Engineering support that gets manufacturing work moving.

Project records

40

Years

2010–2026

Sectors

8

Named organisations

16

No projects match that search. Try a broader word, or show every project.

1. Illustrative

   2026Capital projectsFeatured

   Two ultrasonic stripping lines, from contractor scopes to handover

   Dual-line ultrasonic jig-stripping facility

   Alchin Long Group · Building-hardware manufacturing · Sydney, NSW

   A capital installation of two ultrasonic stripping and wash lines, with gantries, hoists and segregated chemical transfer, taken from contractor scopes to handover.

   Commissioned and handed over

   • Capital project delivery
   • Contractor scoping
   • Chemical transfer
   • Executive cost reporting

   Read the full case study

   Illustrative

   Employment contextExperience of the founder of KEVOS®, gained while employed by Alchin Long Group as Operations Excellence Engineer (from November 2024). It is professional track record, not a KEVOS® client engagement.

   The brief

   Production jigs collect coating build-up and must be stripped clean to stay in service. The business invested in a dedicated facility: two ultrasonic stripping and wash lines, lifting equipment to move jig loads between tanks, and chemical transfer that keeps incompatible chemistries apart. It had to be installed safely around live production, through specialist trades, within an approved capital budget, while other capital, tooling and maintenance work drew on the same toolroom, contractors and production windows.

   How the work was approached

   1. Scopes before quotes

      Contractor scopes were defined for the stripping and pressure-wash tanks, the gantry, hoists and trolleys, chemical transfer and services, so quotations could be compared like for like.

   2. Options tested on paper

      Pump options for chemical transfer were assessed for duty, safety and maintenance, and air-operated double-diaphragm (AODD) pumps were procured for the duty.

   3. Segregation and lifting designed in

      Chemical transfer was kept segregated, chemical containers were given bunded storage, and the gantry, hoists and trolleys were specified to move jig loads safely between the stripping and wash stages.

   4. Specialist trades coordinated

      Electrical work for the tanks and hoists, pneumatic and plumbing modifications and specialist installers were sequenced around production. Hoist limit switches, wiring and strikers were installed so hoist travel was controlled before commissioning.

   5. When every project needs the same toolroom

      The facility sat in one register with the other active capital, tooling and maintenance work, each tracked by owner, stage, cost, main risk, dependencies and next action. Clashes over trades, contractors and production windows were raised early with costed options, so management could set priorities on safety, production impact and urgency.

   6. Cost visible to the executive

      Approved allocation was compared with committed, actual and forecast cost and reported to the executive team, because a raised purchase order is future spend before any invoice arrives.

   Outcome

   Two ultrasonic stripping and wash lines were installed, commissioned and handed over to production, with cost reported against the approved allocation throughout.

   Why it mattersClear scopes and visible cost keep a multi-trade capital project under control from the first quote to handover.

   Commercial figures are not shown. Investment decisions and approvals sat with management.

2. Illustrative

   2026Capital projects

   Custom colours on glass-filled plastic, proven for production

   Custom-colour powdercoating of glass-filled plastic

   Alchin Long Group · Building-hardware manufacturing · Sydney, NSW

   Specialised process development to powdercoat a Tier 1 range of glass-filled plastic parts in custom colours, from first trials to a validated production finish.

   Process validated

   • Process development
   • Powder coating
   • Production jigs
   • Project governance

   Read the full case study

   Illustrative

   Employment contextExperience of the founder of KEVOS®, gained while employed by Alchin Long Group as Operations Excellence Engineer (from November 2024). It is professional track record, not a KEVOS® client engagement.

   The brief

   Powdercoating glass-filled plastic in custom colours is not routine: the substrate, the finish and the jigging all have to be proven. A Tier 1 product range needed a repeatable process, a large set of purpose-made production jigs and clear project governance, delivered with internal resources while its jigs competed for the same toolroom as drill jigs, product modifications, maintenance and urgent production work.

   How the work was approached

   1. Coating trials

      Trials established how the glass-filled plastic substrate accepted custom-colour finishes.

   2. Parameters locked in

      Operating parameters were set up and documented so the finish could be repeated run after run.

   3. Finish validated

      Finish quality was validated against the requirements of the Tier 1 range before release.

   4. Jigs at production scale

      Around 350 purpose-made production jigs were coordinated so parts could be coated consistently at volume.

   5. Make or buy, decided on the schedule

      Where repeat jigs could be made externally while internal development continued, the schedule benefit was set against the extra unit cost so management could decide quickly.

   6. Governed with internal resources

      The project ran with internal teams under clear governance, with short updates on status, cost position, the main risk and any decision needed. In-house labour stayed well inside the project allocation.

   Outcome

   A validated custom-colour powdercoating process for the Tier 1 range, delivered with in-house labour well inside its project allocation.

   Why it mattersA proven, documented process turns a difficult finish into a repeatable product offer.

   Commercial figures and customer details are not shown.

3. Illustrative

   2024–2025Capital projectsFeatured

   Two louvre production lines, from layout to handover

   Single- and double-louvre manufacturing lines

   Alchin Long Group · Building-hardware manufacturing · Sydney, NSW

   New single- and double-louvre production lines taken through layout, equipment, contractor works, trials and qualification to a production handover with standard work in place.

   Handed over to production

   • Production line setup
   • Equipment qualification
   • ERP routing
   • Lean implementation

   Read the full case study

   Illustrative

   Employment contextExperience of the founder of KEVOS®, gained while employed by Alchin Long Group as Operations Excellence Engineer (from November 2024). It is professional track record, not a KEVOS® client engagement.

   The brief

   Bringing louvre manufacturing into production meant more than installing equipment. The lines needed a workable layout, coordinated contractor works, trials and qualification, and the business systems, standard work and trained operators to run them well from the first shift, all while sharing the toolroom, contractors and production windows with other projects running at the same time.

   How the work was approached

   1. Layout and equipment

      Line layouts and equipment were coordinated for single- and double-louvre production, with contractor works scheduled around the factory.

   2. Trials and qualification

      The lines were trialled and qualified against controlled equipment-qualification documents and machine instructions before release.

   3. Systems ready on day one

      ERP parts, kit and routing requirements were defined for the systems team, so orders, materials and costs flowed from the first production run.

   4. One plan for shared resources

      Line works were tracked in a common register alongside the other active projects, with milestones, actions and dependencies followed up across engineering, the toolroom, purchasing, production and contractors.

   5. Lean from the start

      Standard work, operator training, Kanban and value-stream mapping were introduced with the lines, and product costing was supported with time-study data.

   6. Closed out properly

      Before handover, scope, outstanding actions, documentation and operator training were confirmed, and ownership passed to the production team.

   Outcome

   Both louvre lines were qualified and handed over to production with standard work, trained operators and system data in place.

   Why it mattersLines that start with standard work, trained people and correct system data reach stable output sooner.

4. Illustrative

   2024Window and door hardware

   Retooling the base of a twin chainwinder, proven over two test rounds

   Doric DN450 twin chainwinder base retool

   Alchin Long Group · Doric · Window and door hardware · Sydney, NSW

   A retool of the base of the existing Doric DN450 twin chainwinder: design update, new tooling, and two rounds of off-tool testing either side of a tooling correction, approved by the customer in November 2024.

   Customer approved

   • Retooling
   • Tooling coordination
   • Off-tool testing
   • Design for manufacture

   Read the full case study

   Illustrative

   Employment contextProduct-development experience of the founder of KEVOS®, gained while employed by Alchin Long Group as Design Drafter and Product Development (May 2018 to October 2024). It is professional track record, not a KEVOS® client engagement.

   The brief

   The DN450 twin chainwinder was already an established product. This work covered its base: the part was updated where needed and retooled, and the new tool had to produce bases that fitted the assembly and matched the approved design. It was a retool of one component, not the design of the whole DN450.

   Objectives

   • Update the base design for the new tool
   • Prove the change in CAD, a working prototype and drawings before tooling
   • Test off-tool bases, correct the tool and test again
   • Reach customer approval on the new tool

   Role in the work

   As Design Drafter and Product Development, the founder’s contribution covered:

   • Rapid CAD modelling and 3D-printed prototypes
   • Detailed CAD models and CNC working prototypes
   • Technical drawings and bills of materials
   • Tooling quotations and tooling coordination
   • Off-tool sample testing and tooling corrections
   • Final testing and samples for customer approval

   How the work was approached

   1. Design and prototype

      A detailed CAD model and CNC working prototype were completed in January 2024, with technical drawings and the BOM in February.

   2. Tooling approved

      The tooling quotation was reviewed and the tooling and testing plan approved in March 2024.

   3. A new tool

      The new tool was made between March and August 2024, and the production meeting followed in September.

   4. Test, correct, re-test

      Off-tool bases were tested in September, the tool was corrected through to mid-October, and a second round of off-tool testing followed.

   5. Final testing and approval

      Final testing was completed in early November, and the customer approved the retooled base in November 2024.

   Development path

   1. Jan–Mar 2024Design

      CAD model and CNC prototype, drawings and BOM, tooling quotation and plan approved

   2. Mar–Aug 2024Tooling

      New tool made; production meeting in September

   3. Sep–Oct 2024Test and correct

      Off-tool testing, tooling corrections, second off-tool round

   4. Nov 2024Approval

      Final testing and customer approval

   Challenges and how they were handled

   The first off-tool bases needed correction.

   The tool was corrected and a second round of off-tool testing was run before final testing, so approval rested on parts from the corrected tool.

   Testing and validation

   Two rounds of off-tool testing either side of the tooling correction, then final testing before customer approval in November 2024.

   Outcome

   The retooled DN450 base was approved by the customer in November 2024. The project schedule ends at customer approval, so production release is not claimed here.

   Why it mattersRe-testing after every tool correction is the difference between a fixed tool and a hopeful one.

   In the company’s development process, briefs, prototype approval and customer approval sat with product management; quotation review, ordering and freight sat with supply; and final testing was shared with quality. Dates come from the project schedule. Drawings, CAD models, tooling details, supplier information and internal project records are not shown.

5. Illustrative

   2024Window and door hardware

   An existing twin chainwinder housing, improved and retooled in four months

   DN400 twin chainwinder housing upgrade

   Alchin Long Group · Window and door hardware · Sydney, NSW

   An engineering improvement to the housing of an existing twin chainwinder: new tooling, off-tool inspection with extra test samples, tooling corrections and customer approval in July 2024.

