L1-CHE-PRO-045 v1 - MTM Design Assurance Procedure

Engineering Procedure – Office of the Chief Engineer
L1-CHE-PRO-045
MTM DESIGN ASSURANCE PROCEDURE
Version: 1
L1-CHE-PRO-045 Version: 1 Effective from: 14th November 2019
Approval
Approving Manager: Chief Engineer Approval Date: 14/11/2019 Next Review Date: 14/11/2022
PRINTOUT MAY NOT BE UP-TO-DATE; REFER TO METRO INTRANET FOR THE LATEST VERSION Page 2 of 21
Amendment Record
Approval Date Version Description

Details MTM’s processes to manage design activities through
combining:
• Design and Technical Review Procedure
[L1-NAM-PRO-002]
14/11/2019 1
• LXRP Design and Technical Review Procedure [L1-PRJ-
PRO-009]
L1-NAM-PRO-002 and L1-PRJ-PRO-009 are superseded by this
document.
Table of Contents
1 Introduction ............................................................................................................... 6
1.1 Purpose ...................................................................................................................... 6
1.2 Scope 6
1.3 Scalability ................................................................................................................... 8
1.4 Responsibilities .......................................................................................................... 8
2 Abbreviations and Definitions .................................................................................. 8

2.1 Abbreviations and Acronyms ...................................................................................... 8
2.2 Definitions and Terminology ....................................................................................... 9
2.3 Related Documents .................................................................................................. 10
3 Design and Engineering Management Plan .......................................................... 11
4 Design Process ....................................................................................................... 11

4.1 Design Assurance Process....................................................................................... 11
4.1.1 G1 Entry Process..................................................................................................... 12
4.1.2 G2 Entry Process..................................................................................................... 12
4.2 Design Review Process ............................................................................................ 13
4.3 Compliance Gate ...................................................................................................... 13
4.4 Engagement Workshops .......................................................................................... 14
4.5 Comments Sheet (CS) ............................................................................................. 14
4.6 Hold Clouds .............................................................................................................. 14
4.7 Design Change......................................................................................................... 14
4.8 Construction Prior to Issue for Construction (IFC) .................................................... 14
4.9 Third Party and Independent Reviews ...................................................................... 15
4.10 Proof Engineering ..................................................................................................... 15
5 Design Reports ........................................................................................................ 15

Design and Engineering Management Plan (DEMP) ...................................... 16
Design Report ................................................................................................ 17
Comment Guidelines ...................................................................................... 18
Proof Engineering Report ............................................................................... 21
List of Tables
Table 1: Abbreviations and Acronyms ............................................................................................. 8
Table 2: Definitions and Terminology .............................................................................................. 9
Table 3: Referenced and Related Documents............................................................................... 10
List of Figures
Figure 1: MTM High Level Tailored ‘V’ Lifecycle ............................................................................. 7
Figure 2: Assurance Framework Hierarchy ..................................................................................... 7
Figure 3: Gate 1 Entry Process Flowchart ..................................................................................... 12
Figure 4: Gate 2 Entry Process Flowchart ..................................................................................... 13
Figure 5: Design Review Process Flowchart ................................................................................. 13
1 Introduction
Under Rail Safety National Law (RSNL), Metro Trains Melbourne (MTM) as an Accredited Rail
Transport Operator (ARTO) and Rail Infrastructure Manager (RIM) must ensure safe operation of
the railway so far as is reasonably practical. Specifically:
• RSNL "RSNL Regulations 2012 Schedule 1 Section 19(1) requires a documented set of
engineering standards and procedures, operational systems, and safety standards to cover
Rail Infrastructure, Rolling Stock, Operational Systems (and if relevant, the interface between
them).
• RSNL s52 (RIM duties) requires a RIM to ensure “…design, construction, commissioning,
use, installation, modification, maintenance, repair or decommissioning of the manager’s rail
infrastructure is done or carried out in a way that ensures safety of railway operations…”
Specifically, as a franchisee, MTM must comply with the terms and conditions of the Franchise
Agreement – Train Project Module (24/10/2017).
1.1 Purpose
The Design Assurance Procedure documents the processes MTM adopt to manage design activities
undertaken as part of any modification of existing, or introduction of new, infrastructure that is part
of the Melbourne Rail Network (MRN).
The purpose of the Design Assurance Procedure is for MTM to assure that the design has
progressed to a level of maturity and completeness that ensures the design is safe, reliable,
maintainable, and meets operational requirements so that it can achieve Issued for Construction
(IFC) status.
1.2 Scope
This procedure applies to the requirements and designs for Rail Infrastructure and Railway Premises
part of MTM’s Infrastructure Lease and applies to all project and renewals works including:
• Railway Building Services
• Railway Track and Civil
• Railway Electrical Network including Essential Services Distribution System
• Railway Signalling
• Railway Telecommunications (OCMS)
• Railway Structures
• Railway Stations
Note: This procedure does not address requirements or design for rolling stock
This procedure presents the requirements for design process based on the framework provided in
the Engineering Management System (EMS) [L1-CHE-MAN-001]. It allows for a collaborative
approach with industry recognising that under RSNL safety is a shared responsibility.
With respect to the MTM Systems Engineering tailored ’V’ life cycle, this procedure focuses on the
design development phase and does not address the System Definition, Build/Construct and
Integrate, Test and Commission and, Operate, Maintain and Renew phases; separate procedural
documents describe these elements.
Figure 1: MTM High Level Tailored ‘V’ Lifecycle

