Skip to main content

Custom Machinery Project Lifecycle: Concept, Design, FAT, Install, Support

A custom machinery project runs from the first statement of need, through design, build, factory testing, shipping, installation and commissioning, to decades of support and an eventual rebuild or retirement. UTEC Industrial designs, engineers, machines, fabricates, and installs custom material handling systems for aerospace and heavy industry from its Spokane Valley, WA facility, integrating Allen-Bradley PLC and motion control with in-house CNC machining, heat treating, and stress relief. This article walks a project engineer or engineering procurement team through each stage of a heavy handling project, the review or test that closes it, and the decisions that are cheap early and expensive later. The machine itself is built along one chain, design → engineering → parts machining → fabrication → assembly → weld fatigue → stress relief → drives → controls → tuning → monitoring, and the project stages decide when each link is specified, built, proven, and handed to the plant that will run it.

What are the stages of a custom machinery project?​

One detailed public model of a project life cycle is the one NASA uses for its own systems, and, applied by analogy, it maps onto a large custom machine. The NASA Systems Engineering Handbook, Table 2.2-1, divides a project into seven phases:

  • Pre-Phase A, Concept Studies: feasible concepts, draft system-level requirements, and a first check of cost and schedule feasibility.
  • Phase A, Concept and Technology Development: the final concept and the system-level requirements.
  • Phase B, Preliminary Design and Technology Completion: a preliminary design and the specification and interface documents.
  • Phase C, Final Design and Fabrication: the detailed design, fabricated hardware, and coded software.
  • Phase D, System Assembly, Integration and Test, Launch: an assembled, integrated, and verified system, transitioned to use.
  • Phase E, Operations and Sustainment: the system in service, supported for the need it was built to meet.
  • Phase F, Closeout: decommissioning and disposal.

For a coil car in an aluminum mill or a runner-handling fixture at a hydroelectric plant, the same sequence reads as concept, design, build, factory acceptance, installation and commissioning, support, and retirement. One reason to manage the stages deliberately is the cost of change. The handbook's §2.5 explains that life-cycle costs tend to get "locked in" early in design and development, and that the cost to change the design increases later in the life cycle. Its Phase B guidance adds that significant design changes at and beyond Phase B, preliminary design, become increasingly expensive. As engineering reasoning for a custom machine, that means each stage below has a gate, and a question left open at one gate is paid for at the next (NASA/SP-2016-6105 Rev2, Table 2.2-1, §2.5 and §3.5).

What should the concept stage settle before a builder is engaged?​

The concept stage settles what the machine must do, not how it will do it. MHI's first principle of material handling, the Planning Principle, calls for the needs, performance objectives, and functional specification of the proposed method to be completely defined at the outset. It also calls for the plan to be developed with everyone who will use and benefit from the equipment. It says success in planning large-scale projects generally requires a team approach involving suppliers, consultants when appropriate, and end-user specialists from management, engineering, computer and information systems, finance, and operations. The written result is the user requirement specification, which the URS article covers line by line. ISO/IEC/IEEE 15288:2023 establishes a common framework of process descriptions for the life cycle of systems, and ISO/IEC/IEEE 29148:2018 specifies the processes in the engineering activities that result in requirements for systems and software products.

One concept-stage task on heavy equipment is the site survey. The NASA handbook's product-transition guidance says a site survey may need to be performed, and that it should address whether the existing facilities can accept, store, and operate the new product. It should also identify support products and services required but not planned for. Because facility modifications should be planned well before fielding, the handbook says the survey should be made early in the life cycle. For a transfer car that needs new rail and foundations in a steel mill, or a positioner that must pass through an existing door at an aerospace plant, the survey result is itself a requirement (Material Handling Institute, Ten Principles, Principle 1; NASA/SP-2016-6105 Rev2, §5.5.1.2.2; ISO/IEC/IEEE 15288:2023; ISO/IEC/IEEE 29148:2018).