   Customer approved

   • Product improvement
   • Tooling coordination
   • Off-tool inspection
   • Design for manufacture

   Read the full case study

   Illustrative

   Employment contextProduct-development experience of the founder of KEVOS®, gained while employed by Alchin Long Group as Design Drafter and Product Development (May 2018 to October 2024). It is professional track record, not a KEVOS® client engagement.

   The brief

   Improving a product already in the market is different from designing a new one. The change has to suit the existing assembly, and the tooling has to deliver it consistently. For the DN400 twin chainwinder housing, the design stages were already recorded as complete when the tracked program began in March 2024, so the work concentrated on tooling, inspection, testing and corrections.

   Objectives

   • Carry the housing improvement into production tooling
   • Inspect off-tool parts and test enough samples to judge them
   • Correct the tooling and complete final testing
   • Reach customer approval for the improved housing

   Role in the work

   As Design Drafter and Product Development, the founder’s contribution covered:

   • Rapid CAD modelling and 3D-printed prototypes
   • Detailed CAD models and CNC working prototypes
   • Technical drawings and bills of materials
   • Tooling quotations and tooling coordination
   • Off-tool sample testing and tooling corrections
   • Final testing and samples for customer approval

   How the work was approached

   1. Ready for tooling

      The concept, development and tooling-quotation stages were recorded as complete when the program began in March 2024, and the tooling and testing plan was approved straight away.

   2. New tooling

      Tooling was made between March and May 2024.

   3. Inspection and more samples

      Off-tool parts were inspected in May and June 2024, and additional samples were requested for testing.

   4. Corrections and approval

      After off-tool testing in June, the tooling was corrected in July, and final testing and customer approval were completed in late July 2024.

   Development path

   1. Recorded Mar 2024Design

      Concept, development and tooling-quotation stages complete; tooling plan approved

   2. Mar–May 2024Tooling

      Tooling made

   3. May–Jun 2024Inspect and test

      Off-tool inspection, extra samples requested, testing

   4. Jul 2024Correct and approve

      Tooling corrections, final testing, customer approval

   Challenges and how they were handled

   Too few samples to judge the first off-tool parts.

   Additional samples were requested before testing, so the corrections that followed were based on a larger set of parts.

   Testing and validation

   Off-tool inspection, testing on additional samples, tooling corrections and final testing before customer approval in July 2024.

   Outcome

   The improved DN400 housing was approved by the customer in July 2024. The project schedule ends at customer approval, so production release is not claimed here.

   Why it mattersTesting enough off-tool samples before correcting a tool avoids chasing the variation of a single part.

   In the company’s development process, briefs, prototype approval and customer approval sat with product management; quotation review, ordering and freight sat with supply; and final testing was shared with quality. Dates come from the project schedule. Drawings, CAD models, tooling details, supplier information and internal project records are not shown.

6. 

   2024Civil and structural

   One drawing package a builder could build from

   Residential development documentation

   Residential builder · Residential construction · Girraween, NSW

   Turned a builder’s requirements into one coordinated drawing package for approval and construction.

   Documentation delivered

   • Design coordination
   • Buildability
   • Compliance awareness
   • Stakeholder communication

   Read the full case study

   

   The brief

   The builder needed a complete CAD documentation package for a new home. Site conditions, planning requirements, relevant Australian Standards and construction practicality all had to be reflected, and the package had to stay consistent as revisions came through.

   How the work was approached

   1. Site and intent first

      Site information and the builder’s intended outcome were reviewed before drawing began.

   2. Coordinated drawings

      Site and layout plans, floor plans, elevations and construction details were developed as one coordinated package.

   3. Structure integrated

      Structural information was incorporated so architectural intent and structural requirements matched across every sheet.

   4. Revisions under control

      Changes were worked through directly with the builder and carried across every affected drawing.

   Outcome

   A structured technical reference that let the builder progress the development through approval and construction.

   Why it mattersConsistent drawings mean fewer questions on site and fewer surprises at approval.

   Engineering certification and statutory approval remained with registered professionals.

7. 

   2024Plant and facilities

   Separating people from forklifts on a busy plant floor

   Plant access control and traffic separation

   Pet food manufacturer · Food manufacturing

   Boom-gate access control and layout changes to separate forklifts, vehicles and pedestrians on an active site.

   Design stage

   • Plant layout
   • Traffic separation
   • Access control
   • Safety by design

   Read the full case study

   

   The brief

   Forklifts, pedestrians, maintenance staff and vehicles shared the same areas, creating points where different traffic could meet. The task was broader than choosing a boom gate: the plant needed controlled access and clear movement routes that still let production and maintenance work efficiently.

   How the work was approached

   1. How the area really works

      Site conditions, access points, equipment locations and the movement of forklifts, staff and maintenance personnel were reviewed to find the real conflict points.

   2. Access control in context

      An automated boom-gate concept was positioned within the wider layout, considering controlled entry, sensing and warning, and access-authorisation options.

   3. Traffic separation

      The layout was revised to separate pedestrian routes, forklift movement and maintenance access zones.

   4. Staged implementation

      Changes were planned in modular stages so improvements could be introduced while manufacturing continued.

   Outcome

   A structured design response that treated layout, access, pedestrian safety and traffic control as one system. It remained at design stage and was not taken to fabrication or installation.

   Why it mattersEngineering controls and clear routes reduce reliance on everyone always doing the right thing in a busy area.

8. 

   2024Plant and facilities

   Safe maintenance access, designed for a hygiene-critical floor

   Stainless-steel maintenance access platform

   Food manufacturer · Food manufacturing

   A hygienic stainless-steel platform giving safe maintenance access to equipment in an operating food plant.

   Not progressed by client

   • Hygienic design
   • Maintenance access
   • Safety by design
   • 3D CAD

   Read the full case study

   

   The brief

   Maintenance staff needed better access to equipment in a hygiene-sensitive production area. Any structure had to work around existing equipment, cleaning requirements, people movement and live production, while staying practical to fabricate and install.

   How the work was approached

   1. Site assessment

      The plant arrangement, clearances and maintenance tasks were reviewed to fix where the platform could go and how people would use it.

   2. Stainless-steel design

      Members, walking surfaces, access, egress and edge protection were developed as a stable stainless-steel structure suited to regular cleaning.

   3. Hygiene by design

      Material choice, surface configuration and cleaning access were treated as design requirements alongside structure.

   4. Review and buildability

      A detailed 3D model supported stakeholder review, and a modular approach allowed fabrication and installation in manageable sections.

   Outcome

   A defined design for safer maintenance access in a hygiene-sensitive area. The client did not proceed to construction.

   Why it mattersAccess, hygiene, safety and buildability were resolved together rather than traded off on site.

9. 

   2024Plant and facilities

   Heavy-duty bin handling, designed to grow with production

   Bin collection and materials-handling structure

   Food manufacturer · Food manufacturing

   An engineering proposal for a high-volume bin collection system, designed to fit an existing production area and allow future expansion.

   Paused by client

   • Structural design
   • Materials handling
   • Constructability
   • Risk management

   Read the full case study

   

   The brief

   A major food-manufacturing project needed a bin collection system that could handle high-volume material movement inside an active facility. Structure, throughput, plant integration, safety, constructability, sequencing, cost and future expansion all had to be balanced, with minimal disruption to production.

   How the work was approached

   1. Requirements and loads

      Site conditions, expected loads, production requirements and surrounding infrastructure set the basis for the design.

   2. Structure and material flow

      The structural concept was developed together with how material would move through the system and interact with production.

   3. Modular and scalable

      A modular arrangement allowed future capacity to be added and made fabrication, transport and installation more practical.

   4. Built with the contractor

      Constructability, installation sequence, cost and risk were reviewed with the primary contractor before implementation.

   Outcome

   A defined engineering proposal ready for implementation. The end client paused the project after a change in internal strategy, before construction.

   Why it mattersDesigning for expansion early avoids replacing a structure when production grows.

10. 

    2023Machines and automation

    Capturing critical tooling knowledge before it walks out the door

    Reverse engineering and automation for blow-moulding tooling

    Australian manufacturer · Food-related blow moulding

    Documented critical tooling components through reverse engineering and developed a pick-and-place automation concept for the process.

    Design delivered

    • Reverse engineering
    • Automation concepts
    • Manufacturing drawings
    • Process improvement

    Read the full case study

    

    The brief

    Two problems sat side by side. Critical tooling components were hard to reproduce because complete manufacturing information did not exist, and a repetitive manual handling task limited process consistency. Both needed practical engineering answers suited to a food-related production environment.

    How the work was approached

    1. Reverse engineering

       Existing components and reference information were used to rebuild each part digitally, with critical dimensions and features defined in parametric 3D models.

    2. Drawings for manufacture

       The models became manufacturing drawings and technical documentation, with feasibility reviewed so the parts could be made and managed through normal processes.

    3. Automation concept

       The manual handling task was reviewed and a pick-and-place concept developed, considering equipment layout and integration with the existing process.

    4. Hygiene and feedback

       Food-production and hygiene requirements were considered throughout, and the design was refined with technical and operational feedback.

    Outcome

    Critical components became documented and repeatable to manufacture, reducing reliance on undocumented knowledge. The automation study set out a practical path to less repetitive manual handling and more consistent processing.

    Why it mattersDocumented tooling can be quoted, made and replaced by any capable supplier, not only by the person who remembers how.

11. 

    2023Plant and facilities

    Designing the hazard out of hopper maintenance

    Hopper maintenance access and safety redesign

    Food manufacturer · Food manufacturing

    A modular hopper-cover concept that protects maintenance staff and makes access easier on a high-volume line.

    Concept design

    • Safety by design
    • Maintenance engineering
    • Problem definition
    • Plant integration

    Read the full case study

    

    The brief

    Maintenance staff working around a hopper faced falling debris, restricted access, potential pinch points and awkward working positions. A better cover had to protect people without making the equipment harder to service, clean or run.

    How the work was approached

    1. Learn from the people doing the work

       Site assessment and discussion with maintenance personnel showed where access was needed, what was serviced regularly and where the risks were.

    2. Modular protection

       A cover with detachable sections let specific areas be opened for maintenance without removing the whole assembly.

    3. Safety designed in

       Physical protection, access and provision for safety interlocking with machine shutdown controls were considered from the start.

