Textbookrevcsmall

MARINE VEHICLE WEIGHT ENGINEERING
DR AF
DR AF T
MARINE VEHICLE WEIGHT ENGINEERING

Draft Version 091206
DR
AF
Rev C
Published by the Society of Allied Weight Engineers
A Typeset on a Mac using L TEX and TEXShop using Donald E. Knuths Computer Modern Font
Copyright
2005, 2006 by the Society of Allied Weight Engineers (SAWE Inc.)

All rights reserved. Printed in the United States of America.
No part of this book may be used or reproduced in any manner whatsoever without written permission except in the case of brief quotations embodied in critical articles and reviews. Permission to publish this text, in full or part, with full credit to the authors and the Society may be obtained by request to:
DR
The Society is not responsible for statements or opinions in this text.
AF
Marine Vehicle Weight Engineering SAWE Inc. 2131 Tevis Ave Long Beach, CA 90815-3352 www.sawe.org ISBN 9-9999-9999-9 First Printing
DR
i
The Society of Allied Weight Engineers (SAWE), formerly the Society of Aeronautical Weight Engineers, was organized by a small group of weight engineers in Los Angeles, California, and was incorporated as a non-prot organization April 2, 1941. The Society has grown in prominence through the years and has members from throughout the United States and in many other countries. Aircraft, missile, space, electronics, measuring equipment, software development, land vehicle, and marine industries are now represented, thus the name change to Allied. The purpose of the SAWE is to promote the recognition of weight engineering (mass properties) as a specialized branch in engineering, to exchange weight information and technology improvements of benet to all members, and to promote the education of current and future weight engineers. This textbook has been prepared in an eort to support these goals and to document, for the rst time, how weight engineering is accomplished in the marine eld. This textbook has been written and edited on a volunteer basis by SAWE members who are leaders in the marine industry and represent both government and private concerns. Though a vitally important eld, weight engineering is not included in most undergraduate engineering curriculum and those pursuing this engineering specialty as a career are provided on-the-job training or, in some rare instances, formal training courses provided by their employer. In either case, no formal textbook for weight engineering in the marine eld has been available for training or reference. This textbook is intended to ll that void and has been designed so that it can be used at academic institutions to further familiarize the undergraduate with the weight engineering eld, and by organizations as a resource for informal or formal training.
AF
Preface
Revised 8-29-06, Tellet
ii
Notes for Textbook Committee and Authors:

This is Revision C of the textbook (the bound copy is Revision A). Additional and edited material in the book is labeled with red margin notes. The greatest changes from the initial Revision A bound copies are:
the rearrangement of chapters the addition of a Naval Architecture chapter (chapter 2 - essentially complete) the addition of a Weight Control Plan chapter (chapter 5 )
the addition of an Acquisition Process chapter (chapter 3 - partially complete) the combination of parts of the old chapters 3, 7, and 8 into the new chapter 4.
revised examples; additional examples the addition of section 17.3 additions to chapter 1
revised preface (this will probably be revised again)
addition of the parametrics section to chapter 8 (text still incomplete - gures likely to change with more data) additions to chapter 6
DR
In addition, there have been many small editorial (typos, tenses, etc.) changes that do not aect content and therefore are not marked. This revision does not show the nal placement of gures and tablesthat will be done after all the content is received and edited and all other corrections made. So dont worry about it now unless there is a gure or table that has to be a certain place. Also, there will likely be changes to section titles to clean up hyphenation etc.we will do this after all other editing. The index is also not complete and is being updated continuously. If there is a glaring omission in the index, let us know. To make it easier to navigate, all references within the text are hyperlinked to the respective gures, tables, citations, and other sections. The table of contents, gures, and tables is fully hyperlinked so you can just click on a title and you will go to that section.