Which design reviews gate a custom machine before fabrication?​

In the NASA life cycle, two reviews gate the design: a preliminary design review (PDR) and a critical design review (CDR). In the NASA life cycle, PDR closes Phase B. The handbook says design issues uncovered at PDR should be resolved so that final design can begin with unambiguous design-to specifications. It adds that from that point on, almost all changes to the baseline are expected to be refinements, not fundamental changes. CDR sits in Phase C. The handbook states that a CDR for each end item should be held before fabrication of hardware starts and before coding of deliverable software starts. Applied to a handling machine, as engineering reasoning, the structure, machined interfaces, drives, and PLC program structure are all frozen before steel is cut.

What a design review checks for a heavy machine:

  • the frame, weld details, and load path against the stated load and duty;
  • the machined interfaces, fits, and tolerances on released drawings, prepared to ASME Y14.100-2017 or the owner's drawing standard;
  • the risk assessment, under ISO 12100:2010, and the safety functions it produced;
  • the drive sizing, the control architecture, and the list of signals exchanged with adjacent equipment.

Regulated industries have a parallel practice. The ISPE Baseline Guide Volume 5, on commissioning and qualification, discusses best practices for the user requirements specification, design review, design qualification, and acceptance and release. Phase C also opens several downstream plans. The handbook's typical Phase C activities include preliminary plans for spares and for decommissioning and disposal, so support planning starts during design (NASA/SP-2016-6105 Rev2, §3.5, §3.6 and Phase C activities; ASME Y14.100-2017; ISO 12100:2010; ISPE Baseline Guide Vol. 5, 2nd ed., 2019).

How do machining, fabrication, stress relief, and assembly fit between design and FAT?​

The build stage is where the design becomes steel, and where the order of operations matters as much as the drawings. The NASA handbook's Product Implementation Process recognizes that each product is made, bought, or reused. In engineering terms, for a custom handling machine the structure and machined parts are made, and drives, gearboxes, bearings, sensors, and controllers are bought. The handbook says a reused product must meet the verification and validation required for the new system, which applies to a legacy rail or an existing furnace interface. Phase C, in the handbook's words, ends with "a product ready for integration."

As engineering framing within the chain, the build sequence runs as follows:

  • Parts machining: wheels, axles, pins, and bearing seats are machined to the released tolerances.
  • Fabrication: the frame, deck, or arm is welded to the section and joint details the design review approved.
  • Weld fatigue and stress relief: joint details are checked against the load cycles the URS states, and the weldment is stress-relieved before its final machining. That keeps residual stress from distorting the machined datums as material is removed.
  • Final machining and assembly: datum faces, bores, and mounting pads are finished, and the drives, sensors, and wiring are fitted.

The failure mode here is deferring evidence. The handbook warns that if a project waits until verification to run any test or analysis, the problems it finds will be costly to redesign and reverify. Inspection records for welds and critical dimensions are best collected as each part is finished, not at FAT. UTEC Industrial performs thermal and automated vibratory stress relief in-house and machines to tolerances of ±0.001 in, so the stress-relief and final-machining steps stay in one sequence under one roof (NASA/SP-2016-6105 Rev2, §2.5, §3.6 and §5.1).

What does a factory acceptance test prove, and what has to wait for the site?​

FAT proves, on the builder's floor, everything that can be proven before the machine is split for shipping. IEC 62381:2024, third edition, defines requirements and checklists for the factory acceptance test (FAT), factory integration test (FIT), site acceptance test (SAT), and site integration test (SIT) of automation systems in the process industry. The URS article explains how each verification-matrix row becomes a FAT or SAT step. Here the concern is the gate itself. In the NASA life cycle, the Phase D reviews include test readiness reviews and a System Acceptance Review or pre-ship review, which the handbook's glossary says ensures the system is mature enough to authorize its shipment.

A heavy machine may not ship in the condition it was tested in. A transfer car may leave without its rail. A long conveyor or a mill-liner handler may ship in bolted sections, and a positioner may be tested without the customer's part or fixture. Three kinds of requirements therefore wait for the site:

  • requirements that need the foundation, rail, or building;
  • interlocks with equipment that exists only at the plant, such as a crane, a furnace door, or a robot cell;
  • throughput with the plant's real parts and operators.