    4. Built for the environment

       Materials were considered for dust, moisture, cleaning, vibration and repeated access, and the design was fitted around the existing plant in 3D.

    Outcome

    A practical concept for better protection and maintenance access. It remained at concept stage and was not taken to fabrication or installation.

    Why it mattersGood guarding protects people and keeps maintenance quick, so nobody is tempted to work around it.

12. 

    2023Plant and facilities

    Re-planning a working factory for a hydrogen-ready future

    Plant layout and hydrogen-readiness planning

    Liquip International · Bulk liquid equipment manufacturing

    An updated factory layout and documentation for planning future plant changes, including hydrogen-related infrastructure.

    Layout delivered

    • Plant layout
    • Brownfield engineering
    • Equipment integration
    • Future planning

    Read the full case study

    

    The brief

    Liquip needed to plan changes to its manufacturing facility, including room for future hydrogen-related infrastructure. Changes had to fit around existing machinery, utilities, access routes and material flow without disrupting production.

    How the work was approached

    1. Existing plant captured

       The factory footprint and equipment arrangement were reviewed and represented accurately as the basis for any change.

    2. Layout options

       Coordinated CAD layouts explored proposed changes in terms of equipment, working areas and manufacturing flow.

    3. Interfaces checked

       Equipment, access, services and workflow interactions were reviewed digitally before anything moved on the floor.

    4. Future-ready planning

       Space and arrangement were considered for future hydrogen-related infrastructure as part of Liquip’s hydrogen-readiness program.

    Outcome

    A coordinated layout and documentation basis for reviewing future modifications to the facility.

    Why it mattersTesting layout changes on screen is far cheaper than moving machines twice.

    Specialist hydrogen-system design remained with appropriately qualified specialists.

13. 

    2023Product development

    Designing a therapy device to cost less to make

    Percussive therapy device

    Sydney-based physiotherapist · Health and wellness products · Sydney, NSW

    A lower-cost percussive therapy device, taken from the client’s idea to a 3D product design.

    Not progressed by client

    • New product development
    • Design simplification
    • Cost engineering
    • 3D visualisation

    Read the full case study

    

    The brief

    The client saw an opportunity for a percussive therapy product that delivered the needed function while being simpler and cheaper to manufacture than existing options. Function, simplicity, ergonomics, appearance, assembly and production cost had to be balanced from the start.

    How the work was approached

    1. Requirements before CAD

       The intended product, user and operating concept were turned into structured requirements, separating essential features from nice-to-haves.

    2. Concepts and sketches

       Alternative configurations were sketched and compared before committing to detailed geometry.

    3. Simplify the architecture

       Functions were consolidated and part count reduced, because every component adds cost, assembly time and quality risk.

    4. Model, visualise, refine

       The product was developed in 3D CAD with attention to ergonomics and a wellness-oriented look, and refined through client reviews.

    Outcome

    A developed product design ready for prototyping. The client chose not to take it into commercial production.

    Why it mattersCost is cheapest to remove at concept stage, before tooling and suppliers lock it in.

14. 

    2023Civil and structural

    Rethinking a constrained carpark around people, not just bays

    Smithfield carpark concept redesign

    EPTEC (project interface) · Infrastructure planning · Smithfield, NSW

    A concept for reorganising an existing carpark for better capacity, circulation and pedestrian safety.

    Concept design

    • Concept design
    • Site planning
    • Traffic circulation
    • Stakeholder communication

    Read the full case study

    

    The brief

    An existing carpark had fixed access points, boundaries and surrounding infrastructure. The concept had to explore better use of the site while balancing vehicle access and circulation, pedestrian movement, accessibility, safety, capacity and future technology.

    How the work was approached

    1. Existing site first

       The footprint, access points and circulation areas set the constraints for any improvement.

    2. Layout options

       Alternative layouts, including a multi-level arrangement for more capacity, were explored at concept level.

    3. Circulation and safety

       One-way vehicle circulation and separate pedestrian paths were considered to reduce conflict between people and moving cars, with accessibility built into the layout.

    4. Future features

       Landscaping, permeable surfaces and smart-parking ideas such as availability information and booking were explored as concepts.

    Outcome

    A structured concept for discussing capacity, circulation, pedestrian movement and future features.

    Why it mattersThe same thinking applies inside a factory, where flow, access and safety compete for limited floor space.

    Further structural, civil, traffic, drainage, planning and regulatory engineering would be needed before construction.

15. 

    2022Civil and structural

    A home extension documented for the CDC fast-track pathway

    Residential extension and deck for CDC approval

    Private residential client · Residential · NSW

    Drawings for a residential extension and outdoor deck, prepared for the Complying Development Certificate (CDC) process.

    Documentation delivered

    • Requirements definition
    • Compliance awareness
    • CAD documentation
    • Change management

    Read the full case study

    

    The brief

    The owner wanted to extend the house and add an outdoor deck. The proposal had to fit the existing building, levels and boundaries, and meet the requirements of the Complying Development Certificate pathway, so the design could not be shaped by preference alone.

    How the work was approached

    1. Clarify the goal

       A general wish to “extend the house” was turned into clear requirements for spaces, access and the outdoor area.

    2. Existing conditions

       The existing building and site were documented accurately as the baseline for the proposal.

    3. Coordinated design

       Layouts, plans, elevations and structural information were developed consistently, with CDC requirements shaping the design.

    4. Ready for the certifier

       Documentation was prepared for private certification and revised as feedback arrived, keeping every sheet consistent.

    Outcome

    A coordinated documentation set supporting the approval and certification process.

    Why it mattersDesigning to the approval pathway from the start avoids redesign after review.

    Engineering certification and statutory approval remained with registered professionals.

16. 

    2022Defence and transport

    Moving awkward defence components through a tight paint line

    Horizontal paint-line trolley

    EPTEC · Defence and industrial maintenance

    A heavy-duty trolley for moving large, irregular components through a paint line with limited floor space.

    Paused by client

    • Materials handling
    • Structural design
    • Workflow improvement
    • Safety by design

    Read the full case study

    

    The brief

    Large, irregular components had to move between preparation, painting and other production stages, and the existing arrangement made handling and floor-space use difficult. The trolley had to carry heavy, uneven loads, stay stable and manoeuvrable, and keep the component accessible for coating.

    How the work was approached

    1. Workflow first

       How components entered the process, were loaded, accessed and moved between work areas was reviewed to turn production problems into design requirements.

    2. Rigid welded frame

       A braced, welded RHS steel frame of about 1.5 m × 0.6 m was developed to resist twisting under uneven loads.

    3. Load path to the floor

       Castors in the approximate 200–300 kg rating range were considered, with the load path traced from component to frame, castors and floor.

    4. Open deck and options

       An open deck improved coating access, and options such as adjustable supports, rotating platforms and stackable frames were explored for future flexibility.

    Outcome

    A developed concept for better component handling and floor-space use. The client paused the project for budget reasons before fabrication.

    Why it mattersSimple, well-designed handling equipment can remove a bottleneck without a new line.

    Any fabricated version would need detailed risk assessment and load verification before use.

17. 

    2022Defence and transport

    One modular support system instead of a fixture for every part

    Modular girder system for painting large components

    Defence manufacturing environment · Defence manufacturing

    A configurable girder system that holds large components securely while leaving operators access for preparation, coating and inspection.

    Design developed

    • Modular equipment
    • Large-component handling
    • Operator-centred design
    • Workflow improvement

    Read the full case study

    

    The brief

    Large components needed stable support during preparation, painting and inspection without blocking the surfaces being worked on. A dedicated fixture for each component would have added cost, storage and lead time every time a new part arrived.

    How the work was approached

    1. Production questions first

       Which surfaces must stay accessible, where parts can safely be supported, practical working heights and how operators move around the job became design inputs.

    2. Modular girder framework

       A fabricated girder system with identifiable modules and connection points could be configured for different component sizes.

    3. Load path and stability

       Load distribution, support spacing, uneven loading and centre of gravity were considered from component to floor.

    4. Made to fabricate

       Standard materials, repeatable elements and practical welding and assembly kept the system simple to build, change and maintain.

    Outcome

    A developed modular concept showing how one common platform could serve different production requirements in the paint process.

    Why it mattersReusable equipment supports change instead of resisting it.

    Working-load limits and configurations would be verified before implementation.

18. Illustrative

    2021–2024Window and door hardware

    A chainwinder held for a shared design change, then approved on a new tool

    Bradnam’s chainwinder

    Alchin Long Group · Bradnam’s · Window and door hardware · Sydney, NSW

    A chainwinder for Bradnam’s, refined through two prototype reviews, held while a related Doric chainwinder was modified, then completed on a new tool and approved by the customer in November 2024.

    Customer approved

    • Mechanism design
    • Dependency management
    • Tooling and OTS
    • Customer approval

    Read the full case study

    Illustrative

    Employment contextProduct-development experience of the founder of KEVOS®, gained while employed by Alchin Long Group as Design Drafter and Product Development (May 2018 to October 2024). It is professional track record, not a KEVOS® client engagement.

    The brief

    Bradnam’s needed a chainwinder for its windows. The concept was approved quickly and two working prototypes were reviewed in 2022, but the program shared a design dependency with the Doric DS1W chainwinder: its tooling and testing could not be finished until the DS1W cover modifications were complete. When they were, a new tool was ordered, and the product was tested and approved on it.

    Objectives

    • Develop a chainwinder for Bradnam’s windows
    • Refine it through two prototype reviews
    • Carry the shared DS1W design change into the tooling
    • Reach customer approval on production tooling

    Role in the work

    As Design Drafter and Product Development, the founder’s contribution covered:

    • Rapid CAD modelling and 3D-printed prototypes
    • Detailed CAD models and CNC working prototypes
    • Technical drawings and bills of materials
    • Tooling quotations and tooling coordination
    • Off-tool sample testing and tooling corrections
    • Final testing and samples for customer approval

    How the work was approached

    1. Concept approved fast

       The brief, rapid CAD models, 3D-printed prototypes and prototype approval were completed between December 2021 and January 2022.

    2. Two prototype reviews

       A detailed CAD model and CNC working prototype were reviewed in April 2022, and a second prototype in June and July 2022.

    3. Tooling package

       The tooling quotation was reviewed and the tooling and testing plan approved in July 2023, with drawings and the BOM completed by September.

