Performance

Describe your engineering experience as evidence of competence. Describe

experience in each Area of Practice or College you nominated when you
enrolled into eChartered. The experience you describe must have some or all
of the characteristics of engineering problems and engineering activities as
defined in the Stage 2 Competency Standards (refer to eChartered
resources). Indicators of attainment serve as a guide to the engineering work
that is likely to be considered as demonstrating this element of competence.

What this competence means in practice

means that you demonstrate an ability to apply appropriate tools or
processes to achieve corporate objectives while accounting for personal
obligations to the profession

Indicators of Attainment
A. Build, develop and maintain relationships with product, project, process or
system clients, sponsors, partners, service providers and contractors

B. Dialogue with a client, sponsor, organisation, government or other social

actors to jointly develop an accurate understanding of needs, opportunities
and priorities

C. Work with a client, sponsor, organisation, government or other social

actors to develop solutions in terms of engineering possibilities

D. Cultivate an attitude of engineering innovation and creativity to add value

for clients or sponsors of the product, project, process or system

E. Apply engineering performance requirements that create the greatest

benefits or value for stakeholders, keeping in mind the tolerance for
uncertainty of different stakeholders that are providing financial or other
material resources in the anticipation of future benefits. [Performance
requirements could include the need to keep to a desired schedule, long-
term cost effectiveness, minimising upfront capital expense, accelerated
financial returns or social or environmental benefits, technical quality,
constructability, maintainability and operational reliability, among others]

F. Collaborate within and outside educational institutions to enhance the

quality and value of engineering education to students

G. Question the contract or agreement that governs your work, and ensure
that it allows for the possibility that you may not be able to complete the
work due to circumstances beyond your control
My professional experience included working at ------ since April 2017 as a Structural Engineer
and Precast Solutions Manager in -------, on Precast Concrete Products.
In one of my project, a client asked to design a concrete safety barrier to sustain the impact force
of a railway track in the workshop and to stop any probable free moving wagon. I talked to the
client through several phone calls to develop an accurate understanding of their needs and
priorities. I understood that they need the barrier to be 1200mm high and it should have lifting
points at the top to be moved regularly. They said that the free rolling wagon has a max weight
of 22 Tons and a maximum speed of 5km/hr and it should be stopped in less than one meter. I
started working with their engineer to develop a solution based on momentum principle to obtain
the stopping distance for the barrier after the impact. She calculated that the weight of the barrier
should be 6.5 Ton to be stopped in less than one meter after the impact. Finally, I designed an
upside-down T-shaped barrier, exactly matched the client’s need and priorities.
Claim 9. Performance
From July 2010 until October 2011 I was working as a Commissioning Manager at a German equipment
manufacturer. I was responsible for the no load commissioning, load commissioning and performance
tests of bulk materials handling machines at a Coal Terminal in Queensland.

I faced several challenges during this commissioning period. Due to delays in the overall schedule, the
financial forecast for this project was not positive and the remaining budget very tight. In addition, the
extended schedule affected all sub‐suppliers and contractors, putting additional pressure to the budget
situation. The coal which is required for the load and performance tests could not be delivered in
sufficient quantities and at appropriate times. Technical problems and remaining work had to be
addressed. The contractual requirements to prove the performance was very specific and was not
subject to changes during the project execution stage.

As some of these conditions were beyond my control, I identified the schedule as a key element to
mitigate their impact. I consulted the project management and developed a guideline, schedule and
specific detailed test sheet templates for the commissioning period and the performance tests. I
discussed with the client's representative and the superintendent for the commissioning in developing
and agreeing to the detailed commissioning schedule and conditions for the performance tests. In the
performance test sheets we considered schedule issues like operator shift plans, shipping and train
schedules including risks and alternatives. We agreed upon several measures and opportunities to bring
the overall schedule forward in all stakeholders' interest. Some of these measures included increased
working hours and flexible shifts for the commissioning team depending upon available material
inloading or outloading capacities. We also allowed schedule gaps to provide opportunity to complete
outstanding or adjustment work and maintenance tasks.