The handbook adds one more reason to test again at site. After installation, functional and acceptance testing should be conducted to confirm that no damage occurred during shipping and handling and that the product is ready for support. UTEC Industrial performs factory acceptance testing and on-site commissioning, so the FAT record and the SAT record can be built from one test plan (IEC 62381:2024; NASA/SP-2016-6105 Rev2, Phase D reviews and §5.5.1.2.4).

How are shipping, installation, and commissioning sequenced at the site?​

Shipping is a design requirement, not a logistics afterthought. The NASA handbook's product-transition guidance says the packaging, handling, storage, and transportation requirements should have been identified during system design. It also says design should already cover features that make the product easy to handle and transport, such as transportation hooks and crating. It lists what to protect against in transit:

  • physical damage to surfaces;
  • corrosion;
  • damage to electronic wiring and cabling;
  • shock or stress damage, heat warping, and cold fractures;
  • moisture and particle intrusion that could damage moving parts.

A large machine trucked across the country to a coastal refinery or shipyard can meet all of them on one trip.

On site, the process industry's commissioning standards give a useful sequence, applied here by analogy to a machine. IEC 62337:2012 defines the phases and milestones for commissioning electrical, instrumentation, and control systems, from completion of erection to the owner's acceptance of the plant. ANSI/ISA-62382-2026, the identical US adoption of IEC 62382:2024, defines procedures and specifications for the loop check. That is the work between the completion of loop construction, including installation and point-to-point checks, and the start of cold commissioning. As engineering reasoning, for a handling machine an order that follows from them is:

  1. mechanical erection and alignment;
  2. point-to-point wiring checks;
  3. a loop check of every sensor and actuator from the device to the PLC tag;
  4. cold commissioning without load;
  5. commissioning under load and SAT.

Lockout provisions have to be in place before any of that work. OSHA 29 CFR 1910.147(c)(2)(iii) requires the energy isolating devices on newly installed machines to be designed to accept a lockout device, as the lockout/tagout article explains (NASA/SP-2016-6105 Rev2, §5.5.1.2.3; IEC 62337:2012; ANSI/ISA-62382-2026 / IEC 62382:2024; OSHA 29 CFR 1910.147-1989).

How does controls and sensing work move through each project stage?​

The intelligence layer of a handling machine is specified, built, and proven in every stage, and, as engineering reasoning, it is the part of the machine most likely to change after handover.

  • Concept: the URS fixes the controller platform, network, HMI, and monitoring the plant needs.
  • Design: IEC 60204-1:2016 applies to the electrical equipment of machines not portable by hand while working, starting at the point of connection of the supply. ISO 13849-1:2023 specifies a methodology and provides related requirements, recommendations and guidance for the design and integration of safety-related parts of control systems (SRP/CS) that perform safety functions, for high demand and continuous modes of operation; the required performance levels come from the risk assessment. On Allen-Bradley Logix 5000 controllers, the program structure is decided at this stage, because tasks can be configured as continuous, periodic, or event. Interlock and motion logic can then be assigned to a periodic task, which executes automatically at a preconfigured interval.
  • Build: the control panel is built and wired, and the program is written against the frozen I/O list.
  • FAT: sequences, interlocks, alarms, and HMI screens are exercised on the assembled machine; signals from equipment that exists only at the plant are simulated or deferred to SAT.
  • Site: the loop check proves each field device end to end, and the interlocks with the plant's cranes, doors, and cells are tested live.
  • Commissioning and tuning: the Kinetix 5700 servo drive user manual's startup procedure includes a step to test and tune each axis. The manual notes that autotuned bandwidths depend on the application and can require adjustment once the motor and load are connected, so, as engineering reasoning, final tuning waits for the real load.
  • Monitoring: motor current, drive faults, brake operations, and position errors are trended against the duty cycle the URS stated, to support maintenance decisions.

