Darren Larkins, ShipConstructor Software Inc., Victoria/Canada,
Darren.larkins@shipconstructor.com Abstract This paper is an overview of Design for Production principles, how they have been applied in practice in several US shipyards, and how technology is being used to make these principles accessible to designers. 1. Introduction Recently the U.S. Office of the Deputy Under Secretary of Defense (Industrial Policy) commissioned a study, NN (2007), which concluded that engineering departments within US shipyards created a level of design and engineering information that was at least equal to that of major international yards. Despite this apparent equality the study found that average man-hours and cycle times of the US yards remains substantially higher than their international counterparts. Processes and practices employed pre- production were identified as having the largest impact on these hours, and it was observed that US shipyards put less emphasis on design for production (DFP) principles. The absence of DFP principles in engineering results in a significantly higher man-hour per Compensated Gross Tonnage (CGT) ratio for US shipyards. The study included an analysis of major European, Korean, and Japanese shipyards for comparison purposes. While the average shipbuilder in each of these regions was ahead of the average US shipbuilder, this was not true in all cases. In addition equality does not exist across these regions with Japan being significantly ahead of Korean and European shipbuilders. This implies that many shipbuilders outside the US could benefit significantly from a greater application of these principles. Through the US Navy-funded National Shipbuilding Research Program (NSRP), US shipyards, led by Bollinger Shipyards, undertook several projects to apply DFP principles to their shipbuilding processes and technologies. These projects involve the introduction of DFP principles into the shipyards processes and engineering tools. 2. Design for Production in Shipbuilding Design for Production principles have been used successfully in many industries for decades, and are employed to various degrees by shipyards. Some shipyards intuitively apply these principles; however the application is not as effective as an intentional effort would be. A formal definition of DFP can be stated as, Lamb( 1986):: the deliberate act of designing a product to meet its specified technical and operational requirements and quality so that the production costs will be minimal through low work content and ease of fabrication. One of the more significant challenges shipbuilders face in implementing DFP principles is caused by a lack of understanding of facility constraints and production techniques in junior designers. Many inexperienced designers do not have the skills or knowledge required to know how these constraints and techniques are applied, nor how to apply changes to a production design to mitigate the costs associated with them. This challenge can be overcome by building DFP principles into shipyard manuals, processes, and software tools. 3. Project - Design for Producibility (DFP) for Mid-Tiered Shipyards The first of two recent NSRP projects looking into the application of DFP principles involved Bollinger Shipyards, Atlantic Marine, and Todd Pacific Shipyards. This project was focused on analyzing and implementing DFP principles into the processes of the member shipyards. In defining what DFP means in a shipbuilding context the project participants identified 12 DFP guiding principles. These principles are enumerated in Fanguy et al. (2008) and reprinted here: Principle Description Design for Facility, Complex production and costly rework occurs in the ship construction process when Workstation, and the ship has been designed outside the ship builders infrastructure parameters. The Equipment design should be optimized for the shipyards capabilities and constrained to Capabilities accommodate the shipyards limitations. The design should also be optimized for the shipyards typical build strategy, which should reflect the facility capabilities and constraints. The shipyards facility, workstation, and equipment information should be documented in a user-friendly format, and maintained in a central repository that is made accessible to the designer. Minimize Number of DFP is often understated as simply, minimizing the number of parts, whether it is Parts number of unique parts or total number of parts in a product. This oversimplification emphasizes the correlation of part minimization to many of the other core DFP principles. If parts can be eliminated through the design process, then handling and lifting will be minimized, the amount of welding will decrease, and overproduction will be minimized. Standardize Parts Similar to part minimization, standardizing the parts to minimize the number of unique parts that have to be researched, designed, purchased, stored, handled, and processed should lead to dramatic cost and cycle time reduction. Standardized parts enable the shipyard to develop and streamline construction processes and to make the processes repeatable and predictable. A lower skilled work-force can be trained to perform the standard work associated with these parts, and reduce the overall risk of poor quality. With an increased utilization of standard parts, the shipyard can also set up manufacturing work cells to process these parts efficiently through the ship building factory. Standardize Material The traditional