(Source: L1-CHE-MAN-001 Engineering Management System Framework)
Note: This document is not a guide to the EMS rather; it is one of a suite of documents that forms the EMS.
As such it does not elaborate on concepts introduced in the EMS or repeat details of processes, procedures
or forms described in other documents. References are provided to other documents where relevant. The
flowchart describing the Engineering Management Systems process can be found in L1-CHE-MAN-001.
This document sits within MTM’s SMS and MTM Engineering Assurance suite of documents as
presented below:
Figure 2: Assurance Framework Hierarchy
1.3 Scalability
MTM understands that the level of design assurance applied to a particular modification or
introduction (change) should be dependent on the level of complexity of the change and business
integration impact.
Major projects may choose to develop a specific version of this framework. Any customised
framework shall be based on the core principles of this document and shall be developed in
consultation with the Manager Engineering Systems and approved by the MTM Chief Engineer.
1.4 Responsibilities
Responsibilities related to this document are defined within the MTM Design Assurance
Responsibilities Information Sheet (L1-CHE-INF-014).
2 Abbreviations and Definitions
2.1 Abbreviations and Acronyms

The following abbreviations used in this document have the meaning defined below:
Table 1: Abbreviations and Acronyms
Abbreviation Description
CG Compliance Gate
CAS Comments Assurance Sheet
CG Compliance Gate
CS Comment Sheet
DCN Design Change Notice
DCR Design Change Request
DAC Design Assurance Criteria
DD Detailed Design
EC Engineering Change
EMS Engineering Management System
FD Final Design
G1 Design Assurance Gate 1
G2 Design Assurance Gate 2
HoE Head of Engineering (within OCE)
IDC Interdisciplinary Coordination
IFC Issued for Construction (drawings)
MRN Metropolitan Rail Network
MTM Metro Trains Melbourne
OCE Office of the Chief Engineer
Abbreviation Description
OCMS Operational Control and Management Systems
PD Preliminary Design
RAMS Reliability Availability Maintainability and Safety
RSNL Rail Safety National Law
SiD Safety in Design
SMS MTM’s Safety Management System
SRR System Requirements Assurance
2.2 Definitions and Terminology