A tuning record belongs in the handover package, so that a replaced drive can be restored to its commissioned settings. UTEC Industrial is a Rockwell Automation Recognized System Integrator and builds UL 508A control panels, programming ControlLogix and CompactLogix systems in-house (IEC 60204-1:2016; ISO 13849-1:2023; Rockwell Automation 1756-RM094N-EN-P-2025, Ch. 5; Rockwell Automation 2198-UM002E-EN-P, Ch. 6).

What should the owner receive at handover?​

Handover transfers the machine and the information needed to run it. IEC/IEEE 82079-1:2019, second edition, provides general principles and detailed requirements for the design and formulation of instructions for use of products. Its scope explicitly includes large industrial machinery, plants, and buildings, which makes it a reasonable basis for specifying the operator and maintenance manuals of a custom machine. The NASA life cycle places the same deliverables in Phase D: operator's manuals, maintenance manuals, and an operations handbook are prepared and baselined, and the initial operators and maintainers are trained before the system enters service.

The handbook's product-transition guidance describes what typically accompanies a delivered product:

  • a unique identification, such as a serial number;
  • possibly a pedigree that records its heritage and current state;
  • documentation that often includes proof of verification and validation conformance;
  • documentation that may include operations manuals and installation instructions.

The URS article gives the full deliverables list to write into the purchase: drawings, schematics, native PLC and HMI programs, the risk assessment, lockout information, inspection records, and drive parameter files. In engineering terms, the failure mode at handover is a package that is complete on paper but unusable in practice. Examples are manuals for the standard catalog components with nothing on how the custom machine is sequenced, or a PLC program delivered in a locked or compiled form that the plant cannot edit. Training also has to reach the second shift and the maintenance crew, not only the engineer who witnessed FAT (IEC/IEEE 82079-1:2019; NASA/SP-2016-6105 Rev2, Phase D activities and §5.5.1.1).

How should spare parts be selected and managed in the support stage?​

As engineering reasoning, spare parts are chosen by criticality, not by a supplier's standard list. Antosz and Ratnayake, writing in the Journal of Manufacturing Systems, note in their abstract that optimal spare-parts provisioning plays a critical role in sustaining operational competitiveness through effective maintenance of machinery. They also note that demand for spares is intermittent and hard to forecast, because random breakdowns cannot always be avoided. Their method groups machinery by criticality, using maintenance-related and logistics-related factors. It then ranks the spares within a selected group by the analytic hierarchy process (AHP), with sensitivity analyses. For a heavy handling machine, the questions are practical:

  • Which part stops production if it fails?
  • How long is its lead time?
  • Can it be repaired, or only replaced?

A custom-machined drive wheel or gearbox on a single-line transfer car is a different decision from a stock proximity sensor.

The maintenance strategy sets the size of the stockroom. The FEMP O&M Best Practices Guide notes that a run-to-failure strategy requires a large inventory of repair parts, a cost that a different maintenance strategy could reduce. Among the metrics the guide recommends is a monthly reconciliation of spare parts "on the books" against spare parts "on the shelves," as a check on cost control. In the NASA life cycle, the spares plan is drafted during design and implemented in operations. As engineering reasoning, that order holds for custom machinery: the builder's recommended-spares list is the start of the owner's plan, not the whole of it (Antosz K, Ratnayake RMC 2019, abstract; Sullivan GP et al., PNNL-19634, 2010, §5.2 and §3; NASA/SP-2016-6105 Rev2, Phase C and Phase E activities).

How is obsolescence of controls and components managed over a machine's service life?​

In engineering terms, a heavy handling machine can outlast several generations of the electronics that run it: the structure, wheels, and gearboxes may stay in service for decades, while PLCs, drives, HMIs, and network modules can leave production much sooner. IEC 62402:2019, second edition, provides requirements and guidance for obsolescence management. It is now written as requirements, and it covers:

  • an obsolescence management policy and the infrastructure to support it;
  • an obsolescence management plan;
  • design strategies that minimize obsolescence;
  • choosing and carrying out resolutions;
  • measuring performance.