The load commissioning and performance tests had to be properly documented, I ensured that the
developed test sheets included all the details necessary to prove the compliance with the contractual
agreed parameters to pass the tests. I used clear instructions, dedicated fields to fill and therefore to
allow operators to use these sheets also without supervision. The required performance tests included
several operating modes for several scenarios in different working areas. With the breakdown of the
performance test in recordable sections I made sure that the test process is flexible enough to react to
changing scenarios while still progressing with the required commissioning and testing.

I initiated the installation of a "blackbox" on the machines to monitor the performance of the machine. I
set this blackbox up to record and save all relevant data such as movements of the machines, speeds,
material flow detection, positions, faults, alarms and most importantly the coal flow rate. The readout,
maintenance and evaluation of the data I put in the hands of a graduate engineer, which we gave the
opportunity to gain practical engineering experience on site. With the collected data I could not only
prove the performance as agreed with the client, but also observe the operators actions, investigate
repeating alarm messages and especially their causes. I used this data to compare with the Port's fault
history list and together with the port staff we worked out the ways to reduce the faults on the
machines as well as from the upstream and downstream equipment.

I proved that the blackbox added great value to the improvement of the overall performance of the
machines and served several aspects at a time in the interest of all involved parties. It was also used in
illustrating that many of the problems and alarms were initiated as a result of off board disturbances.
With the help of the detailed test documents, the blackbox, an agreed commissioning schedule and
other tools I was able to manage, track and record the commissioning and performance test process and
their results. The documents and collected data allowed the company to progress with an effective and
professional claim management. I also prepared the base for the successful handling of variations.

Claim 9. Performance
I was involved in the structural engineering of mooring dolphins for a wharf project. The
dolphin was to be used by two berths, providing a stern mooring point for one berth and a bow
mooring point for the other. This dual berth dolphin arrangement was required to optimise the
berth layout and limit the length of the wharf extension.
The use of a dual berth mooring dolphin presented a significant operational hazard that needed
to be mitigated. Mooring crew would need to operate on the dolphin to moor a new vessel in
one berth with an existing vessel already moored in the adjacent berth. This created the
potential for a mooring line to snap and recoil back towards the crew on the dolphin. This
serious hazard has resulted in fatalities around the world.
I initiated a discussion with the client to understand their operational requirements so that we
could work together towards a solution. At the meeting were various representatives from the
client, including management team, port operational staff, and the contract mooring crew who
would need to use the dolphin.
The initial discussion surrounded whether the hazard could be removed by temporarily
slackening the lines of the already moored vessel. Due to the location of the wharf this would
have required an additional tug to then hold the already moored vessel in place and was not
considered an appropriate operational procedure at all times. An engineering solution was
requested by the client to mitigate the hazard to personnel. This would likely need to be some
sort of a protection screen.
I undertook a literature search to determine reasonable criteria for a mooring line snap back
event and adopted recommendations contained in an OCIMF Guideline. This stated the
following: "As a general rule, any point within about a 10 degree cone around the line from any
point at which the line may break is in danger. A broken line will snap back beyond the point at
which it is secured, possibly to a distance almost as far as its own length." Using these criteria I
then arranged for detailed CAD work to generate numerous snap back danger zones for all
possible vessel sizes and mooring arrangements. It became apparent that the entire dolphin
deck was in the danger zone and substantial safety screens would be required.
I developed a concept for the screen which consisted of a welded tubular steel frame with
bolted infill steel mesh panels. Structural design of the screens needed to ensure they would be
sufficiently robust to absorb the impact of a snapped mooring line and also to resist the
extreme cyclonic waves that are regularly experienced at the site. Geometrically they would
need to cover the potential snap back zones, but also ensure that the functionality of the
dolphin was not affected. A partial roof was also required to eliminate the potential for a
vertically inclined line to snap back and pass over the screen to the other side
I overlaid the snap back zones with the proposed screen to show the client the ability of the
screen to contain a snapped mooring line. I then arranged another meeting with all of the client
stakeholders on site to discuss the solution. The screen design was well received by the client,
particularly the mooring line crew who would rely on it. Some minor improvements from the
meeting were also incorporated to finalise the design. One of these was for a sign that could be
placed at the entry to the dolphin so that any person entering the dolphin would understand
the hazard, what protection the screen would provide, and what the limitations of the screen
protection were.
The screens were prefabricated offsite and lifted in place by a heavy lift ship during the
offloading of other prefabricated wharf and dolphin components. The result was a substantial
19 tonne screen structure on each dual berth mooring dolphin, but importantly an extreme
operational hazard was successfully mitigated by working with the client to understand the
problem and produce a creative solution.

