Acquisition Research SymposiumNaval Postgraduate School
REDUCING WORK CONTENT IN EARLY STAGE NAVAL SHIP DESIGNS
Robert G. Keane, Jr., Ship Design USA, Inc.Laury Deschamps, SPAR Associates, Inc.Steve Maguire, First Marine International
May 14, 2014
The views expressed herein are those of the authors only and may not represent those of any DoD organization or program.
Report Documentation Page Form ApprovedOMB No. 0704-0188Public reporting burden for the collection of information is estimated to average 1 hour per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering andmaintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information,including suggestions for reducing this burden, to Washington Headquarters Services, Directorate for Information Operations and Reports, 1215 Jefferson Davis Highway, Suite 1204, ArlingtonVA 22202-4302. Respondents should be aware that notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person shall be subject to a penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information if itdoes not display a currently valid OMB control number.
1. REPORT DATE 14 MAY 2014 2. REPORT TYPE
3. DATES COVERED 00-00-2014 to 00-00-2014
4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE Reducing Work Content in Early Stage Naval Ship Designs
5a. CONTRACT NUMBER
5b. GRANT NUMBER
5c. PROGRAM ELEMENT NUMBER
6. AUTHOR(S) 5d. PROJECT NUMBER
5e. TASK NUMBER
5f. WORK UNIT NUMBER
7. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) Ship Design USA, Inc,4913 Red Hill Rd,Keedysville,MD,21756
8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATIONREPORT NUMBER
9. SPONSORING/MONITORING AGENCY NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) 10. SPONSOR/MONITOR’S ACRONYM(S)
11. SPONSOR/MONITOR’S REPORT NUMBER(S)
12. DISTRIBUTION/AVAILABILITY STATEMENT Approved for public release; distribution unlimited
13. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
14. ABSTRACT
15. SUBJECT TERMS
16. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF: 17. LIMITATION OF ABSTRACT Same as
Report (SAR)
18. NUMBEROF PAGES
31
19a. NAME OFRESPONSIBLE PERSON
a. REPORT unclassified
b. ABSTRACT unclassified
c. THIS PAGE unclassified
Standard Form 298 (Rev. 8-98) Prescribed by ANSI Std Z39-18
2
The Problem
AT&L (2013) analyses of cost and schedule growth on Major Defense Acquisition Programs (MDAPs) over last 20 years:
– Premature contracting without understanding design issues greatly affects contract work content and cost growth
– Early work content stability predicts lower total cost, work content, and schedule growths
– Contract work content growth dominates total cost growth– Cost‐over‐target reflects poor performance, poor estimation,
or faulty framing assumptions
The Problem: Contract Work Content Growth
3
r LE TOt_ A B c FOC
TECHtOLOGY 'C DEVELOP EtfT
:F.igu e . i' , esig ~n. & A q _ ·siti ~on P · ess Compared · ~he IO.efe~nse Acqui:sitt,o · · ,ystem Liii e Cy~c:l
4
Contract Cost Growth on Navy Ship Development Contracts (MS B – C)
• AT&L found a statistically significant UndefinitizedContract Action (UCA) effect • UCA pertains to contract action for which contract terms are not agreed before performance is begun
• UCAs had a measurable increase on total contract cost growth and also on cycle time
• AT&L warned it could indicate an area of caution and attention for the Navy
For ship development contracts, UCA effects, or contract work content growth, were significant!
5
Contract Cost Growth on Early Production Contracts (Post MS C)
• For total cost growth from 1992–2011: • “The dominant statistical correlate of total cost
growth was work content growth (as reflected in a higher contract target cost), which explained 95 percent of the variation in the data.”
• Concurrent production when designs are unstable can impose added retrofit costs for early production products
AT&L case of early production contract cost growth due to “work added later”: a DDG-51 contract
6
First Ship Engineering MH / LT vs. Outfit Density
Mid course change in the DDG 51 class
design tool increased hours due to
redesign efforts
Future DDG
2.6
LHA 1LHD 1
LPD 17
MLP 2B
MLP 3MLP 2A
LOG-RO/RORO/RO
AVIATIONDISTRIBUTED
T-AKE 1
LHAR
DD(X) Navy
CG 47
FFG 7
DDG 51
0
200
400
600
800
1,000
1,200
1,400
1,600
2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 9.0Outfit Density (lbs/cu ft)
Hybrid Designs Commercial Designs
Military Designs - Combatants
Military Designs - Amphibs
Legacy Hulls (Return Data)Navy Program EstimatesMPF(F) Notional Designs (Estimated Data)
Firs
t Shi
p En
g H
ours
/ LT
7
Ships Possessing Greater Density Increase Production Cost
Ship Production hours increase with density and fall into predictable groupings.
