Skip to main content
+44 (0)7415 112 892
sales@axiotech.co.uk

Move discovery left of site commissioning

Exercise sequences, interfaces, alarms and recovery before they compete with production pressure.

Axiotech defines a fit-for-purpose simulation boundary around the decisions that need evidence. The model is not presented as reality; assumptions, fidelity and untested behaviour remain visible.

Good fit

Use this service when

  • TwinCAT and PLC applications with definable plant, device or signal behaviour.
  • OEM platforms where regression scenarios can protect repeat builds and later variants.

Scope boundary

Not assumed or silently included

  • Claims that a software model proves physical safety, process capability or mechanical life.
  • A digital twin label without agreed questions, fidelity, interfaces and acceptance use.

Why act

The operational risk behind the technical symptom

The first work package is shaped around reducing an explicit risk or enabling a named decision.

01

A model with hidden assumptions creates confidence without coverage.

02

Testing only the happy path leaves recovery defects for the customer site.

03

Simulation interfaces diverge from real I/O and become a parallel, unmaintained codebase.

Purchasable entry points

Choose a bounded engagement before expanding scope

Final inclusions, dependencies, location, schedule and commercial terms are confirmed in a formal quotation.

Package 1

Simulation-value assessment

Decision enabled: A bounded model scope tied to commissioning or regression decisions.

Typical scope: Use cases, fidelity, interface, scenario, tool and effort assessment.

Package 2

Virtual commissioning work package

Decision enabled: An executable environment and reviewed scenario evidence.

Typical scope: Signal/plant models, coupling, scenario library, results, defect tracking and limitations.

Package 3

Regression-test lifecycle

Decision enabled: Repeatable evidence for approved software changes.

Typical scope: Baseline scenarios, test data, automated execution where suitable, review and release integration.

Artefact manifest

What remains after the engineering work

The exact document set scales with risk and the approved work package.

  • Simulation scope, assumptions and fidelity record
  • Signal, device and plant-model interface specification
  • Scenario and acceptance catalogue
  • Execution results, defects and dispositions
  • Known limitations and real-machine verification plan

Technical and responsibility boundaries

Make ownership reviewable

  • The model answers agreed questions; it is not an unrestricted digital replica.
  • Safety, physical performance and process results still require appropriate real-world verification.
  • Simulation adapters are isolated from production behaviour and configuration.

Review and acceptance

Six gates from authority to handover

Gate depth changes with the work; named decisions and evidence remain.

  1. G0
    Scope authorityOutcome, boundaries, roles, assumptions and commercial basis agreed.
  2. G1
    Baseline acceptedKnown installed/source state, dependencies, constraints and unknowns recorded.
  3. G2
    Design approvedRequirements, interfaces, risks and acceptance evidence ready for implementation.
  4. G3
    Release candidateBuild reviewed, verified, versioned and accompanied by defect disposition.
  5. G4
    Site acceptanceCommissioning evidence, deviations and release decision recorded.
  6. G5
    Handover acceptedSource, configuration, records, recovery and residual risks transferred.

Read the complete delivery method

Assurance option

Compliance is a declared scope—not a badge

Simulation evidence may support risk-based verification when its intended use, tool control, model assumptions, review and result retention are acceptable within the customer quality system. It does not eliminate required FAT, SAT or qualification activity.

Review validation services

Relevant engineering evidence

TwinCAT virtual commissioning harness

A reusable demonstrator for signal simulation, fault injection, scenario execution and evidence capture with explicit model limitations.

Review this evidence

Procurement FAQ

Questions to resolve before quotation

Do we need a full 3D model?

No. Many valuable controls questions can be answered with signal, device, sequence or simplified plant models.

Can tests run automatically?

Where interfaces and expected results are stable, repeatable execution can be integrated. Human review and release authority remain defined.

Does virtual commissioning replace FAT?

No. It can improve readiness and coverage, while FAT remains tied to the agreed real system and acceptance boundary.

Next decision

Describe the outcome, installed baseline and constraints you already know.

Use “Not known” where evidence is missing. The first review will separate facts, assumptions and discovery work.

Scope Virtual commissioning and controls verification