Table 2: Definitions and Terminology
Term Definition
Accredited Rail Accredited Rail Transport Operator is a Rail Transport Operator accredited under the
Transport Rail Safety National Law to carry out rail operations. They have demonstrated to
Operator (ARTO) National Rail Safety Regulator that they have the competency and capacity to
implement a Safety Management System (SMS) and to safely manage changes to
their operations.
Applicant The organisation submitting Artefacts demonstrating compliance to this procedure.
Artefact A document/s (report, drawing, plan, DEMP and RFI etc.) that forms part of a Design
(including test and commissioning plans, As-Built drawings) submitted for review.
Design The product of the technical process that describes the solution of a system, sub-
system elements or items.
Design Design Assurance provides confidence that the MRN shall function as intended after
Assurance the implementation of a proposed change. It ensures that prior to a change being
implemented, it has been assessed from a technical and safety perspective and that
the appropriate level of due diligence has been undertaken in the development review
and acceptance of that change.
Design and The Design and Engineering Management Plan (DEMP) or Design Management Plan
Engineering (DMP), describes how the design will be managed and drawings submitted to MTM
Management Plan Engineering for Assurance. The document shall be developed as per Appendix A,
(DEMP) which describes the items required to be addressed in the DEMP. The production of
and assurance review of this document is mandatory.
Engineering Engineering Authority (EA) is the method by which the MTM Chief Engineer (CE)
Authority assigns individuals within the MTM organisation a level of engineering delegated
authority to oversee aspects of the EMS Assurance Framework.
Engineering A document that sets out the minimum requirements for the design, construction or
Standard maintenance of rail assets.
Within MTM, Engineering Standard includes Standards, Specifications and Technical
Notes.
Infrastructure Rail Infrastructure and Railway Premises as defined under RSNL within MTM’s lease
boundary.
Term Definition
Design Reviewer A Subject Matter Expert (SME) representing the Head of Engineering (HoE)
responsible for undertaking technical and Design Assurance reviews in accordance
with this document.
RIW Rail Industry Worker card (as per L2-SQE-MAN-001). The Rail Industry Worker Card
is the smart card used to identify each RIW and the roles which the RIW is authorised
to undertake.
RSW Refers to those carrying out rail safety work and design of rail infrastructure under
one or more of MTM’s functional categories (i.e. one of the sub or functional
categories that make up the Engineering and Design matrix)
So Far As Is As defined within the Integrated Risk Management Procedure [L0-SQE-PRO-031]
Reasonably and stipulated in RSNL section 47.
Practicable Has the meaning described in the National Rail Safety Guideline - Meaning of Duty to
(SFAIRP) Ensure Safety So Far As Is Reasonably Practicable.
shall Is used as the descriptive word to express a requirement that is mandatory to achieve
conformance to the standard.
should Is used as the descriptive word to express a requirement that is recommended in
order to achieve compliance to the standard. Should can also be used if a
requirement is a design goal but not a mandatory requirement.
Subject Matter The Subject Matter Expert (SME) is an experienced person, nominated by the
Expert discipline Head of Engineering (HoE) and/or Engineering Manager (EM), who has the
capability to provide expertise on a particular subject.
Third Party A contracting company or individual engaged by MTM or others, to undertake specific
work in accordance with an agreement. A Third Party may be a sole trader or an
employee of a parent contracting company.
2.3 Related Documents

Whilst this procedure focuses on design process, it is important to appreciate its relationship to the
overall EMS system lifecycle. Successful completion of the preceding requirements and system
definition phases, are critical to the effective and efficient execution of design assurance.
This procedure either references or is related to a number of other documents:
Table 3: Referenced and Related Documents
Document Number Document Title

Franchise Agreement – Train Project Module (24 October 2017)
L1-ASY-PRO-006 Change of Asset Data Procedure
L0-SQE-MAN-002 Safety Management System Manual
L2-SQE-MAN-001 Engineering and Design Rail Safety Worker Competence
L0-SQE-PRO-031 Integrated Risk Management Procedure
L0-SQE-PRO-046 Human Factors Integration
L1-SQE-PRO-001 Management of Change Procedure
L1-CHE-INF-014 MTM Design Assurance Responsibilities
Document Number Document Title