ship design process becomes fragmented through the efforts of Types multiple designers without tight set-based design criteria established to provide continuity. Left to their own accord, each designer will make material selections that tend to sub-optimize the overall design. These selections are typically based on the designers past experience and their individual preferences. While unintentional, the project becomes overburdened by an increased supply chain complexity, along with an increased purchasing and accounting activity. It minimizes the potential for volume-based discounts, and adds complexity to material handling and warehousing. Multiple material types also causes inefficiencies in production, as production becomes overburdened by the increased skill-set that must be maintained to process the various material types through the ship building factory. With multiple material types to handle, production also loses the ability to realize a learning curve associated with processing standard material through the system. Minimize Lifting and Lifting and handling of parts is labor intensive and non-value added. Therefore Handling of Parts attempts to minimize the lifting and handling of parts should be carefully considered during the design process. The transportation activity detracts from flow. Designing the parts so that they can be easily transported through the facility should positively impact the overall flow speed of the facility. When a part is too heavy to lift through the normal lifting and transporting process or its shape invokes extra handling requirements, an overburden is placed on production to accommodate the excess lifting and handling requirement. Minimize / Optimize The welding activity is one of the largest contributors to total labor cost, therefore Welding the ability to minimize welding and increase weld efficiency should lead to a reduction in the labor component associated with both structural steel and outfitting work. The design should reflect a build strategy that has minimized the use of out- of-position welding. Efforts to eliminate weld sequence variation should be made in the design process, while maintaining compliance with the regulatory requirements. Standardization of weld requirements over multiple parts will enable the shipyard to realize improvement through an increased utilization of semi- automatic and automated welding equipment. Minimization of manual welding can be achieved through consideration of semi-automatic welders, pipe benders, automated flange welding machines, welding positioners, etc. Simplify Layout and Any activity that doesnt change the form, fit, or function of the product is Measuring considered non-value added. Layout and measuring activities are often necessary to compensate for variation inherent in the labor-intensive ship building process. The ship design can simplify the layout and measuring activity, by minimizing component and part size variation. This will enable manufacturing aids to be customized to mistake-proof the process so that inspections can be eliminated and measurements be made at a glance. Master control lines and reference lines that are marked during the plate cutting process are good examples of how to simplify layout and measuring. Minimize Fabrication / The design and build strategy should be formulated to minimize the complexity of Assembly Complexity the fabrication and assembly process. This is accomplished through an overt attempt during design to limit variation in the fabrication and assembly process. For the hull steel process this could mean limiting the variation of plate thicknesses, which minimizes the need to chamfer the plate. In addition, similar size panels being processed through the panel line contributes to smooth work flow. The design should also minimize the number of jigs and fixtures needed to fabricate hull units. On the outfitting side, this could mean limiting the number of fittings per pipe spool to reduce the number of pipe spools with complex shape which requires strict accuracy control for both fabrication and installation. The design build team should assess current steel and outfitting fabrication and assembly processes with an eye towards simplification that can be institutionalized through the design. A Design for Ergonomics philosophy should be applied to minimize the level of work effort required to perform the fabrication and assembly processes. Optimize for Outfitting Outfitting and assembly should occur as early in the process as possible, to allow and Assembly outfitting to be accomplished when the unit is accessible. To support this goal, the structural and outfitting design processes need to be closely synchronized for each unit, so that the design drawings can be delivered to support the early accomplishment of outfitting. For example, the design group and production group should collaboratively plan for machinery and pipe sub-assemblies so that the appropriate production information can be generated. The ability to preoutfit units can also make a substantial impact on construction schedule, reducing construction cycletime. Apply Shipyard Each shipyard has preferred processes, methods, and techniques associated with Standards their view of shipbuilding. Many of the shipyards have codified these preferences through shipyard standards. Typical shipyard standards for steel include standard profile end cuts, structural brackets, collars, etc. Typical shipyard standards for outfitting could