    4. Held for a shared change

       Completion of tooling and testing was held until the DS1W cover modifications were finished in August 2024.

    5. New tool and approval

       A new tool was ordered and made between August and October 2024, followed by final testing, customer approval in November 2024 and a further round of off-tool testing.

    Development path

    1. Dec 2021–Jan 2022Concept

       Brief, rapid CAD, 3D-printed prototypes, prototype approval

    2. Feb 2022–Jul 2023Development

       CNC working prototype, two prototype reviews, CAD approval and supplier selection

    3. Apr–Sep 2023Tooling quotation

       Quotation and review, tooling and testing plan approved, drawings and BOM

    4. Jul 2023–Nov 2024Tooling and testing

       Tooling, off-tool testing, hold for DS1W cover changes, new tool, final testing, customer approval

    Challenges and how they were handled

    A dependency on another product’s design change.

    The remaining tooling work was sequenced behind the DS1W cover modifications, and a new tool was ordered once they were complete.

    Feedback from the first working prototype.

    A second prototype was built and reviewed within weeks, before the tooling package was approved.

    Testing and validation

    Two prototype reviews, off-tool sample testing on the original tool, then final testing on the new tool before customer approval in November 2024.

    Outcome

    Bradnam’s approved the chainwinder in November 2024. The project schedule ends at customer approval and the production meeting, so production release is not claimed here.

    Why it mattersRelated products move faster when a shared design change is sequenced deliberately instead of worked around.

    In the company’s development process, briefs, prototype approval and customer approval sat with product management; quotation review, ordering and freight sat with supply; and final testing was shared with quality. Dates come from the project schedule. Drawings, CAD models, tooling details, supplier information and internal project records are not shown.

19. Illustrative

    2021–2024Window and door hardware

    One chainwinder, two dependencies, approved once both were settled

    R5.6 chainwinder

    Alchin Long Group · Window and door hardware · Sydney, NSW

    A chainwinder for the R5.6 program, prototyped and tooled in 2021–2023, held until the DS1W cover changes and the Bradnam’s program were complete, then corrected, tested and approved by the customer in November 2024.

    Customer approved

    • Mechanism design
    • Dependency management
    • Tooling and OTS
    • Customer approval

    Read the full case study

    Illustrative

    Employment contextProduct-development experience of the founder of KEVOS®, gained while employed by Alchin Long Group as Design Drafter and Product Development (May 2018 to October 2024). It is professional track record, not a KEVOS® client engagement.

    The brief

    The R5.6 chainwinder was developed alongside other chainwinder programs that shared design decisions. Its tooling was made by April 2023, but its schedule records two holds: first until the DS1W cover modifications and the Bradnam’s program were complete, then until the DS1W cover modifications were finished. Only then could the final tooling corrections, testing and customer approval go ahead.

    Objectives

    • Develop a chainwinder for the R5.6 program
    • Reach CAD approval through a working prototype and customer review
    • Coordinate tooling with the related DS1W and Bradnam’s programs
    • Complete corrections, testing and customer approval

    Role in the work

    As Design Drafter and Product Development, the founder’s contribution covered:

    • Rapid CAD modelling and 3D-printed prototypes
    • Detailed CAD models and CNC working prototypes
    • Technical drawings and bills of materials
    • Tooling quotations and tooling coordination
    • Off-tool sample testing and tooling corrections
    • Final testing and samples for customer approval

    How the work was approached

    1. Concept

       The brief, rapid CAD models, 3D-printed prototypes and prototype approval were completed between June and July 2021.

    2. Working prototype and customer review

       Detailed CAD and the CNC working prototype were developed through to July 2022, followed by customer review and CAD approval in August 2022.

    3. Tooling package

       Drawings, the BOM and the tooling quotation were completed and approved between April and June 2022, and tooling was made by April 2023.

    4. First off-tool round

       Off-tool samples were tested between April and June 2023.

    5. Sequenced behind related programs

       The remaining work was held until the DS1W cover modifications and the Bradnam’s program were complete. Tooling corrections followed from August to October 2024.

    6. Approval

       A second round of off-tool testing, final testing and customer approval were completed in November 2024.

    Development path

    1. Jun–Jul 2021Concept

       Brief, rapid CAD, 3D-printed prototypes, prototype approval

    2. Jul 2021–Aug 2022Development

       Detailed CAD, CNC working prototype, customer review, CAD approval

    3. Apr–Jun 2022Tooling quotation

       Drawings and BOM, quotation, review and approval

    4. Jul 2022–Nov 2024Tooling and testing

       Tooling, off-tool testing, holds for DS1W and Bradnam’s, corrections, second off-tool round, final testing, customer approval

    Challenges and how they were handled

    Two overlapping holds on related programs.

    The schedule kept both dependencies visible, and tooling corrections started as soon as the DS1W cover changes were complete.

    Testing and validation

    Customer review of the working prototype, two rounds of off-tool testing around the tooling corrections, and final testing before customer approval in November 2024.

    Outcome

    The customer approved the R5.6 chainwinder in November 2024. The project schedule ends at customer approval, so production release is not claimed here.

    Why it mattersMaking the dependencies between products visible is what lets related programs finish in the right order.

    In the company’s development process, briefs, prototype approval and customer approval sat with product management; quotation review, ordering and freight sat with supply; and final testing was shared with quality. Dates come from the project schedule. Drawings, CAD models, tooling details, supplier information and internal project records are not shown.

20. Illustrative

    2021–2024Window and door hardwareFeatured

    A double-hung push lock that waited for its customer, then went to production

    Wideline Ascend double-hung push lock

    Alchin Long Group · Wideline · Window and door hardware · Sydney, NSW

    A push lock for Wideline’s Ascend double-hung window, developed through a customer hold and two prototype rounds, then tooled, tested and released to production in 2024.

    Released to production

    • Lock design
    • Customer validation
    • Tooling and OTS
    • Production release

    Read the full case study

    Illustrative

    Employment contextProduct-development experience of the founder of KEVOS®, gained while employed by Alchin Long Group as Design Drafter and Product Development (May 2018 to October 2024). It is professional track record, not a KEVOS® client engagement.

    The brief

    A double-hung push lock has to fit within the sash and meeting-rail profiles, work at the press of a button and hold the window closed. Wideline needed one for its Ascend double-hung window. The concept prototype was approved in mid-2021, but development then waited more than a year for Wideline’s confirmation, and a second prototype was needed before the customer approved the design.

    Objectives

    • Package a push lock within the double-hung sash and meeting rail
    • Validate it with the customer through prototype rounds
    • Tool, test and correct the lock to customer approval
    • Release it to production with documentation in place

    Role in the work

    As Design Drafter and Product Development, the founder’s contribution covered:

    • Rapid CAD modelling and 3D-printed prototypes
    • Detailed CAD models and CNC working prototypes
    • Technical drawings and bills of materials
    • Tooling quotations and tooling coordination
    • Off-tool sample testing and tooling corrections
    • Production BOMs, kits and first-stock checks

    How the work was approached

    1. Concept approved

       The brief, rapid CAD models and 3D-printed prototypes were tested, and the prototype was approved between April and June 2021.

    2. Holding for the customer

       Development paused from October 2021 to November 2022 while Wideline confirmed the program. Detailed CAD and the CNC working prototype were completed once it resumed.

    3. Two customer reviews

       The customer reviewed the first working prototype in April 2023. A second prototype followed in mid-2023 and was approved in October 2023, with CAD approval and supplier selection straight after.

    4. Tooling package

       Technical drawings and the BOM were prepared in June 2023, and the tooling quotation was reviewed and approved in October 2023.

    5. Tooling and testing

       Tooling was made between October 2023 and April 2024. Off-tool samples were tested and corrected, and final testing and customer approval were completed in May 2024.

    6. Production release

       BOMs, kits and a quality-control document were finalised, production ran through June 2024, and the first stock was checked in July 2024.

    Development path

    1. Apr–Jun 2021Concept

       Brief, rapid CAD, 3D-printed testing, prototype approval

    2. Oct 2021–Nov 2022Customer hold

       Waiting for Wideline’s confirmation

    3. Sep 2021–Oct 2023Development

       CNC working prototype, customer review, second prototype, customer approval

    4. May–Oct 2023Tooling quotation

       Drawings and BOM, quotation, review and approval

    5. Oct 2023–May 2024Tooling and testing

       Tooling, off-tool testing, corrections, final testing, customer approval

    6. May–Jul 2024Production

       BOMs and kits, quality-control document, production, first stock checked

    Challenges and how they were handled

    More than a year waiting for customer confirmation.

    The program held at an approved concept, then moved into detailed design and a working prototype once Wideline confirmed.

    Feedback on the first working prototype.

    A second prototype was built and approved before tooling began.

    Testing and validation

    Two customer prototype reviews, off-tool sample testing, tooling corrections and final testing before customer approval in May 2024.

    Outcome

    Wideline approved the push lock in May 2024. It was released to production, and the first stock was checked in July 2024.

    Why it mattersWhen a customer pauses a program, keeping the approved concept intact means it can restart without starting over.

    In the company’s development process, briefs, prototype approval and customer approval sat with product management; quotation review, ordering and freight sat with supply; and final testing was shared with quality. Dates come from the project schedule. Drawings, CAD models, tooling details, supplier information and internal project records are not shown.

21. 

    2021Machines and automation

    Two kinds of currency, two mechanisms, one compact machine

    Banknote and coin sanitising machine

    Wink Solutions · Public-facing hygiene equipment

    A compact public-facing machine that handles and sanitises both banknotes and coins, developed during COVID-19.

    Prototype-ready design

    • Mechanism design
    • Product architecture
    • Design for manufacture
    • Prototyping

    Read the full case study

    

    The brief

    The machine had to sanitise both banknotes and coins in a compact public-facing unit. Notes are light, flexible and easily damaged; coins are heavy and rigid and cause impact and wear. One mechanism could not handle both, and supply-chain pressure made component availability a design constraint.

    How the work was approached

    1. Dual-path architecture

       A controlled roller feed handled banknotes while a robust tumbling arrangement handled coins, with both packaged in one enclosure.

    2. Tuning the note feed

       Roller position, guides, clearances and contact pressure were refined to avoid skewing, jamming and creasing.

    3. Iterating in CAD

       Autodesk Inventor models were developed through repeated cycles of concept, prototype, review and modification.