AF
revised reference section
Editors
Dominick Cimino Project Lead David Tellet
Senior Advisor
Lou Lucero
Textbook Committee
Dominick Cimino Bill Boze Mark Redmond David Tellet Alan Titcomb
Contributing Authors
Jerey Bowles Andy Breuer Paul Brown Keith Carter Dominick Cimino Michael Cosgrove George Cebra Dan Dolan Chris Filiopoulos Tamara Garrett Donnie Hodges
DR
Leonard Mitchell Dean Royal David Tellet Alan Titcomb Burton Walker iii
AF
Acknowledgments
iv
DR AF T
2 Naval Architecture 2.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.2 Standard Reference Systems . . . . . . . . . . 2.2.1 U.S. Customary Station 0 at FP . . . 2.2.2 European Customary Station 0 at AP 2.3 Standard Loading Conditions . . . . . . . . . 2.3.1 Condition A . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.3.2 Condition D . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.3.3 Other Loading Conditions . . . . . . . 2.4 Displacement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.5 Stability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.6 Eects of Weight Changes . . . . . . . . . . . 2.6.1 Displacement change . . . . . . . . . . 2.6.2 KG Change . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.6.3 Stability Change . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.6.4 Trim Change . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.7 Free Surface Eect . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . v
DR
AF
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1 Introduction 1.1 Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.2 Purpose of Textbook . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.3 What are Marine Vehicles? . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.4 History of Weight Control . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.5 Importance of Weight Engineering . . . . . . . . 1.6 Weight Characteristics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.7 Impact on Ship Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.7.1 Stability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.7.2 Speed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.7.3 Strength . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.8 Impact on Ship Acquisition and Operating Costs 1.9 Careers in Weight Engineering . . . . . . . . . . 1.10 Weight Engineering Education . . . . . . . . . .
T
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Contents
. . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . .
1 1 1 1 2 4 5 6 6 6 6 7 7 8 9 9 9 9 10 11 11 11 11 14 14 16 16 16 16 17 17
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
vi 3 Ship Acquisition Process 3.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.2 Early Requirements Development and Planning . . . . . . . . . . . 3.2.1 Exploratory Design and Force Architecture Studies . . . . . 3.2.2 Joint Capabilities Integration and Development . . . . . . . 3.3 Concept Renement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.4 Preliminary and Contract Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.4.1 Preliminary Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.4.2 Contract Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.5 Production and Deployment - Detail Design and Ship Construction
CONTENTS 19 19 20 20 21 21 23 23 23 26 29 29 29 29 30 33 35 35 37 37 37 38 43 44 44 46 47 47 47 47 48 49 50 69 69 69 70 70 70 70 71 71 72
5 Weight Control Program 5.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . 5.2 Weight Control Plan . . . . . 5.2.1 General . . . . . . . . 5.3 Plan Components . . . . . . . 5.4 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . 5.5 Weight Control Plan Example
DR
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
AF
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4 Weight Control Processes 4.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.2 Concept, Feasibility, and Preliminary Design Phases . . . . . . . . . . 4.2.1 Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.2.2 Concept/Feasibility Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.2.3 Preliminary Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.3 Contract Design Phase . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.3.1 Weight Considerations during Contract Design . . . . . . . . . 4.4 Detail Design and Construction Phases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.4.1 Weight Considerations during Detail Design and Construction 4.4.2 Customers Requirements for Detail Design and Construction . 4.4.3 Performance Incentive Concepts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.4.4 Weight Considerations during Construction . . . . . . . . . . . 4.5 Post-Construction Phases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.5.1 Later Phases of the Weight Control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.5.2 Weight Considerations during In-Service . . . . . . . . . . . . .
T
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
6 Management of Mass Properties 6.1 Weight Classication Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.1.1 ESWBS (U.S. Navy) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.1.2 MARAD (U.S. Commercial) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.2 Accounting and Reporting Systems Computer Applications 6.2.1 Software Selection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.2.2 Database Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.2.3 Viewing Weights Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.2.4 Weight Reporting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.3 Weight Control Contract Clause . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . .
CONTENTS 6.4 Standards Organizations . 6.4.1 SAWE . . . . . . . 6.4.2 SNAME . . . . . . 6.4.3 ASNE . . . . . . . 6.4.4 ABS . . . . . . . . 6.4.5 Det Norske Veritas 6.4.6 ASTM . . . . . . . Weight Control in a Team . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Environment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
vii 73 73 74 75 75 76 76 77 79 79 79 80 80 80 84 84 84 84 85 85 85 85 86 86 87 87 88
6.5
8 Weight Estimating 8.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.2 Weight and CG Estimating . . . . . . . . . . 8.3 Basic Weight Estimating Elements . . . . . . 8.3.1 Weight Control . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.3.2 Calibrated Methods . . . . . . . . . . 8.3.3 Database . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.3.4 System Knowledge . . . . . . . . . . . 8.3.5 Design History . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.4 Parametrics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.4.1 General . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.4.2 Group 1 - Hull Structure . . . . . . . 8.4.3 Group 2 - Propulsion . . . . . . . . . . 8.4.4 Group 3 - Electric Plant . . . . . . . . 8.4.5 Group 4 - Command and Surveillance 8.4.6 Group 5 - Auxiliary Systems . . . . . 8.4.7 Group 6 - Outt and Furnishings . . .