L1-CHE-GDL-089 Design Review Artefacts Guidelines
L4-CHE-FOR-031 Chief Engineer; Technical Request for Information (RFI) Form
L4-CHE-FOR-046 Engineering Design Review Comments Sheet
L4-CHE-FOR-131 Design Assurance Gate 1 Artefacts Checklist
L4-CHE-FOR-132 Design Assurance Gate 2 Artefacts Checklist
L1-CHE-MAN-001 Engineering Management System Framework
L1-CHE-POL-001 Engineering Drawings Management Policy (IFC/As-Builts)
L1-CHE-PRO-001 Engineering Waiver Procedure
L1-CHE-PRO-004 Type Approval Procedure
L1-CHE-PRO-007 Chief Engineer Procedure; Management of Overlapping Design Agreement
L1-CHE-PRO-029 Procedure for Handling of RFIs with LXRP
L1-CHE-PRO-031 Engineering Change Procedure
L1-CHE-PRO-035 Signalling Design Technical Review Procedure
L1-CHE-PRO-036 Engineering Procedure - Dispensation for Infrastructure Drawings
L2-ELN-PRO-012 Asset Acceptance Process Procedure
L1-PRJ-PRO-008 Project Completions Procedure
L2-PRJ-PRO-016 Safety in Design
L3-PRJ-PRO-005 Design/Document Change Request – Construction Phase
L4-PRJ-FOR-116 Design/Document Change Request (DCR) – Construction
3 Design and Engineering Management Plan

The Applicant shall provide a Design and Engineering Management Plan (DEMP), that nominates
the Applicant’s proposed design process (refer Section 4). The DEMP shall also define processes
and procedures for developing the design of permanent, staged and temporary works. Minimum
requirements for the content of a DEMP are outlined in Appendix A.
The DEMP is to be accepted prior to submission of any Artefact
4 Design Process
This design assurance procedure allows the Applicant to elect either an assurance or review process
or an agreed alternative as per Section 1.3.
4.1 Design Assurance Process

The design assurance process is defined by gates and maybe implemented via a Gate 1 (G1) or a
Gate 2 (G2) entry process shown below in Figure 3 and 4 respectively.
4.1.1 G1 Entry Process
If a G1 entry is selected by the Applicant, the Applicant must demonstrate the submitted Artefacts
comply with the gate criteria as defined in L4-CHE-FOR-131 and L4-CHE-FOR-132 for G1 and G2
respectively to pass each of the gates.
The Applicant may wish to hold engagement workshops prior to G1, between G1 and G2 and/or for
comment closeout prior to CG to assist in compliant Artefact development through to IFC.
A non-compliant submission at either G1 or G2 may require the Artefacts to be resubmitted at that
gate.
Figure 3 shows the G1 entry process.
Figure 3: Gate 1 Entry Process Flowchart
4.1.2 G2 Entry Process
If a G2 entry is selected by the Applicant, the Applicant must demonstrate the submitted Artefacts
comply with the gate criteria as defined in L4-CHE-FOR-132 to pass the gate. The Applicant may
wish to hold engagement workshops prior to G2 and/or for comment closeout prior to CG to assist
in compliant Artefact development through to IFC.
A non-compliant submission at G2 may require the Artefacts to be resubmitted.
Figure 4 shows the G2 entry process.
Figure 4: Gate 2 Entry Process Flowchart
4.2 Design Review Process

The design review process is defined by: preliminary design, detailed design, final design,
compliance gate and IFC as shown in Figure 5 below.
Guidance for Artefact provision at each of the design phases is provided in L1-CHE-GDL-089.
Figure 5: Design Review Process Flowchart
4.3 Compliance Gate

The Applicant is required to pass the compliance gate (CG) irrespective of the design process
selected i.e. assurance or review. The compliance gate criteria is:
• Closure or agreed transfer of all comments
4.4 Engagement Workshops

Engagement workshops are an important tool to facilitate effective design assurance. When
implemented well, engagement workshops allow the Applicant and the Design Reviewers to identify
and resolve issues, assign actions, seek agreement and close comments.
Engagement workshops shall:
• Be described in the DEMP
• Be supported by an agenda stating clear objectives, required outputs and attendees
• Be appropriately attended by the Applicant, MTM engineering and wider MTM business
stakeholders
• Be evidenced by records (e.g. minutes) clearly identifying all actions and agreements
Engagement workshops may be held throughout the design assurance process as per the flowcharts
below and are optional by mutual agreement between MTM and the Applicant.
4.5 Comments Sheet (CS)