MHI's Life Cycle Cost Principle makes the same point in planning terms: a long-range plan for replacing the equipment when it becomes obsolete should be prepared.

As engineering practice in line with that scope, obsolescence planning for custom machinery starts at design, not at the first failure:

  • controller and drive families still in active production are chosen at design review;
  • spare controllers, drives, and communication modules are held for the parts with the longest lead times;
  • program backups and drive parameter files are kept current, so that a migration to a newer platform starts from a known baseline;
  • migrations are scheduled into planned outages, not forced by a failure.

The NASA handbook marks the limit of this kind of upkeep. Phase E covers the system's evolution only as long as that evolution does not involve major changes to the system architecture. Changes of that scope are new needs, and the project life cycle starts over. A full controls replacement on a mill's coil car is therefore a new project, with its own URS, design review, and acceptance test (IEC 62402:2019; Material Handling Institute, Ten Principles, Principle 10; NASA/SP-2016-6105 Rev2, §3.8).

How are maintenance and inspection kept up after the project team leaves?​

As engineering reasoning, the support stage is the longest part of the life cycle, and the maintenance strategy chosen for it bears on whether the machine delivers what the URS promised. NIST's survey of US discrete manufacturing (NAICS 321 to 339, excluding 324 and 325) found that on average 45.7% of machinery maintenance was reactive, and that the quarter of establishments most reliant on reactive maintenance were associated with 3.3 times more downtime and 16.0 times more defects than the quarter least reliant on it; the survey's national spending and loss estimates are set out in the total cost of ownership article. These are survey associations, not causal findings; as engineering reasoning, they are one reason a maintenance plan belongs in the handover.

For lifting and weight-handling equipment, a government program gives a model of a lifetime regime. NAVFAC P-307 provides requirements for the program management, maintenance, inspection, test, certification, repair, alteration, and operation of Navy-owned weight-handling equipment, and also covers contractor and other non-Navy-owned equipment operating on Navy property. For cranes other than mobile and telescoping-boom types, its nominal test load is 125% of capacity, with the actual load within +0/−5%. A private plant is not bound by P-307, but, as engineering reasoning, the structure transfers:

  • a documented inspection interval for each machine;
  • a retest after repair or alteration;
  • a record of each test that follows the machine for its whole life.

Maintenance work itself runs under the plant's energy-control program. OSHA 29 CFR 1910.147 requires stored or residual energy to be relieved, disconnected, restrained, and otherwise rendered safe after lockout devices are applied, which, as engineering reasoning, on a handling machine includes raised loads and hydraulic accumulators (Thomas DS, Weiss BA, NIST AMS 100-34, 2020, Executive Summary; NAVFAC P-307, 2025, §1.1 and §4.7.1; OSHA 29 CFR 1910.147-1989, §1910.147 paragraph d.5.i).

When does a custom machinery project end: rebuild, replacement, or retirement?​

A custom machinery project ends only when the machine is replaced or disposed of. MHI's Life Cycle Cost Principle counts costs until the equipment is totally replaced, and it lists reuse value and ultimate disposal among them. ISO 55000:2024, second edition, provides an overview, terminology, and principles for asset management, and establishes a framework for managing assets over their life cycles to enhance the value realized from them. Applied to a machine, that framing treats it as an asset to be managed over its whole life, not as a purchase that ends at acceptance.

At the end of a machine's service, a heavy plant faces three options:

  • Rebuild: the structure stays, and wear parts, drives, and controls are renewed. Under the NASA handbook's Phase E limit, a change that alters the architecture restarts the life cycle.
  • Replace: a new machine is specified, and the old machine's URS, operating records, and failure history can feed it, which is one more reason to keep them.
  • Retire: the NASA life cycle's Phase F implements the decommissioning and disposal planning, and the systems engineer ensures all technical information is properly identified and archived.

For a lumber mill, a pulp and paper mill, or a mine, the retired machine's drawings, inspection history, and maintenance records are a direct input to the next specification. The cost of each option over the years that remain is a life-cycle cost comparison, and that analysis is the subject of the total cost of ownership article in this category (Material Handling Institute, Ten Principles, Principle 10; ISO 55000:2024; NASA/SP-2016-6105 Rev2, §3.8 and §3.9).