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 9.0
Combatant Designs
Hybrid Designs
Commercial DesignsLegacy Hulls (Return Data)MPF(F) Notional Designs (Estimated Data)
Future L-ShipLHD
LSD
LPD
LMSR FLO/FLO 3
FLO/FLO 2FLO/FLO 1
DISTRIBUTED
AVIATIONLOG-RO/RO
RO/RO
LHA
AOE
Auxiliary / Amphibs Designs
Future DDG
CG
DDG
FFG
Nor
mal
ized
Firs
t Shi
p Pr
oduc
tion
(Hou
rs /
LT)
Outfit Density (lbs / cu ft)
Naval Ships Unnecessarily Cost Too Much to Design and Build• Cost growth on development contracts correlates
strongly with cost growth on production contracts
• NAVSEA Cost Group states Ship Production hours increase with ship outfit density
• National Shipbuilding Research Program report (NSRP, 2011) criticizes US naval ships for:• early design decisions that lock in density• poor arrangements of piping and ventilation
8
An overly dense ship with resulting complexity imbeds unnecessary work content in design
A SOLUTION: DESIGN OUT COMPLEXITY EARLY
• Lack of understanding of complexity and how to address complexity during early stage design
• Factors that influence product complexity: • number of components, • number of interactions/connections, • number of subassemblies, • geometry, shape, size, accessibility
• Need measures/methods to assess complexity during Design Space Exploration (DSE)
9
DENSITY : best measure to use to reduce total-ship complexity during DSE in concept design
Outfit Density as a Measure of Complexity
• LT Grant (NPS, 2008) found density is sufficient measure of tightness of ship arrangements
• Based on examination of density as it relates to work content and cost, Grant concludes: • weight-reduction efforts to reduce cost often
result in opposite effect;• unnecessarily dense designs inevitably result
in increased cost, schedule, performance risks
10
DENSITY represents significant and under-emphasized driver of historic cost growth
Impacts of Unnecessarily High Outfit Density • Design tends to have more interferences, rework
• Work sequencing more difficult to plan, schedule
• Negative impacts compounded when combined with weight saving thin steel:• Constraints on penetration locations resulting in
inefficient routing of distributive systems• Distortion and distortion removal impact outfitting • Delays and rework to paint and insulation• Impact on items requiring completion of paint and
insulation behind them before their installation
11
When productivity decreases, labor hours increase
Impact of Outfit Density on Ship Construction Work Content• European ship designers actively promote benefits of
designing larger hulls (Gelling et al, 2010): • Better accommodate equipment and outfit systems• Better accommodate Service-Life Allowances for
future upgrades • Reduce construction work content by making
installation of equipment and systems easier • Improve access to systems during operations,
maintenance and repair
12
Need a Process-Based not Weight-Based Cost Model to Account for Density and Work Content
Benefits of Reduced Outfit Density on Cost: A Demonstration
• Evaluated impact of ship density on production hours, material costs and total construction cost
• Based on comprehensive libraries of cost data for medium and high speed naval vessels
• Cost models produce estimates of shipyard manpower requirements by basic trades
• For concept design, cost model substitutes values based on analyses of existing ship designs
13
Product-Oriented Design And Construction (PODAC) Process-Based Cost Model Used
Shipbuilding Productivity Factors
• Developed 4 types of productivity factors for specific ship construction circumstances:
technical support (detail design) structural manufacturing and assembly work outfit manufacturing and assembly work material costs
• Determined productivity factors for different ship types
• Plotted those against density factor for those same ships
• Developed formula that approximates the correlation curve
14
Produced figure showing predicted impact of outfit density on labor productivity
15
- - " ·O -u t!!l ... > -:2 -- ----u = "C 0 '-~
..1:::: '- L ; ,_ -= a ~
A ROM Parametric Ship Concept Study with PODAC Cost Model
16
• Varied length from 135 to 160 meters; baseline was 150
• Maintained other principal characteristics (e.g., speed)
• Structures changed with length (superstructure the same)
• Propulsion was variable, expecting with longer length, less power to maintain same speed