All comments shall be recorded within an MTM agreed CS.
These are required by MTM and should be used to assist both the Design Reviewer and the
Applicant to identify and address issues within the Artefacts. Comment guidelines are provided in
Appendix C. The Applicant may apply to transfer a comment between Artefacts and shall do so in
accordance with the process outlined within the DEMP.
4.6 Hold Clouds

When the closure of a comment at the CG is required to be deferred, a hold cloud is required to be
placed on the impacted content within the Artefacts by the Applicant.
When the impacted content within a hold cloud is able to be assured, the Applicant shall remove the
hold cloud and submit the Artefacts for assurance.
4.7 Design Change

A design change shall only apply to post-IFC design.
A design change procedure shall be provided in the DEMP.
4.8 Construction Prior to Issue for Construction (IFC)

Should the Applicant be required to commence construction prior to Artefacts reaching IFC status,
an appropriate procedure shall be provided in the DEMP.
As a minimum, the procedure shall detail the process by which the Applicant intends to manage risks
that result from construction prior to Artefacts reaching IFC status, in particular, those risks which
potentially impact railway operations.
4.9 Third Party and Independent Reviews

A third party or independent review is required to the satisfaction of MTM.
The review shall be completed by person/s deemed competent by MTM from a different design
house or from the same company but a separate office location and shall not be involved with the
design of any other associated elements of that particular project and shall be completed prior to
submission at the CG.
All comments and issues identified by the review need to be addressed to the satisfaction of MTM.
4.10 Proof Engineering

Proof engineering shall be undertaken for the following unless approved otherwise by the MTM Chief
Engineer.
a) Structural design of new bridges, tunnels, structural drainage culverts and buildings
(except where covered by National Construction Code).
b) Design for structural modification of existing bridges, tunnels, structural drainage culverts
and buildings (except where covered by National Construction Code).
c) Geotechnical and structural design of cuttings, embankments and retaining wall
structures (except for minor retaining walls and earthworks not supporting railway tracks
or other significant infrastructure).
d) Design of major temporary works within the operational railway relating to structures
including formwork, false work and lifting arrangements for precast concrete or steel
elements.
Proof engineering requirements are provided in Appendix D.
5 Design Reports
The Applicant shall provide a design report with minimum content as set out in Appendix B.
Design and Engineering Management Plan (DEMP)

Contents Description
Competencies Design Team Organisational chart
Engineering and design competencies: Designer, Checker, Approver
Design Program Design program that shows the Applicant’s intended design work package
breakdown, intended design process (refer Section 4), sequence and appropriate
logic links to identify the critical path and the relationship of design work packages
to works readiness
Design Details of how the development of the design will be managed including:
Management • Design assurance process
Process
• Engagement workshops
• Integration of multidisciplinary designs
• SiDs and other risk assessments
• Stakeholder management
• Human factors management
• Construction prior to IFC
• Design change request/notice
• Temporary works design
• Comment transfer process
• Hold-cloud process
• Validation and verification
• Requirements management
• Independent verification
• Drawing management
• Design quality
Communication & Details of how the status and progress of the design will be reported
Reporting
Design Report
Contents Description
Design Criteria This section forms the criteria around which the design has been developed and shall
include the following:
• Design personnel and competency: details of the design personnel and their
supporting competencies
• Functional requirements: how the design has met the requirements
• Operational requirements: how the design has met the requirements
• Design basis: statement of design basis including assumptions and the list of
standards at the applied revision on which the design is based.
• Major Constraints: details any constraints which have affected the design or
may affect the implementation of the design
• Operational / maintenance impacts: will the design result in any impact on the
operation or maintenance of the railway.
• Reliability, Availability, Maintenance, Safety and Human Factors: will the
design result in any impact on the reliability or maintainability of the railway.
This may include:
o The ability to safely maintain the infrastructure
o Any identified reduction in the availability or reliability of a piece of
infrastructure, system or subsystem
o Safety in Design (SiD) and Human Factors
Any special instructions or methods that may need to be adopted
• Standard Waivers and Type Approvals: identification of standard waivers and
type approvals sought
Design Process Inclusion of evidence to assure compliance to design processes provided in the
Evidence DEMP where applicable for e.g.: independent verification, interdisciplinary reviews
Comment Guidelines
The following guidelines are provided to assist both the Design Reviewers and designers:
• The Design Reviewer should exercise discretion, tact and restraint in the role, and ensure
that the assurance check is carried out in a climate of mutual trust and understanding
• As far as possible ensure that a comment provides adequate clarity for the designer to close
the comment – (refer below for guidance)
• Category 3 comments represent a fundamental failure in design or process (i.e. “this will not
work”) or unsafe configuration – undertake the Category 3 test, (refer below)
• The Design Reviewer should not comment on the choice of the design or suggest alternative
designs, but comment only on the validity and satisfactory compliance with Project
Requirements/Standards/Directives/DPNs or, in the absence of these, an agreed position,
which may be based on the ARTO’s accepted practice on the Melbourne Metropolitan
Passenger Network
• Avoid raising general construction related comments, unless required to do so to
demonstrate compliance
• While ensuring that the Design Reviewer does not take over the design or impose solutions,
try as far as possible to help the designer by making objective statements, clearly stating
what you believe the issue is. Similarly, designer responses should clearly state what actions
they will take to address the comment. Avoid questions wherever possible
• The intent of the CG is to close out all comments
• To assist with tracking and close out, comments should relate to the package being reviewed.
Comments related to an adjacent/linked package should be made against that particular
package (unless they relate to an interface and cannot be fully addressed in the other
package). For example, comments on signalling design within the comments review sheet
for a combined services route design should be avoided
Category 1
Definition “Minor issue or observation”