include standard vertical ladders, inclined ladders, louvers, gratings, hatches, manholes, doors, electrical control cables, pipe hangers, HVAC duct hangers, etc. The design should incorporate the shipbuilders standards as much as possible, while maintaining regulatory compliance and customer performance and operation requirements. The designer should apply the shipyard drawing standard that defines the shipyards expectation of what needs to be included on the drawings, specifies the format, naming conventions, Bills of Material, etc to minimize the complexity for the production worker. Simplify Engineering The constraint of shipbuilding is often found to be receiving on-time, quality and Design Process drawings. Therefore, the need to simplify and accelerate the engineering and design process has become critical for the U.S. Shipbuilding Industry. Lean Design techniques should be applied to eliminate wastes inherent to the traditional ship design process. Typical wastes include delays resulting from downtime searching for information or waiting on analysis results. Features are added to the design that customers dont need or havent specified, resulting in over-design. Poor quality designs due to process churn, result in producing product defects. Lean Design reduces delays through fully integrated, synchronized management of all product data and process knowledge. A key component to simplifying the engineering and design process is to have standard engineering processes and a structured repository for all product and process data required in product development, including the wealth of related information needed to execute the standard product development processes. Optimize for When designing systems, the designer should be knowledgeable of the inspection Inspection and Test and test requirements and how system segmentation impacts the ability to optimize tests. The design methodology for systems should include a combination of in- line component tests and system tests to enable testing to be performed as early as possible within the build process, even in the shop fabrication or unit assembly stages, to mitigate risks associated with system performance and schedule delay. 3.1 Implementation Examples As part of this project the shipyards implemented a few DFP principles into existing shipbuilding programs. These examples show the efficacy of DFP principles applied in engineering at the participating shipyards. Each of these examples and the results of implementation were summarized in Fanguy et al. (2008) after the project was completed and are shared here. Grid-Cooler Arrangement and Build Strategy Before: In their initial arrangement, grid cooler location was such that the coolers crossed a master erection butt. Therefore, the grid coolers could not be installed until after the two adjacent units were erected. Because the grid coolers are generally situated on the bottom shell, this meant that the coolers had to be installed in an overhead position, using pad-eyes and chain-falls for the lifting arrangement. In addition, because the shipyard uses stock at the ends of units, and trims to suit during final fit-up of the units, the piping penetration locations for the grid coolers could not be finalized until after the two blocks were joined. The penetrations then had to be manually cut. After: Implementing DFP methodologies, the arrangement was optimized for build strategy considerations. The grid cooler location was revised so that it only spanned one unit. The result was that the grid coolers could be installed at the subassembly stage of construction, while the unit was in the shop, and was accessible by an overhead crane. In addition, because the piping penetration locations were firm, the penetrations could be cut with the plate, using the CNC plate cutting machine. Fig. 1: Before: Grid cooler crossed master butt Fig. 2: After: Grid cooler included on one module Cost Avoidance: There were two of these grid coolers per boat, and the shipyard estimated a projected savings of approximately 1,050 man hours per boat. There was a minimal cost for engineering and drawing changes required to implement this change. Minimizing Total Piece Parts and Welding Before: The steel functional design of the deckhouse structure had already included some instances of using flanged plate parts for some minor bulkheads in lieu of welding plate parts to create small subassemblies. For example, as shown in Fig. 3, the design shows the three minor bulkheads around an outfitting trunk being created from one flanged plate part. This type of arrangement, while viewed as a cost saving opportunity, was not fully implemented in the existing functional design. Fig. 3: Example of Minor Bulkhead using Flanged Plate After: Lessons-learned held with production and engineering personnel after construction of the first in a series of vessels, indicated that there were numerous other instances in the deckhouse design where they could take advantage of using flanged parts in lieu of welding for minor bulkhead subassemblies. One example is shown below. It shows a recessed bulkhead with a door opening. The first boat sub-assembly had four plate parts that were welded together, with an angle backing bar used to facilitate welding of the part in place. Subsequent vessels used a flanged part in lieu of 3 of the 4 parts, and simplified the backing bar arrangement. Cost Avoidance: A total of 12 sub-assemblies were eliminated in the deckhouse design. It is