    4. Designed for the real world

       Part count was reduced, standard and available components preferred, and service access, jam recovery and simple user interaction designed in.

    Outcome

    The idea progressed to a developed mechanical design ready for further prototyping and manufacturing development, integrating two very different handling mechanisms in one compact machine.

    Why it mattersDesigning around available parts kept the product buildable during supply-chain disruption.

22. 

    2021Civil and structural

    Mapping a bridge’s defects so repairs land in the right place

    Macarthur Cowpasture bridge defect survey and repairs

    EPTEC (project interface) · Government infrastructure · NSW

    Defect mapping, survey drawings and concrete-repair documentation for a bridge rehabilitation.

    Documentation delivered

    • Defect mapping
    • Repair coordination
    • Project closeout
    • Quality assurance

    Read the full case study

    

    The brief

    The bridge did not need redesigning. It needed its existing defects captured accurately and turned into drawings that could guide repair planning, site work and project closeout. Deterioration, cracking and repair zones had to be located and documented without ambiguity.

    How the work was approached

    1. Existing condition recorded

       Bridge areas needing attention were transferred into controlled drawings tied to their structural locations.

    2. Defects mapped

       Defect location, extent, repair boundaries, dimensions and references were shown so engineers and site teams read them the same way.

    3. What is wrong, and what to do

       Defect information and repair intent were kept aligned, so a change to one updated the other.

    4. Records for the future

       The package was maintained as a traceable record supporting closeout, quality, audits and future maintenance.

    Outcome

    A structured technical record supporting the concrete repairs and the bridge’s asset records.

    Why it mattersAccurate condition records make repairs easier to price, deliver and verify.

    Engineering assessment, structural certification and approval remained with the authorised engineers.

23. Illustrative

    2020–2023Window and door hardware

    A MKII lock handle, approved on its second prototype

    DS776 and DS777 MKII lock handles

    Alchin Long Group · Window and door hardware · Sydney, NSW

    A MKII revision of the DS776 and DS777 lock handles, developed through two prototype rounds with customer review, then tooled, corrected and released to production in 2023.

    Released to production

    • Product revision
    • Customer prototype review
    • Tooling and OTS
    • Production release

    Read the full case study

    Illustrative

    Employment contextProduct-development experience of the founder of KEVOS®, gained while employed by Alchin Long Group as Design Drafter and Product Development (May 2018 to October 2024). It is professional track record, not a KEVOS® client engagement.

    The brief

    Revising an established product means every change has to earn its place and be proven before it reaches the customer. The DS776 and DS777 lock handles were revised through a long brief and concept stage, then two prototype rounds reviewed with the customer, before tooling, off-tool testing and corrections. The schedule ran tooling preparation alongside the final prototype rounds to keep the program moving.

    Objectives

    • Define the MKII revision and test it early with 3D-printed models
    • Reach customer approval through prototype review
    • Tool the revised parts and correct them against off-tool samples
    • Release the revised handles with production documentation in place

    Role in the work

    As Design Drafter and Product Development, the founder’s contribution covered:

    • Rapid CAD modelling and 3D-printed prototypes
    • Detailed CAD models and CNC working prototypes
    • Technical drawings and bills of materials
    • Tooling quotations and tooling coordination
    • Off-tool sample testing and tooling corrections
    • Production BOMs, kits and first-stock checks

    How the work was approached

    1. Brief to concept

       The brief was defined, then rapid CAD models and 3D-printed parts were tested until the prototype was approved in February 2023.

    2. First prototype, customer review

       A detailed CAD model and CNC working prototype went to the customer for review in March 2023.

    3. Second prototype, approved

       The feedback went into a second prototype, which the customer approved in early April 2023, followed by CAD approval and supplier selection.

    4. Tooling in parallel

       Drawings, the BOM and the tooling quotation were completed in December 2022, so tooling could proceed alongside the prototype rounds.

    5. Corrections and final testing

       Off-tool samples were tested in March 2023 and the tooling was corrected through to June, with final testing and customer approval in July.

    6. Release

       BOMs, kits and a quality-control document were finalised, production ran in September 2023, and the first stock was checked in October.

    Development path

    1. May 2020–Feb 2023Concept

       Brief, rapid CAD, 3D-printed testing, prototype approval

    2. Dec 2022Tooling quotation

       Drawings and BOM, quotation and review

    3. Feb–Apr 2023Development

       CNC working prototype, customer review, second prototype, customer approval

    4. Dec 2022–Jul 2023Tooling and testing

       Tooling, off-tool testing, corrections to June, final testing, customer approval

    5. Jul–Oct 2023Production

       BOMs and kits, quality-control document, production, first stock checked

    Challenges and how they were handled

    Customer feedback on the first prototype.

    The changes were built into a second prototype within weeks, and that prototype was approved.

    Keeping tooling on schedule while the design was being confirmed.

    Tooling preparation ran in parallel with the prototype rounds, and the off-tool corrections that followed were closed out before final testing.

    Testing and validation

    Two prototype rounds with customer review, off-tool sample testing, tooling corrections and final testing before customer approval in July 2023.

    Outcome

    The MKII handles were approved by the customer in July 2023, went into production in September and reached stock in October 2023.

    Why it mattersActing on customer feedback while the part is still a prototype costs far less than changing a tool.

    In the company’s development process, briefs, prototype approval and customer approval sat with product management; quotation review, ordering and freight sat with supply; and final testing was shared with quality. Dates come from the project schedule. Drawings, CAD models, tooling details, supplier information and internal project records are not shown.

24. Illustrative

    2020–2022Window and door hardwareFeatured

    The handle that lifts the sash, designed, tooled and released for Bradnam’s

    Bradnam’s double-hung lift handle

    Alchin Long Group · Bradnam’s · Window and door hardware · Sydney, NSW

    A lift handle for Bradnam’s double-hung windows, taken from brief and 3D-printed prototypes through tooling, an extended correction period and final testing to production in 2022.

    Released to production

    • Window hardware design
    • Prototype testing
    • Tooling corrections
    • Production release

    Read the full case study

    Illustrative

    Employment contextProduct-development experience of the founder of KEVOS®, gained while employed by Alchin Long Group as Design Drafter and Product Development (May 2018 to October 2024). It is professional track record, not a KEVOS® client engagement.

    The brief

    On a double-hung window the lift handle is how people raise the lower sash, so it has to be comfortable to grip, sit neatly on the sash and suit the window profile it is made for. Bradnam’s needed a handle that met those requirements and could be produced consistently from tooling. The program moved quickly through concept and prototypes in 2020, then needed a longer period of tooling corrections and final testing before customer approval.

    Objectives

    • Develop a lift handle to suit the Bradnam’s double-hung window
    • Prove the design with 3D-printed and CNC prototypes before tooling
    • Correct the tooling until off-tool parts matched the design
    • Release to production with BOMs, kits and a quality-control document

    Role in the work

    As Design Drafter and Product Development, the founder’s contribution covered:

    • Rapid CAD modelling and 3D-printed prototypes
    • Detailed CAD models and CNC working prototypes
    • Technical drawings and bills of materials
    • Tooling quotations and tooling coordination
    • Off-tool sample testing and tooling corrections
    • Production BOMs, kits and first-stock checks

    How the work was approached

    1. Concept in weeks

       The brief, rapid CAD models, 3D-printed prototypes and prototype approval were completed between July and early August 2020.

    2. Working prototype

       A detailed CAD model and CNC working prototype were reviewed, and CAD approval and supplier selection followed in October 2020.

    3. Tooling package

       Technical drawings and the BOM supported a tooling quotation, which was reviewed and approved in early 2021, and the tooling was made by May 2021.

    4. Off-tool testing

       The first off-tool samples were tested in mid-2021, and tooling corrections continued from October 2021 to May 2022.

    5. Final testing and approval

       Final testing with gauges ran in early 2022, and the customer approved the handle in May 2022.

    6. Release

       BOMs, kits and a quality-control document were finalised in June 2022, production followed, and the first stock was checked in October 2022.

    Development path

    1. Jul–Aug 2020Concept

       Brief, rapid CAD, 3D-printed prototypes, prototype approval

    2. Aug–Oct 2020Development

       Detailed CAD, CNC working prototype, review, CAD approval

    3. Oct 2020–Mar 2021Tooling quotation

       Drawings and BOM, quotation, review and approval

    4. Mar 2021–Jun 2022Tooling and testing

       Tooling, off-tool testing, corrections Oct 2021 to May 2022, final testing, customer approval

    5. Jun–Oct 2022Production

       BOMs and kits, quality-control document, production, first stock checked

    Challenges and how they were handled

    Off-tool parts needed more correction than first planned.

    An earlier schedule aimed for stock in February 2022. Tooling corrections ran until May 2022 instead, and the release dates were re-planned around them.

    Testing and validation

    CNC prototype review before CAD approval, off-tool sample testing, tooling corrections and final testing with gauges before customer approval in May 2022.

    Outcome

    Bradnam’s approved the lift handle in May 2022. It was released to production, and the first stock was checked in October 2022.

    Why it mattersRe-planning around real off-tool results, rather than the original dates, keeps a part from reaching customers before it is right.

    In the company’s development process, briefs, prototype approval and customer approval sat with product management; quotation review, ordering and freight sat with supply; and final testing was shared with quality. Dates come from the project schedule. Drawings, CAD models, tooling details, supplier information and internal project records are not shown.

25. 

    2020Civil and structural

    Turning bridge repair requirements into traceable drawings

    Alexandria bridge concrete and reinforcement repairs

    EPTEC (project interface) · Government infrastructure · Alexandria, NSW

    Repair drawings for the concrete and reinforcement rehabilitation of an existing bridge.

    Documentation delivered

    • Civil drafting
    • Reinforcement detailing
    • Drawing control
    • Compliance support

    Read the full case study

    

    The brief

    An existing bridge needed concrete and reinforcement repairs. Engineering repair requirements had to become clear, controlled drawings that followed government documentation procedures and could be relied on by engineers, contractors and site teams.

    How the work was approached

    1. Start from the real structure

       Existing geometry, repair locations, extents and the engineering team’s requirements formed the basis of every drawing.

    2. Concrete repair documentation

       Each repair area was shown by location, extent, structural reference, dimensions and designation.