Typical Category 1 comments are likely to include:
• Typo’s, drafting/formatting errors/irregularities
• Asking for a label to be added to a particular item
• An Artefact reference appears incorrect
• If there is “No comment” on the submission
• Design detail is missing or deficient that could reasonably be addressed/added prior to submission at the next
gate
• As-built team - drawing comments
Category 2
Definition “Moderate issue that requires a designer's response”
• Typical Category 2 comments are likely to include:

• An issue/detail is unclear, please provide further detail or clarification
• Design does not fully satisfy a Project Requirement/Engineering Standard
• Inconsistency/clash between disciplines, the resolution of which does not alter the design basis or intent
• Design package is incomplete (minor omission that does not prevent a full review of design submitted)
• Moderate detail missing or deficient or issue that requires clarifying but the package may proceed to the next
stage without the need for resubmission in whole or in part
Category 3
Definition “Significant design deficiency requiring immediate action”
Breaking this down, the following criteria should be used to assess whether a proposed comment is Category 3:
• Criteria 1 – Unsafe configuration

• Criteria 2 - Significant – the comment relates to non-compliance with a Project Requirement/Engineering
Standard. The design package should not proceed to the next gate until this non-compliance is resolved.
• Criteria 3 - Design deficiency – if not rectified, the deficiency would have a significant impact upon
operation or maintenance of the particular asset or system/sub-system of which it forms a part. The design
package should not proceed to the next gate until the deficiency is resolved
Proof Engineering Requirements

Proof engineering shall include a full and independent assessment of all factors influencing the final
integrity of the specified components of the work and will include a review of the functional
requirements of the permanent works, the detailed design and documentation of the permanent
works and associated temporary works, and the construction method.
Proof engineering shall be based on the construction drawings and specifications without reference
to computations.
Proof engineering shall be undertaken by an organisation pre-qualified under the Vic Roads
Consultant Pre-qualification Scheme unless approved by the Chief Engineer or delegate.
The proof engineer shall have independent reviewer competency in the relevant sub disciplines in
accordance with L2-SQE-MAN-001.
The proof engineer shall be independent of any other commitment or obligation to the Applicant
carrying out the design for the Contract.
All advice and comment including calculations provided to the Applicant by the proof engineer shall
be in writing.
A proof engineering report (as per Appendix E) shall be provided for the design package if unless
otherwise directed by the Chief Engineer or delegate.
Proof Engineering Certificates of Compliance shall be included in the IFC design work package.
The proof engineer shall stamp and sign all relevant drawing(s) as evidence of the proof engineer’s
detailed check and acceptance prior to the issue of the IFC design work package
Any amendment to the design after the issue of the Proof Engineering Certificate of Compliance
shall be referred to the proof engineer for review and written confirmation that the Certificate remains
valid.
Evidence of this confirmation shall be provided to MTM.
Proof Engineering Report