estimated that a savings of 120 man-hours per boat was achieved, with a minimal design change cost. Fig. 4: Before: 5 parts total, welded Fig. 5: After: 3 parts total, flanged 5. Project - Practical Applications of Design for Production The first NSRP project established the value of introducing DFP principles into the engineering process via DFP guidelines, shipyard standards, and DFP manuals. The introduction of documented shipyard standards and preferences, along with a set of DFP manuals, was intended to provide a set of tools which allows junior or inexperienced designers to apply DFP principles to their work. As the workforce available in the US, as in many regions, is an aging workforce these tools were essential to ensure correct implementation of the guidelines. Following the successful completion of the first project it was noted that the tools created still require designers to interpret and apply these principles manually. Leveraging the success of several past NSRP projects, the shipyards involved proposed a following project that would strengthen the DFP specific capabilities of ShipConstructor, the detail design and production software that they use. The team members on the project included Bollinger Shipyards, Inc., VT Halter Marine, Marinette Marine Corporation, Northrop Grumman Ship Systems, ShipConstructor Software USA Inc., ShipConstruc-tor Software Inc., and Genoa Design International Ltd. 5.1 State of Practice To determine the areas of ShipConstructor that could benefit the most from the work done in the first DFP project, a review of the capabilities already available in the software was necessary. The review found that ShipConstructor already offered a degree of capability in many areas that allowed DFP principles to be implemented. Specifically, the principles around Standardization of Material Types, Application of Shipyard Standards, and Optimization for Outfitting and Assembly were well covered by ShipConstructors flexible stock libraries, ability to limit standards based on situational usage (for example endcut standards and stiffener cutouts associatively applied to only specific stiffener stocks), and focus on product driven pre-outfitting within the build strategy respectively. 5.1.1 Simplify Layout and Measuring This is an area where it was determined that improvements to ShipConstructor could see marked decreases in production hours. While ShipConstructor does have many existing features to allow for automatic marking of plates (many of which are shown in Figure X), including associative stiffener marking, bevel marking, marking of the angle between two plates (referred to as the dihedral angle), marking of datum and reference lines, there are additional features that could be added that would extend these capabilities. Fig. 6: Minor assembly with marking These additional capabilities include features commonly used in Japanese shipyards where DFP principles are applied more generously, and effectively, than anywhere else in the world. An example of this type of feature, called Accuracy Control Marks, allows for accurate fit-up between plates, and stiffeners, during assembly. A mark is made on each plate at a set distance from the mark on the other plate. Without referring to any documentation the shipyard worker can make a single measurement that includes the gap between plates and ensure a high degree of dimensional accuracy. Although there was significant benefit to be gained here, many of the enhancements of this type would require changes to the member shipyards current processes which were outside of the scope of this project. Fig. 7: Accuracy control marks used for accurate fit-up 5.2 Improved Practice The areas where the shipyards felt that they could benefit the most from DFP principles in the software involved three of the previously identified guiding principles: Minimization of Total Piece Parts and Welding, Minimization of Fabrication/Assembly Complexity, and the Standardization of Parts. The identified areas were related to the areas in which the shipyards had showcased the application of DFP principles towards the end of the first DFP project. The most significant challenge these shipyards face when trying to implement this type of cost saving measure is in ensuring that less-experienced designers can identify these opportunities and create solutions that take advantage of them. As a result two new modules were identified that, when added to the ShipConstructor software, would provide the largest return. 5.2.1 Standard Assemblies During the first NSRP project on DFP a practical example of applying these guidelines minimized the overall complexity and number of parts in a single commonly used subassembly and saved over 120 man-hours per vessel as a result. Many similar types of sub-assemblies were identified that represent similar cost savings. Fig. 8: Inner bottom panel defined as a standard assembly The first deliverable proposed as part of this project was a new software module called Standard Assemblies. A Standard Assembly is defined as a part, or set of parts, including Structure, Pipe, HVAC and Equipment components defined once and used repeatedly throughout the detail design of a vessel. The definition of a Standard Assembly includes both the 3D model of the assembly as well as the specific assembly sequence to be used each time the assembly is used in the 3D product model. This module allowed experienced designers to build a library of commonly used parts, assemblies, and