Related Articles

References​

  • NASA. NASA Systems Engineering Handbook, NASA/SP-2016-6105 Rev2. National Aeronautics and Space Administration, 2016.
  • Material Handling Institute. The Ten Principles of Material Handling. MHI, 2026 (undated web documentation, accessed September 2026).
  • ISO/IEC/IEEE 15288:2023: Systems and software engineering — System life cycle processes. ISO/IEC/IEEE, 2023 (Ed.2).
  • ISO/IEC/IEEE 29148:2018: Systems and software engineering — Life cycle processes — Requirements engineering. ISO/IEC/IEEE, 2018.
  • ASME Y14.100-2017: Engineering Drawing Practices. ASME, 2017.
  • ISO 12100:2010: Safety of machinery — General principles for design — Risk assessment and risk reduction. ISO, 2010.
  • ISPE. ISPE Baseline Guide Volume 5: Commissioning and Qualification, 2nd ed. ISPE, 2019.
  • IEC 62381:2024: Automation systems in the process industry — FAT, SAT, FIT and SIT. IEC, 2024 (Ed.3).
  • IEC 62337:2012: Commissioning of electrical, instrumentation and control systems in the process industry — Specific phases and milestones. IEC, 2012 (Ed.2).
  • ANSI/ISA-62382-2026 / IEC 62382:2024: Control systems in the process industry — Electrical and instrumentation loop check. ISA, 2026.
  • OSHA 29 CFR 1910.147-1989: The Control of Hazardous Energy (Lockout/Tagout). Occupational Safety and Health Administration, 1989.
  • IEC 60204-1:2016 (Ed. 6.0): Safety of Machinery -- Electrical Equipment of Machines -- Part 1: General Requirements. International Electrotechnical Commission, 2016.
  • ISO 13849-1:2023: Safety of machinery — Safety-related parts of control systems — Part 1: General principles for design. International Organization for Standardization, 2023.
  • Rockwell Automation 1756-RM094N-EN-P-2025: Logix 5000 Controllers Design Considerations. Rockwell Automation, 2025.
  • Rockwell Automation 2198-UM002E-EN-P (2018): Kinetix 5700 Servo Drives User Manual. Rockwell Automation, 2018.
  • IEC/IEEE 82079-1:2019: Preparation of information for use (instructions for use) of products — Part 1: Principles and general requirements. IEC/IEEE, 2019 (Ed.2).
  • Antosz K, Ratnayake RMC (2019). "Spare parts' criticality assessment and prioritization for enhancing manufacturing systems' availability and reliability." Journal of Manufacturing Systems, 50, 212-225.
  • Sullivan GP, Pugh R, Melendez AP, Hunt WD. Operations & Maintenance Best Practices: A Guide to Achieving Operational Efficiency, Release 3.0, PNNL-19634. Pacific Northwest National Laboratory for U.S. DOE Federal Energy Management Program, 2010.
  • IEC 62402:2019: Obsolescence management. IEC, 2019 (Ed.2).
  • Thomas DS, Weiss BA. Economics of Manufacturing Machinery Maintenance: A Survey and Analysis of U.S. Costs and Benefits, NIST AMS 100-34. National Institute of Standards and Technology, 2020.
  • NAVFAC P-307: Weight Handling Program Management. Naval Facilities Engineering Systems Command, 2025.
  • ISO 55000:2024: Asset management — Vocabulary, overview and principles. ISO, 2024 (Ed.2).

Ready to Discuss a Material Handling System?​

UTEC Industrial designs, engineers, machines, fabricates, and installs custom material handling systems for heavy industry, from the stress-relieved structure and drives to the Allen-Bradley PLC controls, tuning, and monitoring that run them, at its Spokane Valley, WA facility. Send UTEC the application, loads, and duty cycle to start a system review.

Request a Quote →

Questions? Call (509) 922-1832 or email sales@utec.co

Last updated on