    3. Reinforcement repair details

       Reinforcement repairs were detailed and tied to their matching concrete repair areas.

    4. Controlled issue

       Drawing standards, revision identification, traceability and review processes kept site teams on current information.

    Outcome

    A coordinated drawing package supporting the concrete and reinforcement repairs on the bridge.

    Why it mattersOn existing assets, controlled drawings prevent rework caused by outdated or conflicting information.

    Structural assessment, repair-design approval and certification remained with the responsible engineers.

26. 

    2020Product development

    A buoy that rises with the water, with no power needed

    Self-adjusting telescopic navigation buoy

    Marine product concept · Marine

    A passive mechanism that raises a buoy’s visible marker as water levels rise, using buoyancy instead of motors or sensors.

    Proof of concept

    • Concept engineering
    • Passive mechanisms
    • Marine design
    • Simplification

    Read the full case study

    

    The brief

    Fixed-height buoys become harder to see as water levels rise. The question was whether buoyancy itself could raise the visible marker, avoiding the motors, sensors and electronics that add cost and failure points in a harsh, hard-to-reach marine environment.

    How the work was approached

    1. Use the physics

       A passive principle was chosen: a change in water level changes buoyancy, which drives telescopic movement and keeps the marker visible.

    2. Telescopic mechanism

       Concentric sliding sections were arranged to stay aligned while extending and retracting.

    3. Stability and visibility

       Stabilising fins addressed the taller profile, and a high-visibility reflective marker head supported identification.

    4. Built for water

       Marine-grade composites were considered for corrosion resistance against water, UV, waves and debris.

    Outcome

    A defined concept showing how buoyancy could adjust marker height without powered controls. It did not proceed beyond proof of concept after a budget realignment.

    Why it mattersFewer systems mean fewer failure modes, which matters most where maintenance access is hardest.

    Detailed buoyancy, stability and environmental testing would be needed before any prototype.

27. Illustrative

    2019–2024Window and door hardwareFeatured

    Five years from brief to stock: a chainwinder seen all the way through

    Doric DS1W chainwinder

    Alchin Long Group · Doric · Window and door hardware · Sydney, NSW

    A Doric chainwinder for awning windows, taken from design brief and 3D-printed prototypes through a long project hold, tooling, off-tool testing and an extended correction loop to production release in 2024.

    Released to production

    • Mechanism design
    • Prototype testing
    • Tooling and OTS
    • Production release

    Read the full case study

    Illustrative

    Employment contextProduct-development experience of the founder of KEVOS®, gained while employed by Alchin Long Group as Design Drafter and Product Development (May 2018 to October 2024). It is professional track record, not a KEVOS® client engagement.

    The brief

    A chainwinder is the handle-operated mechanism that drives a chain to push an awning sash open and draw it closed. It has to operate smoothly, hold the sash securely and suit the window it is made for, and every part has to come off production tooling consistently. The DS1W began in mid-2019, was placed on hold from early 2020 to late 2021, and then had to be restarted, tooled, tested and corrected before release. Its cover design also became a dependency for other chainwinder programs running at the same time.

    Objectives

    • Turn the design brief into a working chainwinder, proven first with 3D-printed and CNC prototypes
    • Release drawings, a BOM and a tooling package that suppliers could quote against
    • Get the off-tool parts right through testing and tooling corrections
    • Hand production a controlled product: BOMs, kits and a quality-control document

    Role in the work

    As Design Drafter and Product Development, the founder’s contribution covered:

    • Rapid CAD modelling and 3D-printed prototypes
    • Detailed CAD models and CNC working prototypes
    • Technical drawings and bills of materials
    • Tooling quotations and tooling coordination
    • Off-tool sample testing and tooling corrections
    • Production BOMs, kits and first-stock checks

    How the work was approached

    1. Rapid concepts

       The brief was turned into CAD concepts and 3D-printed prototypes within weeks, so the mechanism could be handled and tested before tooling was committed.

    2. A working prototype

       A detailed CAD model and a first CNC-machined working prototype followed, and the design was reviewed before CAD approval and supplier selection in September 2019.

    3. Restarting after the hold

       Drawings and BOM work carried across a project hold that ran from March 2020 to late 2021. The program then resumed at the tooling-quotation stage, and tooling went ahead.

    4. Off-tool testing and corrections

       Off-tool samples were tested through the first half of 2023, and the tooling was corrected over the following months until final testing with gauges in May 2024.

    5. A change other programs waited for

       Modifications to the DS1W cover were a dependency for other chainwinders in development. The Bradnam’s and R5.6 chainwinder schedules were held until the DS1W cover changes were complete.

    6. Production release

       Production preparation ran alongside the final corrections: BOMs and kits were finalised and a quality-control document was written. After customer approval in June 2024, the first production stock was received and checked.

    Development path

    1. Jun–Jul 2019Concept

       Design brief, rapid CAD, 3D-printed prototypes, prototype approval

    2. Jul–Sep 2019Development

       Detailed CAD, first CNC working prototype, review, CAD approval and supplier selection

    3. Sep 2019–Mar 2022Tooling quotation

       Drawings and BOM; project on hold Mar 2020 to late 2021; quotation review and approval

    4. Sep 2021–Jun 2024Tooling and testing

       Tooling, off-tool testing in 2023, corrections to May 2024, final testing, customer approval

    5. Aug 2023–Jun 2024Production

       BOMs and kits, quality-control document, production, first stock checked

    Challenges and how they were handled

    A hold of almost two years in the middle of development.

    The program resumed at the tooling-quotation stage with its drawings and BOM intact, rather than going back to concept.

    A long tooling-correction loop after the first off-tool samples.

    Samples were tested, the tooling was corrected and parts were re-checked until final testing with gauges was completed in May 2024.

    Other chainwinder programs depended on the DS1W cover changes.

    Their schedules were sequenced behind the DS1W cover modifications, so the shared change was resolved before their tooling work continued.

    Testing and validation

    Stage gates throughout: 3D-printed and CNC prototypes were reviewed before CAD approval, off-tool samples were tested before and after tooling corrections, and final testing with gauges was completed before customer approval and release.

    Outcome

    The DS1W was released to production. Customer approval was recorded in June 2024, and the first production stock was received and checked the same month.

    Why it mattersLong programs fail at the hand-offs. Keeping drawings, tooling and testing under control through a hold and a long correction loop is what got this product into production.

    In the company’s development process, briefs, prototype approval and customer approval sat with product management; quotation review, ordering and freight sat with supply; and final testing was shared with quality. Dates come from the project schedule. Drawings, CAD models, tooling details, supplier information and internal project records are not shown.

28. Illustrative

    2019–2021Window and door hardware

    A keeper made to fit, approved within six months of the brief

    AWS 756 side latch keeper

    Alchin Long Group · AWS · Window and door hardware · Sydney, NSW

    A keeper for an AWS side latch, developed from brief to customer approval in six months, then released to production with BOMs, kits and a quality-control document.

    Released to production

    • Interface design
    • Design for manufacture
    • Tooling and OTS
    • Production release

    Read the full case study

    Illustrative

    Employment contextProduct-development experience of the founder of KEVOS®, gained while employed by Alchin Long Group as Design Drafter and Product Development (May 2018 to October 2024). It is professional track record, not a KEVOS® client engagement.

    The brief

    A keeper only works if the latch finds it every time. It has to suit the latch it receives and the frame it is fixed to, and it has to come off production tooling consistently. The AWS 756 side latch keeper had to do both. Development, tooling and testing were completed by April 2020, and production preparation followed later that year.

    Objectives

    • Develop a keeper to suit the side latch and its frame
    • Prove the fit with 3D-printed and CNC prototypes
    • Tool, test and correct the keeper to customer approval
    • Release it to production with controlled documentation

    Role in the work

    As Design Drafter and Product Development, the founder’s contribution covered:

    • Rapid CAD modelling and 3D-printed prototypes
    • Detailed CAD models and CNC working prototypes
    • Technical drawings and bills of materials
    • Tooling quotations and tooling coordination
    • Off-tool sample testing and tooling corrections
    • Production BOMs, kits and first-stock checks

    How the work was approached

    1. Brief and rapid prototypes

       The brief, rapid CAD models and 3D-printed test parts were completed between November and early December 2019.

    2. Tooling package early

       Technical drawings, the BOM and the tooling quotation were prepared in parallel and approved in December 2019, so tooling could start straight away.

    3. Working prototype

       A detailed CAD model and CNC working prototype were reviewed, with CAD approval and supplier selection in early January 2020.

    4. Off-tool testing and corrections

       Off-tool samples were tested in March 2020, the tooling was corrected, and final testing with gauges was completed in April.

    5. Customer approval

       The customer approved the keeper at the end of April 2020.

    6. Production release

       BOMs and kits were finalised, production ran from December 2020, and a quality-control document was completed before the first stock was checked in March 2021.

    Development path

    1. Oct–Dec 2019Concept

       Brief, rapid CAD, 3D-printed testing, prototype approval

    2. Nov–Dec 2019Tooling quotation

       Drawings and BOM, quotation, approval

    3. Dec 2019–Jan 2020Development

       Detailed CAD, CNC working prototype, review, CAD approval

    4. Dec 2019–Apr 2020Tooling and testing

       Tooling, off-tool testing, corrections, final testing, customer approval

    5. Oct 2020–Mar 2021Production

       BOMs and kits, production, quality-control document, first stock checked

    Challenges and how they were handled

    Getting to an approved part quickly.

    The tooling package was prepared alongside the prototypes instead of after them, so tooling started in December 2019.

    Testing and validation

    CNC prototype review, off-tool sample testing, tooling corrections and final testing with gauges before customer approval in April 2020.

    Outcome

    AWS approved the keeper in April 2020, and it was released to production, with the first stock checked in March 2021.

    Why it mattersPreparing the tooling package alongside the prototypes shortens the path from brief to an approved part.

    In the company’s development process, briefs, prototype approval and customer approval sat with product management; quotation review, ordering and freight sat with supply; and final testing was shared with quality. Dates come from the project schedule. Drawings, CAD models, tooling details, supplier information and internal project records are not shown.

29. Illustrative

    2019–2020Window and door hardware

    A roller taken from concept to stock in fourteen months

    DR2210 roller

    Alchin Long Group · Window and door hardware · Sydney, NSW

    A roller for a sliding system, developed from brief and prototypes through tooling and off-tool testing to production release in December 2020.