The Proof Engineering Reports must be structured as a minimum with the following content:
a) Introduction.
b) Key design inputs provided by the Applicant.
c) Design assumptions and criteria adopted for proof engineering.
d) Key standards used in the proof engineering.
e) Analytical methodology used in proof engineering.
f) Any non-conformances with standards and design brief.
g) Attachments:
a. Proof engineering certificates;
b. Certified drawings;
c. Relevant correspondence; and
d. Other related information.

L1-CHE-PRO-045 v1 - MTM Design Assurance Procedure

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

L1-CHE-PRO-045 v1 - MTM Design Assurance Procedure

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Engineering Procedure – Office of the Chief Engineer

L1-CHE-PRO-045 Version: 1 Effective from: 14th November 2019

L1-CHE-PRO-045 Version: 1 Effective from: 14th November 2019

Approval Date Version Description

L1-CHE-PRO-045 Version: 1 Effective from: 14th November 2019

2 Abbreviations and Definitions .................................................................................. 8

3 Design and Engineering Management Plan .......................................................... 11

4 Design Process ....................................................................................................... 11

5 Design Reports ........................................................................................................ 15

L1-CHE-PRO-045 Version: 1 Effective from: 14th November 2019

L1-CHE-PRO-045 Version: 1 Effective from: 14th November 2019

L1-CHE-PRO-045 Version: 1 Effective from: 14th November 2019

Figure 1: MTM High Level Tailored ‘V’ Lifecycle

Figure 2: Assurance Framework Hierarchy

L1-CHE-PRO-045 Version: 1 Effective from: 14th November 2019

2 Abbreviations and Definitions

2.1 Abbreviations and Acronyms

L1-CHE-PRO-045 Version: 1 Effective from: 14th November 2019

2.2 Definitions and Terminology

L1-CHE-PRO-045 Version: 1 Effective from: 14th November 2019

2.3 Related Documents

Document Number Document Title

L1-CHE-PRO-045 Version: 1 Effective from: 14th November 2019

Document Number Document Title

3 Design and Engineering Management Plan

4.1 Design Assurance Process

L1-CHE-PRO-045 Version: 1 Effective from: 14th November 2019

4.1.1 G1 Entry Process

Figure 3: Gate 1 Entry Process Flowchart

4.1.2 G2 Entry Process

L1-CHE-PRO-045 Version: 1 Effective from: 14th November 2019

Figure 4: Gate 2 Entry Process Flowchart

4.2 Design Review Process

Figure 5: Design Review Process Flowchart

4.3 Compliance Gate

L1-CHE-PRO-045 Version: 1 Effective from: 14th November 2019

4.4 Engagement Workshops

4.5 Comments Sheet (CS)

4.6 Hold Clouds

4.7 Design Change

4.8 Construction Prior to Issue for Construction (IFC)

L1-CHE-PRO-045 Version: 1 Effective from: 14th November 2019

4.9 Third Party and Independent Reviews

4.10 Proof Engineering

L1-CHE-PRO-045 Version: 1 Effective from: 14th November 2019

Design and Engineering Management Plan (DEMP)

L1-CHE-PRO-045 Version: 1 Effective from: 14th November 2019

L1-CHE-PRO-045 Version: 1 Effective from: 14th November 2019

L1-CHE-PRO-045 Version: 1 Effective from: 14th November 2019

Definition “Minor issue or observation”

Definition “Moderate issue that requires a designer's response”

• Typical Category 2 comments are likely to include:

• Criteria 1 – Unsafe configuration

L1-CHE-PRO-045 Version: 1 Effective from: 14th November 2019

Proof Engineering Requirements

L1-CHE-PRO-045 Version: 1 Effective from: 14th November 2019

Proof Engineering Report

You might also like