components that can be consumed by less experience designers. These assemblies can be moved between one vessel and the next, allowing for significant reuse of this captured knowledge. Reusing portions of the detail design across shipbuilding programs increases the degree of repeatability during the build process of vessels. Increased repeatability reduces the amount of training required across vessels and once again reduces the number of hours spent in production. The effort by experienced designers to introduce DFP principles into a detail design, thereby reducing the number of parts or complexity of a given assembly, can be used over and over by less experienced designers. When used correctly this process creates significant cost savings due to reduced production labor, but also significantly reduces the time required to model the portions of the vessel where these Standard Assemblies are used. In addition, a Standard Assembly does not only consist of the 3D product model for the assembly. The assembly sequence required to correctly fabricate the assembly is maintained along with the 3D model information. This ensures that the knowledge capture from the experienced designer, when utilized by a less experienced designer in a vessel, includes both the model and the intended assembly sequence for the piece parts. A key requirement of the Standard Assemblies module, and all ShipConstructor software, is the ability to associatively update all instances of the Standard Assembly when the standard itself changes. This requirement was set to allow the shipyards to respond to changes in applied DFP principles, in shipyard constraints and capabilities, and as the designers improve on the overall design of the vessels. 5.2.2 Improved Pipe Supports Another area was identified where an extremely low degree of standardization, little use of documented shipyard preferences, and a high degree of assembly complexity was causing a significantly higher than necessary amount of production work. The culprit was complex supports for piping systems throughout the vessel. Each situation where a support is required, for one or many pipes, is slightly different. This often results in a completely different support arrangement for each situation. Different material types are used for the doublers, legs and cross tiers for each support. Different endcut and cutout standards are applied to each of the elements in the support depending on the preferences of the designer. A different configuration is created for each support with insufficient thought to the variety that production will see. Fig. 9: Improved pipe supports in a ShipConstructor model However, because every situation is different, a system was required that would allow for standardization on configurations, material types, and production standards without imposing too many constraints on the resulting supports. As a result the project team proposed the creation of a DFP-based Pipe Supports module. The requirement to improve the use of shipyard standards, and material types across various situations where pipe supports are required led to the creation of Pipe Support Templates. A Pipe Support Template is the definition of the required elements, including endcuts, doubler plates, and material types to be used, to build a support when it is applied in a specific situation. Five different categories of templates were identified to ensure that the software being developed handled the majority of cases required by the shipyards. Upon insertion into the 3D model the pipe support, derived from the selected template, has the required cutouts, endcuts, trims and materials required to produce each one of the components required. In addition each of the components can be included in ShipConstructors usual array of production output including plate and profile nesting, profile plots, assembly drawings and more. Fig. 10: Several Pipe Supports derived from the same support template Fig. 11: Generated pipe support construction drawing To ensure that the standardization added to the design of pipe supports was correctly leveraged by the shipyard, a final requirement of the new software was the addition of functionality to generate template driven, construction drawings for the supports. The drawings needed to be automatically dimensioned, and annotated based on the shipyards requirements. Complete bills of materials on each drawing were required that would facilitate the fabrication of the support. 6. Conclusions Based on a study comparing the capabilities of US shipyards to those abroad, it was found that the lack of DFP principles applied in engineering was a significant factor in the higher cost of building a vessel in the US. A series of projects was proposed that would allow US shipyards to investigate and implement DFP principles, both into existing practices and into the software tools they use for detail design. These projects, now successfully completed will help US shipyards to product vessels at lower cost for domestic commercial and naval markets and is a step towards international competitiveness. References FANGUY, D.; DLUGOKECKI, V.; HEPINSTALL, L. (2008), Leading the Way for Mid-Tier Shipyards to Implement Design for Production Methodologies LAMB, T. (1986) Engineering for Ship Production, A Textbook, The National Shipbuilding Research Program, pp. 16 NN (2007), Findings for the Global Shipbuilding Industrial Base Benchmarking Study, Part 2: Mid-tier Shipyards, First Marine International