View Full Version : Fat & Sat Procedure

May 7th, 2004, 11:30 AM



May 7th, 2004, 11:52 AM
FAT procedure

1. Eats lots of junk food.
2. Do not do any form of physical exercise at all!

Follow the above steps and you will be FAT in no time!

SAT procedure

1. Place a chair strategically behind your legs.
2. Bend your knees until you feel your bottom come in contact with the chair.

Follow that procedure and you will have SAT in no time!

Note:- If you do lots of SAT and no walking this can also lead to FAT



May 7th, 2004, 12:09 PM
There is a direct corollation here :

I was fat, and so I sat...

Too much I sat, now I am fat...

Seriously, friend, we're not mind-readers. What are you referring to?


Eddie Willers
May 7th, 2004, 12:17 PM
My guess is that our CAPS LOCK enthused friend is talking about Acceptance Tests, maybe Factory Acceptance Tests and Site Acceptance Tests.

My old company had a very simple Acceptance Test procedure; they said "don't worry, Eddie will be here 24/7 until the machine runs properly".

Acceptance Tests are very industry- and company-specific. I doubt there are books or whitepapers on how to do good ones.

Of course, CELLA could be talking about Flatulence and Saturation, both of which I can discourse upon in detail.

May 7th, 2004, 12:20 PM
CELLA is refering to "Factory Acceptance Testing" and "Site Acceptance Testing". The testing consists of a rigorous set of criteria for testing a system at the producers factory (FAT) and at the installation site (SAT) to verify compliance with the stated requirements. CELLA is looking for a typical guideline for these procedures. That's all I could find whiile Googling. I couldn't find a convenient set of guidelines. (Eddie - I must type too slowly)

May 7th, 2004, 12:26 PM
I was looking for Factory acceptance test procedure and Site acceptance test procedure.

I just want to know what all standard testing done in factory /panel building shop floor and then in customer site.

so that i will calculate our cost and our panel builder cost and also just for my own information.

so that i can say i will comply with so and so procedures.


Allan Barnes
May 7th, 2004, 12:35 PM
I have recently moved jobs, so I no longer have acces to them. Not sure what my new company has. However The best way is to just get your I/O lists and put it in to an Exel format. In your exel spread sheet have one colums to sign for each company involved. Typical one for the construction firm(elctricians and such), the engineering firm, and one for the end customer. As you go through your I/O every one signes off on each Item that is completed. A little time consuming, but hey it realy covers your but when the costomer comes back and says, that never worked I dont know what your talking about.

Rick Densing
May 7th, 2004, 12:43 PM
Originally posted by TimothyMoulder
There is a direct corollation here :

I was fat, and so I sat...

Too much I sat, now I am fat...

Seriously, friend, we're not mind-readers. What are you referring to?


Reading too much Dr. Seuss lately?

Tom Jenkins
May 7th, 2004, 01:12 PM
Allan's I/O check and field sensor test is a good place to start. I would also add a list of all alarms with the required indication type and system response (stop equipment, display at local panel, sound alarm horn, etc.). I would include each control loop, and the expected reaction to rising and falling control variables or make/break of each external contact. I would list each setpoint or operator data entry specified, and any trending or data logging. If you have a P & ID (Process and Instrumentation Diagram) I would cross reference each item to a tag number there. Also include verification of each communication link, and each data point to be transmitted to SCADA or PC based HMI.

Each of these should show up on a list, and have a place for sign off by the technicial and the inspector for each item verifying it was tested and the results observed.

In my experience witnessed and fully documented shop testing of anything beyond I/O is a waste of time and money on all but the simplest control systems. Success in a shop does not guarantee success in the field, they are time consuming (i.e. expensive to conduct), difficult to coordinate, and if the fabricator is a crook they can be rigged easily. We do all of the above testing (well, if the contractor isn't screaming for delivery, anyway) in our shop before we ship, but we still jump through a lot of hoops in the field. You inevitably have to play "let's make believe" for some of the sensors and the system responses.

The food and phamrmaceutical industries have some standardized testing protocols that you may be able to get and adapt for your needs.

May 7th, 2004, 01:34 PM
Originally posted by Tom Jenkins:
...Success in a shop does not guarantee success in the field,...

While I definitely agree with this I think I can safely say the lack of success in the shop DEFINITELY guarantees lack of success in the field. Don't try to be all-encompassing with shop tests. However, make sure all the pieces and general concepts work. I have found it's easier to fix most stuff when you have your own tools and people available.
We run about 50/50 on our ability to do full function product tests in our shop. When we can't we limit ourselves to making sure all the physical devices work and any free-standing functions work, like opening and closing nips or indexing a machne section.


Allen Nelson
May 7th, 2004, 02:16 PM
FATs and SATs come in all different shapes and sizes.

Some FATs are little more than demos, going through some of the functions, and letting the end-user "try to break the system".

Other FATs are rigorous, fully documented exercises, intended to test EVERYTHING.

Some FATs use the real hardware. Others simulate the plant (because many of the systems aren't available, or are part of an existing system, etc)

Same with SATs. If a system has been fully FAT'ed, then you can do it all over again when it's been installed, or you can just do the parts that you didn't test before.

If the FAT was mostly just a demo, you will probably want to do something rigorous to ensure that there are no bugs (at least none that a planned test will bring out. Then the only bugs will be those things that done that aren't planned (like the first time it gets used by an untrained operator).

