1969 in)
Dish depth 3.3465 in (85 mm)
Knuckle radius R1.5748 in (40 mm)
Meridian radius R81.601 in outside / R81.404 in inside
Verified against the supplied STEP model:
Inside crown radius (81.404 in) exceeds the outside diameter of the skirt (76.000 in) — outside UG-32(e).
Knuckle radius is 1.93% of crown radius against a 6% minimum — outside UG-32(e) by roughly a factor of three.
The Ø38.57 in central opening at 50.8% of head diameter is beyond what UG-32 / UG-37 / UG-39 reinforcement rules reach.
At 3.35 in of dish on a 76 in diameter, the component behaves closer to a flat plate in bending than a dished head in membrane. The 5 mm wall was chosen on membrane reasoning that does not apply.
The meridian is modelled as a toroidal surface with a 500 mm axis offset. No head former has tooling for it.
The shell is not in question. Hoop stress at 3 mm runs about 15% of yield. It is separately packaged and going out to bid.
Scope of work
Phase 1 — Design basis and head specification (critical path)
Establish and document the design basis: MAWP, design temperature, corrosion allowance, cycle count, material specification, joint efficiency, relief device set pressure, and the governing code path.
Specify the head form and thickness by calculation. Candidate forms scoped on our side — ASME F&D, 2:1 semi-elliptical, or flat annular closure plate — but the choice and its justification are yours. Head depth drives overall chamber length and therefore the floor group, rib set and rail mounts, so state the dimensional consequence of your choice.
Design the reinforcement for the Ø38.57 in central opening. State your intended route before starting — design-by-rule, U-2(g), Appendix 1-10, or design-by-analysis per VIII-2 Part 5.
Assess whether a UG-101 proof test is the better route to establish MAWP. Since no stamp is being pursued and the head geometry is not reached by design-by-rule, we want proof testing evaluated as a genuine alternative to a design-by-analysis argument, not dismissed. Tell us what it would require.
Phase 2 — Balance of pressure boundary
Reinforcement design for the side opening in the shell: 53.875 × 18.000 in on the OD, corner radii R3.937 in, centred at 171°04′. Internal and external rings are modelled but carry mismatched forming radii (R108.218 vs R81.601) and do not seat.
Head rib grid: confirm whether required at your specified head thickness, and size it if so. Currently 8 left / 8 right at 12.7 mm.
Closure ring group and door interface: internal ring 25 mm, external ring 10 mm. Sealing arrangement is undefined — no gasket, groove or fastener detail exists in the model.
Bolting, if applicable.
Hydrostatic test pressure and the test-condition stress check.
Weld joint efficiency, NDE extent, and any PWHT position.
Confirm whether acrylic glazing exists in the design. A Panel Frame sits 1.37 in off the shell ID with no glazing, gasket or fastener modelled. If there is a viewport, PVHO-1 Section 2 applies and needs to be in scope.
Deliverables
Design basis memo (Phase 1, first deliverable).
Sealed and signed calculation set covering every item above, in a form a fabricator can build from and a third party can check.
Geometry specification — dimensioned definition of each pressure-boundary component sufficient for our draftsman to produce manufacturing drawings without interpretation. Sketches, tables and annotated screenshots are fine. We do not need CAD files from you.
If FEA is used: full stress linearization and classification per VIII-2 Part 5, with paths shown, allowables stated, and a written conclusion. Not a contour plot.
Written statement of every assumption we need to verify. read less
We manufacture premium hard-shell mild hyperbaric chambers. We have a Ø76 in (1930 mm) 304L stainless chamber, MAWP 14.7 psig, that is ready to fabricate at the shell and blocked everywhere else.
This is an engineering role, not a CAD role. We have established the designs we fabricate these overseas. We have STEP files and solidworks files. We need to firm up the metal shop plans and conduct a proper analysis for the unit to be safe.