    Released to production

    • Component design
    • CAD assemblies
    • Tooling and OTS
    • Production release

    Read the full case study

    Illustrative

    Employment contextProduct-development experience of the founder of KEVOS®, gained while employed by Alchin Long Group as Design Drafter and Product Development (May 2018 to October 2024). It is professional track record, not a KEVOS® client engagement.

    The brief

    A roller carries the weight of a sliding panel along its track, so its geometry, its fit in the mating profiles and its assembly all decide how the panel runs. The DR2210 had to be designed to suit its sliding system and made consistently from production tooling.

    Objectives

    • Design a roller to suit its sliding system and mating profiles
    • Prove it with 3D-printed and CNC prototypes
    • Tool, test and correct it through to customer approval
    • Release it to production with documentation in place

    Role in the work

    As Design Drafter and Product Development, the founder’s contribution covered:

    • Rapid CAD modelling and 3D-printed prototypes
    • Detailed CAD models and CNC working prototypes
    • Technical drawings and bills of materials
    • Tooling quotations and tooling coordination
    • Off-tool sample testing and tooling corrections
    • Production BOMs, kits and first-stock checks

    How the work was approached

    1. Concept and prototypes

       The brief, rapid CAD models and 3D-printed test parts were completed in November and early December 2019, followed by a detailed CAD model and CNC working prototype.

    2. Review and approval

       The first prototype was reviewed, and CAD approval and supplier selection were completed in January 2020.

    3. Tooling package

       Technical drawings and the BOM were prepared in July 2020, and the tooling quotation was reviewed and approved in August.

    4. Tooling, testing and corrections

       Tooling was made from late August, corrections were made in October, and final testing and customer approval were completed in November 2020.

    5. Production in parallel

       BOMs, kits and a quality-control document were prepared while the tooling was finalised, so production and first stock followed in December 2020.

    Development path

    1. Oct–Dec 2019Concept

       Brief, rapid CAD, 3D-printed testing, prototype approval

    2. Dec 2019–Jan 2020Development

       Detailed CAD, CNC working prototype, review, CAD approval

    3. Jul–Aug 2020Tooling quotation

       Drawings and BOM, quotation, review and approval

    4. Aug–Dec 2020Tooling and testing

       Tooling, corrections in October, final testing, customer approval in November, off-tool testing

    5. Sep–Dec 2020Production

       BOMs and kits, quality-control document, production, first stock checked

    Challenges and how they were handled

    A six-month gap between design approval and the tooling package.

    Once the tooling package was underway, tooling, testing and production preparation were overlapped, with checks kept between them, so the roller still reached stock by December 2020.

    Testing and validation

    CNC prototype review, off-tool sample testing, tooling corrections and final testing before customer approval in November 2020.

    Outcome

    The DR2210 was approved by the customer in November 2020 and released to production, with the first stock checked in December 2020.

    Why it mattersOverlapping tooling, testing and production preparation, with clear checks between them, keeps a program on time without skipping a step.

    In the company’s development process, briefs, prototype approval and customer approval sat with product management; quotation review, ordering and freight sat with supply; and final testing was shared with quality. Dates come from the project schedule. Drawings, CAD models, tooling details, supplier information and internal project records are not shown.

30. Illustrative

    2019–2020Window and door hardware

    Brief to stock in eight months for the New Zealand market

    Doric NZ DS209 keeper

    Alchin Long Group · Doric NZ · Window and door hardware · Sydney, NSW

    A keeper for the Doric New Zealand range, developed, tooled, tested and released to production between May 2019 and January 2020.

    Released to production

    • Interface design
    • Rapid prototyping
    • Tooling and OTS
    • Production release

    Read the full case study

    Illustrative

    Employment contextProduct-development experience of the founder of KEVOS®, gained while employed by Alchin Long Group as Design Drafter and Product Development (May 2018 to October 2024). It is professional track record, not a KEVOS® client engagement.

    The brief

    A keeper has to line up with the locking element it receives, hold it securely and come off tooling consistently. The DS209 was needed for the Doric New Zealand range. Tooling started almost as soon as the prototype was approved, so the whole lifecycle from brief to stock took about eight months.

    Objectives

    • Develop a keeper to suit the New Zealand application
    • Move from brief to tooling quickly, with prototypes reviewed on the way
    • Tool, test and correct it to customer approval
    • Release it with production documentation

    Role in the work

    As Design Drafter and Product Development, the founder’s contribution covered:

    • Rapid CAD modelling and 3D-printed prototypes
    • Detailed CAD models and CNC working prototypes
    • Technical drawings and bills of materials
    • Tooling quotations and tooling coordination
    • Off-tool sample testing and tooling corrections
    • Production BOMs, kits and first-stock checks

    How the work was approached

    1. A fast concept

       The brief, rapid CAD model, 3D-printed test part and prototype approval were completed in one week in May 2019.

    2. Tooling started early

       Drawings, the BOM and the tooling quotation were completed in May, and tooling began while the CNC working prototype was still being reviewed.

    3. Off-tool testing

       Off-tool samples were tested in September 2019, corrected and given final testing with gauges.

    4. Approval and release

       The customer approved the keeper in October 2019. BOMs, kits and a quality-control document were then finalised, production ran through to December, and the first stock was checked in January 2020.

    Development path

    1. May 2019Concept

       Brief, rapid CAD, 3D-printed test part and prototype approval in one week

    2. May 2019Tooling quotation

       Drawings and BOM, quotation and approval

    3. May–Jun 2019Development

       Detailed CAD, CNC working prototype, review, CAD approval

    4. May–Oct 2019Tooling and testing

       Tooling, off-tool testing in September, corrections, final testing, customer approval

    5. Oct 2019–Jan 2020Production

       BOMs and kits, quality-control document, production, first stock checked

    Challenges and how they were handled

    A short program with tooling started early.

    Prototype review and tooling ran in parallel, and the off-tool test and correction round in September confirmed the part before approval.

    Testing and validation

    CNC prototype review, off-tool sample testing, tooling corrections and final testing with gauges before customer approval in October 2019.

    Outcome

    The DS209 keeper was approved in October 2019 and released to production, with the first stock checked in January 2020, about eight months after the brief.

    Why it mattersRunning tooling in parallel with prototype review is how a straightforward part reaches stock in months rather than years.

    In the company’s development process, briefs, prototype approval and customer approval sat with product management; quotation review, ordering and freight sat with supply; and final testing was shared with quality. Dates come from the project schedule. Drawings, CAD models, tooling details, supplier information and internal project records are not shown.

31. 

    2019Machines and automation

    From evolving concept to a machine that makes coils

    Precision helical coiling machine

    RoboHelix Manufacturing · Automotive and electronics

    Parametric models and a full manufacturing drawing package for a machine that produces fine-wire coils.

    In operation

    • Precision machinery
    • SolidWorks
    • Tolerancing
    • Manufacturing drawings

    Read the full case study

    

    The brief

    The machine concept was still developing, yet fabricators, machinists and assemblers needed precise, consistent information to build it. In a coiling machine, small dimensional differences affect both performance and the quality of the coils it produces.

    How the work was approached

    1. Parametric models

       SolidWorks models controlled dimensions and relationships so the design could change without losing consistency.

    2. Precise helical geometry

       Diameter, pitch, curvature, position and orientation of the coiling elements were modelled accurately.

    3. Drawings suppliers can follow

       Manufacturing drawings to ISO 128 conventions carried tolerances, materials, finishes and machining and welding notes, with tolerances set by function rather than habit.

    4. Checked before release

       Drawings passed a staged review of self-check, peer review and engineering sign-off, with revisions controlled as the machine evolved.

    Outcome

    The manufacturing package supported fabrication and assembly, and the machine went into operation producing helical coils.

    Why it mattersClear, checked drawings let any capable supplier make the part right without guesswork.

32. 

    2019Defence and transport

    Fitting a working kitchen into a train cabin

    Train cabin kitchen systems integration

    Velocity Melbourne Trains · Rail and transport · Melbourne, VIC

    A compact kitchen and equipment area integrating appliances, electrical, fluid services and sheet metal within a train cabin.

    Design delivered

    • Systems integration
    • Packaging
    • Sheet metal
    • Serviceability

    Read the full case study

    

    The brief

    Appliances, electrical equipment, fluid services, cabinets and service access all had to fit inside a fixed train-cabin envelope. In a vehicle the space cannot grow, so every routing and mounting decision affected something else.

    How the work was approached

    1. Coordinated in 3D

       A 3D layout checked appliance positions, cabinet geometry and cable and fluid routes at every level, not just in plan.

    2. Services and interfaces

       Electrical layout and fluid routing were coordinated around the equipment and around each other.

    3. Multi-function sheet metal

       Cabinets and enclosures were redesigned so panels provided support, mounting, cable management and access in one part.

    4. Serviceable and installable

       Access panels, removal paths and how assemblies would enter the vehicle were designed in from the start.

    Outcome

    Coordinated engineering information for integrating kitchen equipment and services into a constrained cabin.

    Why it mattersSolving clashes in the model is far cheaper than discovering them during installation.

    Electrical calculations, rail certification and compliance approval remained with the responsible disciplines.

33. 

    2018Civil and structural

    A high-load mezzanine designed into an existing Sydney building

    Commercial mezzanine level

    6 O’Connell St, Sydney · Commercial structures · Sydney, NSW

    A 3D structural model and fabrication drawings for a new mezzanine inside an existing commercial building.

    Documentation delivered

    • 3D structural modelling
    • Fabrication documentation
    • Constructability
    • Existing-building integration

    Read the full case study

    

    The brief

    A new mezzanine had to fit within an existing commercial building, working around columns, walls, floor levels, access routes and services. Every member had to be fabricated, brought into the building and installed in a practical sequence.

    How the work was approached

    1. Existing building first

       The structure was developed from the building’s fixed geometry, interfaces and constraints.

    2. 3D structural model

       Beams, columns, floor framing, edges and connections were coordinated in 3D to catch interferences early.

    3. Fabrication-ready detail

       Members and connections were detailed for cutting, drilling, welding, transport and assembly, using standard sections.

    4. Buildable sequence

       Access into the building and the installation sequence were considered so every connection could be reached.

    Outcome

    A coordinated model and fabrication package linking design intent to manufacture and installation.

    Why it mattersA structure is not fully designed until there is a practical way to build it.

