Detailed Design

Detailed design considerations of any SIS fall under the categories of general, hardware and software design requirements. Once an SRS is prepared, the designer must prepare a design framework (top level design document usually called Functional Design Specification or FDS) for the SIS. The final step before proceeding for manufacturing is to carry out an “SIS Verification” for the design stage, i.e., to compare the proposed design with the requirements of the SRS and to confirm that the designed system will fully meet the requirements, (both general and project-specific) set forth in the SRS.

Question –

In this case study, you will perform an SIS Verification for Design Stage. An example SRS is provided as a separate attachment to this paper, along with an example FDS proposing a design for the same system covered in the SRS.

Prepare a brief verification report (approximately four pages) upon your review of the proposed design, if the design complies with the requirements set forth in the SRS. Highlight issues that might require special attention from your point of view, and justify. The report shall cover the below listed design aspects and shall be structured accordingly.

General and hardware considerations:

Energized Vs. De-energized Systems System Diagnostics
Minimize Common Cause Panel Size and Layout Environmental Considerations Power
Grounding
Selection of Switches and Relays Bypasses
Functional Testing Security
Operator Interfaces Software considerations:
Software Lifecycle
Program and Language Types Quantifying Software Performance Testing Software

Note:
The answers must be in your own words and copy and paste answers will not receive marks. You must provide references as appropriate.

When compiling your report, we recommend that you implement the suggestions listed below.

1. Analyse the proposed design (5 marks)

Your analysis and report should display an overall understanding of the detailed design requirements, including ALL the suggested criteria for evaluation and possibly additional criteria from your readings.

2. Accuracy of conclusions (5 marks)

Describe your conclusion and not just state “the design does not meet the SRS”. Justify your statements.

3. Produce a report that is logically complete. (5 marks)

Include a short introduction at the beginning and a short summary and conclusion at the end, to present a well-integrated evaluation and logical conclusion.

4. Discuss possible design enhancements (5 marks)

This is an open discussion. The student may suggest any other relevant design enhancement or modification, and justify how the suggestion will enhance the design (do not include un-proven designs).

5. Communication style and clarity of the report (5 marks)

A clean structure of the report with correct referencing and adapted headings and subheadings and no spelling mistakes gets full marks.

Each of the following will be sanctioned 0.5 marks: Lack of clean structure, incorrect referencing, no headings and subheadings, spelling mistakes.