A prior contractor delivered a drawing package and an FEA that did not survive technical review. The head geometry is neither manufacturable nor code-compliant as drawn; the FEA reports a peak stress 2.6× material yield with no conclusion, and was run at a different diameter than the drawings. We are not asking anyone to review that work. We are asking you to specify the replacement.
We are behind schedule. Shell fabrication is out for quotation now.
Code position — settled, not open for discussion
No ASME code stamp this round. No U-stamp fabrication, no Authorized Inspector, no National Board registration.
MAWP is 14.7 psig, below the 15 psi threshold in ASME VIII-1 U-1(c)(2) and below the exemption in Tennessee Code §68-122-105 for unfired pressure vessels.
The vessel will nonetheless be designed to ASME VIII-1 rules, with PE-sealed calculations. That is the point of this engagement.
ASME PVHO-1 applies as a design and documentation standard. There is no stamp program for it.
Confirm and document all of the above in the design basis memo, including what it means for shop selection, and flag anything we have wrong.
We have 0.3 psi of headroom to the 15 psi threshold. Where MAWP and the relief device set pressure land is a design-basis decision we want stated once, in writing, and held.
The immediate problem
The chamber head as currently modelled is an annular dish:
Parameter As modelled
Outside diameter Ø76.000 in (1930.4 mm)
Central opening Ø38.5716 in (979.7 mm) — 50.8% of head diameter
Wall thickness 5.0 mm (0.1969 in)
Dish depth 3.3465 in (85 mm)
Knuckle radius R1.5748 in (40 mm)
Meridian radius R81.601 in outside / R81.404 in inside
Verified against the supplied STEP model:
Inside crown radius (81.404 in) exceeds the outside diameter of the skirt (76.000 in) — outside UG-32(e).
Knuckle radius is 1.93% of crown radius against a 6% minimum — outside UG-32(e) by roughly a factor of three.
The Ø38.57 in central opening at 50.8% of head diameter is beyond what UG-32 / UG-37 / UG-39 reinforcement rules reach.
At 3.35 in of dish on a 76 in diameter, the component behaves closer to a flat plate in bending than a dished head in membrane. The 5 mm wall was chosen on membrane reasoning that does not apply.
The meridian is modelled as a toroidal surface with a 500 mm axis offset. No head former has tooling for it.
The shell is not in question. Hoop stress at 3 mm runs about 15% of yield. It is separately packaged and going out to bid.
Scope of work
Phase 1 — Design basis and head specification (critical path)
Establish and document the design basis: MAWP, design temperature, corrosion allowance, cycle count, material specification, joint efficiency, relief device set pressure, and the governing code path.
Specify the head form and thickness by calculation. Candidate forms scoped on our side — ASME F&D, 2:1 semi-elliptical, or flat annular closure plate — but the choice and its justification are yours. Head depth drives overall chamber length and therefore the floor group, rib set and rail mounts, so state the dimensional consequence of your choice.
Design the reinforcement for the Ø38.57 in central opening. State your intended route before starting — design-by-rule, U-2(g), Appendix 1-10, or design-by-analysis per VIII-2 Part 5.
Assess whether a UG-101 proof test is the better route to establish MAWP. Since no stamp is being pursued and the head geometry is not reached by design-by-rule, we want proof testing evaluated as a genuine alternative to a design-by-analysis argument, not dismissed. Tell us what it would require.
Phase 2 — Balance of pressure boundary
Reinforcement design for the side opening in the shell: 53.875 × 18.000 in on the OD, corner radii R3.937 in, centred at 171°04′. Internal and external rings are modelled but carry mismatched forming radii (R108.218 vs R81.601) and do not seat.
Head rib grid: confirm whether required at your specified head thickness, and size it if so. Currently 8 left / 8 right at 12.7 mm.
Closure ring group and door interface: internal ring 25 mm, external ring 10 mm. Sealing arrangement is undefined — no gasket, groove or fastener detail exists in the model.
Bolting, if applicable.
Hydrostatic test pressure and the test-condition stress check.
Weld joint efficiency, NDE extent, and any PWHT position.