    Structural calculations, building certification and final engineering approval remained with qualified professionals.

34. 

    2014–2016Product development

    Mass customisation: a different device for every patient

    Patient-specific sleep apnoea mouthpieces

    Oventus · Medical devices and sleep health

    Digital design of oral devices shaped to each patient’s anatomy from 3D scan data.

    Design delivered

    • Mass customisation
    • 3D surface modelling
    • Digital manufacturing
    • Medical products

    Read the full case study

    

    The brief

    Every device had to match an individual patient’s oral anatomy, captured as 3D scan data. The challenge was to handle that variation without losing control of the product design, so each unique device still came from a consistent, repeatable process.

    How the work was approached

    1. From scan to geometry

       3D oral scan data was interpreted and converted into accurate product geometry, working with organic surfaces rather than simple engineering features.

    2. Standardise the process

       A repeatable digital workflow handled patient variation within a controlled product architecture.

    3. Designed for digital manufacture

       Geometry continuity, surface quality and data integrity were maintained so each model could be manufactured reliably.

    4. Clinical requirements translated

       Requirements from Oventus product and clinical stakeholders were turned into controlled digital geometry.

    Outcome

    Supported a digital design and manufacturing workflow for patient-specific oral sleep devices.

    Why it mattersVariable input plus a controlled process gives consistent output: the core of mass customisation.

    Clinical decisions, medical validation and regulatory approval remained with qualified clinical and regulatory professionals.

35. 

    2013Machines and automation

    Depositing machines built for 35–40 trays a minute

    Mogul line depositing machinery

    NID Pty Ltd (engineering partner) · Food, pharmaceutical and cosmetics production

    Special-purpose depositing machines for high-volume production lines, including a swing-hopper depositor.

    Machines built

    • Special-purpose machinery
    • Automation
    • Hygienic design
    • Machine building

    Read the full case study

    

    The brief

    High-volume mogul lines need depositing equipment that repeats the same action accurately over long runs. Each machine had to be engineered around a specific product, production rate, hygiene requirement and customer, for organisations including Nature’s Product, Tigerbrands, Pharmavite, Sweetcandy, Santacruz, Church and Vite, and Interpack.

    How the work was approached

    1. Process before machine

       Product, process and required motion defined the machine architecture, rather than adapting the process to a standard machine.

    2. Reliable at speed

       At around 35–40 trays per minute, cycle time, timing, durability and tray positioning were designed for consistency.

    3. Swing hopper and manifolds

       A swing-hopper depositor and volumetric depositor manifolds were developed to distribute product evenly across positions.

    4. Hygiene, assembly and commissioning

       Cleaning access, materials and component removal were designed in, and development continued through assembly, integration and commissioning.

    Outcome

    A number of special-purpose machines were built for food, pharmaceutical and cosmetics production, including depositors designed for about 35–40 trays per minute.

    Why it mattersSmall inconsistencies repeated thousands of times become big production problems, so they are designed out early.

36. 

    2011–2012Heavy industry and miningFeatured

    Packing a mobile manufacturing plant onto a truck

    Bulk Master Series 7 mobile manufacturing unit

    Orica · Mining equipment

    Mechanical design for modifications to a truck-mounted mobile manufacturing unit used at mine sites.

    Design delivered

    • Mobile equipment
    • Systems integration
    • Sheet metal
    • Design for manufacture

    Read the full case study

    

    The brief

    The Bulk Master Series 7 combines tanks, hose reels, process pipework and equipment on one heavy vehicle. Every addition had to fit a fixed truck envelope while respecting weight, chassis interfaces, manufacture, maintenance, operator access and mine-site conditions.

    How the work was approached

    1. The truck as one system

       Each component’s position was judged by its effect on weight distribution, structure, routing, access and neighbouring equipment.

    2. Tanks, reels and pipework

       Fuel tanks, hose-reel systems and chemical pipework were designed together with their mounting, servicing and operator interaction.

    3. Engineered sheet metal

       More functions were built into formed sheet-metal parts, simplifying assemblies and saving weight.

    4. Controlled change

       Modifications to the existing platform were controlled from design change through updated drawings to manufacture.

    Outcome

    Supported development of the next generation of Orica’s Bulk Master mobile manufacturing equipment.

    Why it mattersOn mobile equipment every kilogram and millimetre counts, so integration decisions are made for the whole vehicle.

    Formal safety assessment, regulatory compliance and final engineering approval remained with the authorised engineers.

37. 

    2011Heavy industry and mining

    Step-by-step sequences for a blast furnace shutdown

    Blast furnace shutdown maintenance documentation

    OneSteel Whyalla · Steel production · Whyalla, SA

    Drawings and step-by-step work sequences for refractory brickwork and liner replacement during a blast furnace maintenance program.

    Documentation delivered

    • Shutdown maintenance
    • Work sequencing
    • Structural drafting
    • High-risk environments

    Read the full case study

    

    The brief

    Refractory brickwork and furnace liners wear under extreme heat and are replaced during a controlled shutdown, where every delay affects the return to production. Site teams needed to know not just the finished state, but what came out first, what went in next and what depended on what.

    How the work was approached

    1. Existing condition

       The existing furnace arrangement and work areas were interpreted to define what would be removed, retained and replaced.

    2. Sequential instructions

       2D sequential drawings showed the work progressing through access, removal, inspection, preparation, replacement and verification.

    3. Access and constructability

       Access, working space, material delivery and activities that could block each other were reflected in the sequence.

    4. Controlled revisions

       As components were exposed and conditions changed, drawings were revised under control so every team worked from current information.

    Outcome

    Technical documentation supporting a major blast-furnace maintenance program.

    Why it mattersIn a shutdown, unclear information costs the most exactly when time is shortest.

    Furnace engineering, refractory specification, shutdown control and approval remained with the responsible specialists.

38. 

    2011Heavy industry and mining

    Making structure and pipework share a crowded coke plant

    Coke Plant No. 5 structural and piping coordination

    BlueScope Steel · Steel production

    Structural and piping documentation for an operating coke plant, coordinated so new work fitted the existing plant.

    Documentation delivered

    • Plant design
    • Piping coordination
    • Clash detection
    • Constructability

    Read the full case study

    

    The brief

    In an operating coke plant, structure, pipework, equipment, platforms and access all compete for the same space. A new support could block a pipe route; a pipe route could block maintenance access. The work had to resolve those interfaces before they reached site.

    How the work was approached

    1. Existing plant as the boundary

       Existing structures and infrastructure defined where new or modified systems could fit.

    2. Structural documentation

       Members, supports, platforms, brackets and connections were documented in relation to the wider plant.

    3. Piping coordination

       Pipe routes were developed around structures, equipment, supports, access and adjacent systems, not just the shortest path.

    4. Clashes found early

       Pipework, structure, access routes and existing plant were reviewed together, and conflicts resolved or flagged before fabrication.

    Outcome

    Coordinated multidisciplinary documentation supporting engineering review, fabrication and construction.

    Why it mattersMost plant problems live at the interfaces, and they are cheapest to fix on the drawing.

    Engineering calculations, process design and certification remained with the responsible engineers.

39. 

    2011Heavy industry and mining

    Conveyors, chutes and crushers designed as one system

    Conveyor, transfer chute and crushing plant design

    NEPEAN Conveyors · Mining and bulk materials handling

    Layouts and documentation for bulk-material handling systems combining conveyors, transfer chutes and crushing equipment.

    Documentation delivered

    • Bulk material handling
    • Plant layout
    • Structural coordination
    • Systems thinking

    Read the full case study

    

    The brief

    Bulk material has to move reliably from feed to conveyor, through transfer points and crushing, and on to the next process. A problem at any interface, such as poor transfer geometry or blocked access, affects everything downstream.

    How the work was approached

    1. System-level layout

       Conveyor routing, elevations, transfer locations, drives and supporting structures were laid out around the site and the surrounding plant.

    2. Transfer chutes and crushers

       Chute entry and discharge, clearances, wear areas and the equipment around crushers were documented as working interfaces.

    3. Structure and access

       Conveyor supports, towers, platforms and walkways were coordinated with maintenance needs such as belt inspection, roller replacement and liner changes.

    4. Clash-free and buildable

       Spatial conflicts were identified during design, and documentation supported fabrication, transport and installation.

    Outcome

    Coordinated documentation for an integrated bulk-material handling plant.

    Why it mattersDesigning for maintenance as well as installation keeps a plant running long after commissioning.

    Conveyor calculations, bulk-flow analysis and certification remained with the responsible engineers.

40. 

    2010–2011Heavy industry and miningFeatured

    Maintenance drawings that work around an operating steelworks

    Coke Plant No. 6 maintenance and upgrade documentation

    BlueScope Steel · Steel production

    Structural drawings and installation-sequence information for maintenance and upgrade work inside an operating coke plant.

    Documentation delivered

    • Brownfield engineering
    • Structural drafting
    • Shutdown planning
    • Revision control

    Read the full case study

    

    The brief

    Maintenance and upgrades inside an established coke plant must work around existing structures, equipment, access limits and shutdown windows. Drawings had to show how the plant could be modified, not just the finished arrangement.

    How the work was approached

    1. Read the existing plant

       Existing drawings and site information were interpreted for geometry, member locations, connections and clearances.

    2. Existing versus proposed

       Maintenance drawings showed what was removed, what was new and how it connected.

    3. Installation sequence

       2D sequence information answered what comes out first, what needs temporary access and when the new part goes in.

    4. Revision control

       When site work revealed differences from historical drawings, changes were carried through fabrication and installation documents.

    Outcome

    Controlled documentation that supported planning, fabrication and installation of maintenance work.

    Why it mattersIn brownfield work the sequence is its own engineering problem, separate from the final design.

    Structural calculations, approval and certification remained with the responsible engineers.

Organisation names show where the work took place and do not imply endorsement of KEVOS®. Work carried out while employed, including the Alchin Long Group product-development and capital projects, is the founder’s professional track record, not KEVOS® client work. Product-development dates come from the project schedules, and a product is described as released to production only where its schedule records it. Organisation descriptions are general background. Engineering calculations, certification and statutory approvals remained with the responsible engineers and authorities. Projects that ended at concept or design stage are labelled that way, and visuals marked “Illustrative” are not images of the actual project. Commercial figures and client-confidential information are not shown.