The level of work will depend on the customer, and how much of a document you need to produce to meet their needs. I've seen it take anywhere from 8 hours (to create and execute) for a quick 'demo' type (list of major funtions/screens, with a checkoff box) to 50% of the engineering time (with detailed instrutions on how to test each item on each screen, and every line of code, including exceptions and error handling).

Good luck

Terry Woods
May 8th, 2004, 12:30 AM
I've been through both tests.

In order to prepare for the FAT, I had to create a simulator.

Occasionally, a customer rep would show-up on site to see the test. I saw this as a good thing.

I knew I was going to see him at the SAT.

My simulator had two modes. One was based on a timed initiator. We used that simply to exercise the hell out of the machine. The simulator provided a make-believe part going through the process. The operation of the machine was controlled by a "timed-model".

The other was based on a Push-Button initiator. When the rep came on site, he was invited to act as the "initiator". In terms of our machine, the initiator signal came from a machine on the customers' site. They were responsible for providing that signal. So, he was invited to act as the signal that they were to provide. When he pushed the button, we did the "Dog & Pony Show".

As part of our FAT we required a bunch of their products. We asked for them to give us products that exhibited extreme as well as normal characteristics.

When the rep pushed the button the machine processed one of his parts right in front of his eyes. Our process responded to his part going through the process. It was simply a case of the process worked... or it didn't.

A FAT is always more likely to turn favorable if you have sample products on hand to test while developing the project and then more samples on hand if a rep shows up.

If the FAT came off without a hitch then, if the customer provides what he is supposed to provide, the SAT should be a "shoe-in".

I've been in plenty of situations where the FAT was marginal and the plan was "We'll take care of that problem on-site... let's get the damned thing shipped!"

In all of my experience with that situation, it is better to eat the shipping penalty. Having the customer provide machining services is very expensive.


Eric Nelson
May 8th, 2004, 01:41 AM
Originally posted by Terry Woods
As part of our FAT we required a bunch of their products. We asked for them to give us products that exhibited extreme as well as normal characteristics.

I have found that many customers don't understand the term 'representative sample'... :(

They tend to send us PERFECT samples, as if they're trying to impress us or something. Therefore, FAT goes fine. Only AFTER the machine is designed, built, tested, and installed do we get to see the **** (er, I mean 'product') they REALLY expect to run in the machine... :rolleyes:




May 8th, 2004, 09:43 AM
Thanks all for your post.

I am looking for specific standard to be followed.

Also i am looking for the project management methods.

How do you all manage your project/budget etc.

In this project i have an RTU(my part) connected to a SCADA host(different vendor) via telephone line. protocol being modbus.

Customer requested me to provide the below.
Inspection and test plan
Factory acceptance Test
Site acceptance.

He also wanted me to write pass and fail criteria for testing.

He will then approve or modify whatever i submit to him.

then on FAT day i have to do the testing as per the signed document.

I just want to prepare these documents and at the same time want it to look more professional( i mean i just want to follow some existing standards) If you have any then please let me know.

Now one that really confused me is that all the above three (inspection & test plan, FAT, SAT ) were all the same. In which way should i differentiate them all. I mean i have to prepare 3 different documents. but to my eyes they all look like one single documents of same contents.

Thanks all

Rick Densing
May 8th, 2004, 09:57 AM
Our version FAT and SAT is called run-off. They are the exact same process on our floor at at the customer's. The run-off on the customer's floor goes much faster as it is only proving that intallation was done correctly.

Unless you get more specific on the type of equipment, I don't think that you will find a standard. Machine tools are different than punch-press, etc.

Each type may have a guideline or standard.

Tom Jenkins
May 8th, 2004, 10:29 AM
"Now one that really confused me is that all the above three (inspection & test plan, FAT, SAT ) were all the same. "

Well, sort of. There is nothing wrong with having one set of documents that defines the testing and check-ff for each machine function. The FAT can reference tht document, and specify what the source of the inputs and timing of the test and so on are. The SAT can reference the same document, identify the customer reuiremetns to provide inputs to the test, and acceptable criteria, and so on. Or you can cut and paste the same block into each of the two documents.

Inspectin, to me, should involve more physical aspects of the system - verification of form and fit as well as function. Is the proper guage of wire used, are the correct quantity of spare terminal blocks installed, are labels affixed properly, are relays of the proper rating used, etc.

May 8th, 2004, 10:40 AM
I have digital inputs , analog inputs & modbus master/slave card from prosoft . no control. just an RTU slave.

I also have a modbus slave equipment in my panel. that will be connected to my port 1 of modbus card (port 1 configured as master).

The other modbus slave port (port 2) which is connected to Modem (for connection to scada host/master)

I have no control function.just RTU function.

May 8th, 2004, 11:30 AM
Hello i am also looking for modbus master / slave simulator program for my FAT.
Is there any software available for free ?


May 10th, 2004, 08:35 AM
Not free but check out my post here (http://www.plctalk.net/qanda/showthread.php?s=&threadid=6561&highlight=calta)

October 4th, 2013, 06:48 PM
I was also looking for information on Factory Acceptance Testing and Site Acceptance Testing and found some useful information here:
Copy and paste this address into your browser and it will help to find the information.

October 4th, 2013, 07:11 PM
The OP was in bad need of this back in 2004, that document wasn't around then.