Confirm whether acrylic glazing exists in the design. A Panel Frame sits 1.37 in off the shell ID with no glazing, gasket or fastener modelled. If there is a viewport, PVHO-1 Section 2 applies and needs to be in scope.
Deliverables
Design basis memo (Phase 1, first deliverable).
Sealed and signed calculation set covering every item above, in a form a fabricator can build from and a third party can check.
Geometry specification — dimensioned definition of each pressure-boundary component sufficient for our draftsman to produce manufacturing drawings without interpretation. Sketches, tables and annotated screenshots are fine. We do not need CAD files from you.
If FEA is used: full stress linearization and classification per VIII-2 Part 5, with paths shown, allowables stated, and a written conclusion. Not a contour plot.
Written statement of every assumption we need to verify. read less
Things to know
Expert
Skill Level
Open budget
Hourly
Full-time
Job type
1-3 months
Job duration
Areas of expertise
2D & 3D Engineering Design
2D & 3D Modeling
3D CAD Simulations
Structural Design
Structural Engineering
+2 more
Job categories
2D CAD Design Services
Engineering Design
Mechanical CAD Design
Mechanical Engineering
+1 more
About the client
Payment ready
United States (03:48 pm)
Posted
Active
Job activity
3 Applicants
0 interviews in progress
More open jobs from this client (2)
3D Exploded Views for Pressure Vessel for Production
Remote - Posted
We are seeking a skilled freelancer to create detailed 3D exploded views and design sets for pressure vessel units currently in production. These designs will guide metal fabr...
AutoCAD Drafting & Design
CAD Drafting Services
Drafting and Design Services
SolidWorks Design Services
Mechanical Design Services
View job
CAD Drawing for Hyperbaric Chamber
Remote - Posted
Do not apply if you do not have expert knowledge of pressure vessels.
We need a part-time CAD engineer to support ongoing design work for enclosed steel equipment. The wo...
Sheet Metal Design
CAD Drawing Services
2D CAD Drafting Services
Manufacturing Drawings
Mechanical CAD Design
View job
Similar jobs
CAD DESIGNER NEEDED — 30-INCH ACRYLIC KITCHEN ORGANIZER
Remote - Posted
We are looking for an experienced CAD designer to convert an existing consumer-product concept into a simple, manufacturing-ready 2D drawing and 3D CAD model.
The product con...
2D CAD Design Services
3D Design Services
3D Modeling
View job
2-TIER TEST
Remote - Posted
Hi Azil, as per our communication. I will send you the plinth details upon your acceptance of this invitation.
2D CAD Design Services
3D Design Services
3D Modeling
View job
AUTOCAD DRAFTING
Chennai, India - Posted
NEED DRAFTING PARTNER FOR A REPUTATED FIRM WITH 2D AND 3D SOFWARE KNOWLEDGE
General CAD Drafting
CAD Drafting Services
2D CAD Design Services
View job
Custom 3D CAD dwg for car parts
Oklahoma City, United States - Posted
I have several custom parts I am needing for a car I am building. I need to get them drawn so I can send them off to get printed/fabricated. The first part is a custom headli...
3D Modeling
3D Design Services
Engineering Design
View job
Convert STP to DXF Files
Remote - Posted
Need help in converting some STP files to DXF files
2D CAD Design Services
CAD Conversion Services
3D CAD Translation Services
View job
need a desighner for my work
Remote - Posted
I need help with 2D and 3D CAD Designs for school-level Design & Technology projects. Candidates should have experience in technical drawings, 3D modelling, product design, di...
2D CAD Drafting Services
Mechanical Engineering
3D Design Services
View job
How it works
Find hourly jobs
Top rated experts are regularly hired for hourly jobs & ongoing client work.
Fixed-rate jobs
Experts can browse & apply to fixed-rate work & quote on a flat-rate basis.
Design contests
Experts build a reputation and earn prizes by participating in design challenges.
About Cad Crowd
4.9/5.0
(Our client satisfaction)
G2 2022
Spring high performer
204,270
global members
33,347
projects delivered to clients
Trusted by