• Auxiliary systems followed propulsion system requirements
• General outfit the same except for hull insulation & coatings
Plots of Density and Corresponding Labor Hour Multiplier Versus Length Show Lengthening the Hull Can Result In Lower Labor Hours
17
Lengthening The Hull Results In
Lower Labor Hours
18
Lengthening USN ships should result in more impressive cost savings
Since USN shipstwice as denseas baseline ship
MAJOR CONCLUSIONS
AT&L finding about contract work content growth combined with results of ROM parametric study:
• density impact on cost important to model early in sizing ship during concept design
• further work needs to relate density to Cost Estimating Relationships (CERs)
• a PODAC process-based cost model needs to be integrated with Navy early stage ship design tools• Rapid Ship Design Environment - RSDE• Advanced Ship & Sub Evaluation Tool – ASSET• Leading Edge Architecture for Prototyping Sys-LEAPS
19
LEAPS ToolsetDesign Tools Analysis Tools
NCCMCost Model
LEAPSProduct Model
• Generic Class Structure
• Product Model Schema– NAVSEA Ship Focus Object
Model
• Product Model Data
T
LEAPS Product Model
Presentation Manager
SHCP/LIntact and Damaged Stability
ASSET ShipShip Synthesis
ASSET SubSubmarine Synthesis
CADImport using STEP or IGES
ISACompartment Arrangement
LEAPS Editor
In Development ExistingBeta Code
T
IHDEResistance and Seakeeping CFD
Planned
EMATManpower Estimation
MS Excel
PBCMEarly Stage Cost Model
Database
VERESSeakeeping CFDRSDE
Toolset Executive, Design Space Exploration and Optimization
LAMPSeakeeping CFD
FKSResistance CFD
SMPSeakeeping CFD
SWPEResistance CFD
TSDResistance CFD
ASAPVulnerability Analysis
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
CREATE-SHIPS Project, DoD High Performance Computing Modernization Program (HPCMP)
• Computational Research & Engineering Acquisition Tools & Environments (CREATE)-SHIPS:– Build on NAVSEA’s LEAPS Product Model and ASSET
Total Ship Synthesis Tool – Replace empirical design with validated physics-based
computational design – Detect and fix design flaws early in design process– Develop optimized designs for new concepts– Begin system integration earlier in acquisition process– Increase acquisition program flexibility and agility to
respond to rapidly changing requirements
NDIA CREATE-SHIPS- Hurwitz 4/20/11 Page-22 Distribution Statement A Applies, see cover page for specifics
Design Space Exploration via HPCMP CREATE-Ships RSDE
Generating The Space
Concept Comparison
Select window and type to add message.
View / EditThresholds Update Save As Exit
T45 #1 T45 #2 T45 #3
HPC Enables Exhaustive Exploration by:
and Visualization
Exploring The Space
Evaluating The Space
From…Limited
Investigation of relatively few Design
Points
To… Full
Investigation of Concepts throughout the Design
Space
The Way Ahead
• Integrate PODAC model in LEAPS, store results in LEAPS, make work content part of design optimization, RSDE
• Explore wide range of design options to evaluate impact upon detail design and construction (DD&C) work content
• Relate outfit density computations to outfit productivity • Calculate ship outfit density in ASSET, group by ship type
and plot against man-hours for DD&C • Organize actual man-hour data for range of ships into a
relational data base • Establish ship outfit density as discriminator in early stage
naval ship design to reduce DD&C work content
23“Steel is cheap and air is free!” Director, Damen Schelde
BACK UP
24
25
Outfit Density vs. Lightship Weight(circa 2007)
DD(X)’s internal volume provides less density than most major combatants
Legacy Hulls (Return Data)Navy Program DesignsMPF(F) Notional Designs (Estimated Data)Future DDG
2.6
DDX
DDG 52MHC 51
FFG 7
DDG 51DDG 95
CG 47
LSD 41
LSD 49
LPD 17
AOE 6
LHA 1LHD 1
DISTRIBUTEDAVIATIONRO/RO
LOG-RO/RO
MLP 2AMLP 2B
MLP 3
T-AKE 1LHAR
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
7.0
8.0
9.0
0 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000 30,000 35,000 40,000Lightship Weight (LT)
Out
fit D
ensi
ty (l
bs/c
u ft)
Complex Combatants
Hybrid Auxiliary
Military Design
Commercial Design
Legacy Hulls (Return Data)MPF(F) Notional Designs (Estimated Data)
26
First Ship Production MH / LTvs. Lightship Weight
• Navy PLCCE Hrs/LT statistically significant with historical lead ship performance…warts and all!• DDG 51 anomaly due to lead ship redesign and 65% ramp up in shipyard personnel during construction.