Claim 9. Performance
My client recently requested that I inspect a roll‐on roll‐off (RoRo) ramp for an LNG project
situated within Australia. My company completed the ramp design, before I commenced my
employment with them. The ramp was at risk of failure due to propeller wash during vessel
operations.
I immediately went to site to gain a better understanding of the situation by having discussions
with my client, and their transportation logistics business arm. Through my discussions on site,
it was clear that during the berthing of a particular RoRo vessel, the rock armour protection was
becoming unstable, leading to the scour of the core material beneath the concrete ramp. I
informed my client that my immediate priorities were to complete a design review of the
structure and secondly, propose some remediation options for review.
Once back in the office, I completed a design review of the ramp's rock protection. I concluded
that the structure was being compromised due the operation of the large RoRo vessel's twin
azimuth propeller thrusters at its stern. Each propeller utilised 1000 horse power or 736
kilowatts and I immediately highlighted to my design manager that the RoRo vessel was outside
the bounds of the adopted design criteria. The design manager and I participated in
teleconferences with representatives of the client and their transportation logistics arm and a
sub‐contractor to discuss both temporary and permanent solutions.
For the permanent solution, I recommended the use of a proprietary product to protect the
existing structure from propeller scour.
I called the designer, to discuss with him his product and its potential application for the RoRo
ramp. Over numerous phone calls, I built up a rapport with the designer. I spoke with my client
and it was clear that there was some internal resistance to the use of the product, for various
reasons. I exercised leadership by proposing that all concerned parties meet on site to discuss
all aspects of the product.
My client agreed with my approach. The site visit and workshop was successfully completed as
it allowed all parties to discuss the product and its expected performance for our particular
application.
I exercised competence by creating a technical performance specification for the design and
supply of the product. Within my technical performance specification, I provided the following
information to ensure that the product was designed to provide the required performance;

 Design water levels, waves and currents for the RoRo ramp
 Design vessel parameters including propeller diameter, engine power and application of
engine power to the propeller while berthing.
 Minimum propeller wash velocities at the seabed for the design vessel
 Construction drawings and specification of the RoRo ramp
 Existing hydrographic survey of the RoRo ramp berth pocket and approaches
 All available geotechnical information of the RoRo ramp and surrounding area
 Completed diver surveys of the RoRo ramp in its compromised state, to which I had
commissioned.
I included a clause within my technical performance specification, to ensure that the provision
of design calculations were mandatory for company review. I also suggested to my client that a
request for a performance warranty should be made through the commercial contractual
arrangement.
My technical performance specification ensured that my client was able to procure a correctly
designed product for the particular RoRo ramp.
I added value by recommending that another hydrographic survey be undertaken with
particular focus on the berth pocket. The client agreed and I was able to complete a delta plot
comparing the new hydrographic survey to a baseline hydrographic survey to accurately
determine propeller wash scour extents. To minimize any potential movement of the product
and ensure performance, I proposed to bury the free end of the product 0.5 meters beyond my
predicted scour depth. In addition, my request for additional hydrographical survey added
value as I was able to optimize the product coverage extents.