Future DDG
CG 47
DDG 52
DDG 51
FFG 7
LSD 41
LSD 49
LHD 1LHA 1
LPD 17
T-AKE 1
LHAR
DD(X) Navy
DD(X) CAIG
0 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000 30,000 35,000 40,000
Lightship Weight (LT)
Prod
uctio
n M
H/L
T
Commercialr2 = TBD
Auxiliariesr2 = 0.870
Combatants/ Amphibs r2 = 0.875 w/o DDG51r2 = 0.642 w DDG51
MILITA
RY
HYB
RID
CO
MM
ERC
IAL
LMSR
Delivered Hulls (Return Data)Estimated DataNavy Programs
CREATE- SHIPS Denver211/14/11 Page-27
Distribution Statement
RSDE - Product Architecture
LEAPS Database
Rapid Ship Design EnvironmentGUI
apid Ship Design EnvironmentGUI
ASSETSynthesis
Hull Form Gen/Trans
IHDEHydrodynamic
ISAArrangement
SHCP-L Stability
Behavior Objects
FloodingBehaviors
StructuresBehaviors
SeakeepingBehaviors
StabilityBehaviors
GEML KernelNURBSMathRadial Basis
MathKriging
MathNeural Net
Math
Execution EngineMulti-Discipline Optimization Design Space Exploration
ResistanceBehaviors
Hull Form Geometry
Arrangement Geometry
LEAPS API and Toolkits
Design Data Sets
BehaviorMan TktHulltran Tkt Hullgen TktSHCP-L Tkt
StructureGeometry
SubdivisionGeometry
Importance of Flexible Ships: Selecting a Hull Sized Appropriately• Damen Sigma Class modular design philosophy:
• “Oversized” hulls to reduce installation, operations and maintenance costs• Increasing hull length by 20% only increases
building cost by 1-3%. • Cost of larger hull far offset by savings for
installation of equipment and distributive systems• Customizations by configuring essentially different
ships from standard components
• Flexibility must start at ship concept design
28
Value-Added Design Philosophy: Rigorous Exploration of Larger Design Solution Space
Need for Physics-Based Design Tools in Early Stage Ship Design
• Earlier versions of Navy’s Advanced Ship & Sub Evaluation Tool (ASSET) synthesis model inadequately addressed • Arrangements Seakeeping• Damage Stability Structures
• Leading Edge Architecture for Prototyping Systems (LEAPS) developed to integrate physics-based tools in a common data environment
• Rapid Ship Design Environment (RSDE) being developed by HPCMP-CREATE Program integrates ASSET & LEAPS for exploring trade space leading to large set of designs
29
RSDE not based on single concept design points such as traditional design spiral method
30
SHIP AVG WeightedQty (Qty) by Cost
1980s Reagan Build-up 14 10% 1%1990/2000s Low Rate Production 5 50% 20%Overall 19 20% 21%
Navy historically UNDER estimates lead ships by ~20%...
SHIP AVG Weighted(Qty) by Cost
1980s Reagan Build-up 129 -9% -5%1990/2000s Low Rate Production 76 4% 1%Overall 205 -4% -6%
Navy historically OVER estimates follow ships by ~6%...
Ship Cost History since 1980
Once the Navy has REALIZED the cost of its warships, they have delivered under the original budget set two years before award.
So when does cost realism become cost growth?
Importance of Design Team Experience on Acquisition Outcomes
SHIPS AVG WeightedQty Growth by Cost
1980s Reagan Build-up 14 10% 1%1990/2000s Low Rate Production 5 50% 20%
Navy historically UNDER estimates lead ship cost growth
Contract No. of Designed Type Ships by
1980s Reagan Build-up Fixed Price Plus Many NAVSEA1990/2000s Low Rate Production Cost Plus Few Contractors
Outcomes far better with an experienced NAVSEA Design Team
Lead Ship Cost History Since 1980
Many factors affect Lead Ship Cost, but obviously theExperience of the Design Team is a major factor.