DR
7 Acquisition Margins and Service Life Allowances 7.1 General Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.2 Considerations for U.S. Navy Surface Ships . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.2.1 Acquisition Weight and KG Margin Values . . . . . . . . . . 7.2.2 Service Life Allowances (SLA) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.3 Acquisition Margins for Weight and KG Feasibility Level . . . . . 7.4 Administration of Acquisition Margins . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.4.1 New Designs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.4.2 Conversions and Modernizations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.4.3 Modied Repeat . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.5 Service Life Allowances for weight and KG . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.5.1 New Designs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.5.2 Conversions and Modernizations and modied repeat designs 7.5.3 Reporting Service Life Allowances . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.6 Weight and Moment Compensation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.6.1 Stability Status Factors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.6.2 Stability and Buoyancy Margins . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.6.3 Stability Status Denition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.6.4 Service Life Weight Control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
T
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
AF
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
91 . 91 . 91 . 91 . 92 . 92 . 92 . 92 . 92 . 92 . 92 . 95 . 95 . 95 . 100 . 101 . 101
viii 8.4.8 Group 7 - Armament . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.4.9 Variable Loads . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.4.10 Light Ship and Full Load . . . . . . . . . 8.4.11 Data Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . Ratiocination . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.5.1 Application to Individual Weight Groups 8.5.2 Denitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.5.3 Group 1 - Hull Structure . . . . . . . . . 8.5.4 Group 2 - Propulsion . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.5.5 Group 3 - Electric Plant . . . . . . . . . . 8.5.6 Group 4 - Command and Surveillance . . 8.5.7 Group 5 - Auxiliary Systems . . . . . . . 8.5.8 Group 6 - Outt and Furnishings . . . . . 8.5.9 Group 7 - Armament . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.5.10 Variable Loads . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Other Weight Estimating Methods . . . . . . . . 8.6.1 Baseline . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.6.2 Statistical . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.6.3 Volumetric Density . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.6.4 Deck Area Fraction . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.6.5 Top Down Method . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.6.6 Bottom Up Method . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.6.7 Midship Extrapolation Method . . . . . . 8.6.8 Percent Complete . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.6.9 Synthesis Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.6.10 Factoring Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . Weight Moment of Inertia/Gyradius . . . . . . . 8.7.1 Weight Moment of Inertia . . . . . . . . . 8.7.2 Gyradius . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.7.3 Gyradius Estimated Values . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
CONTENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102 102 103 104 105 105 107 107 110 113 113 113 114 114 114 123 123 123 123 123 124 124 124 124 124 125 125 126 126 127 129 129 129 132 134 136 138 141 141 147
8.5
8.6
9 Weight Calculation 9.1 Background and Purpose . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.2 Estimation of Weight and CG from Diagrams . . . . . . 9.3 Calculation of Weight and CG from Drawings . . . . . . 9.4 Calculation of Weight and CG from Product Models . . 9.5 Calculation of Weight and CG for Change Orders . . . . 9.6 Calculation of Weight and CG to Support Construction 9.7 Example Problems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.7.1 Example 1. Eect of Added Weight . . . . . . . 9.7.2 Example 2. Ballast Determination . . . . . . . .
DR
8.7
AF
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
T
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . .
CONTENTS 10 Weighing 10.1 Background and Purpose . . . . . . . . . . 10.2 Denition of a Weighed Weight . . . . . . 10.3 Elements of an Eective Weighing Program 10.4 Vendor Weights . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10.5 Weighing Equipment . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10.6 Equipment Calibration . . . . . . . . . . . .
ix 153 153 153 154 155 156 158 161 161 162 164 164 165 167 167 169 171 171 172 174 181 182 184 187 187 187 188 188 188 189 189 190 190 191 191 193 193 194 195 195 195 195 196
12 Weight Improvement Programs 12.1 Background and Purpose . . . . . . . . . . 12.2 Detecting an Adverse Trend . . . . . . . . . 12.3 Weight Improvement Process . . . . . . . . 12.4 Common Weight Improvement Strategies . 12.5 Examples of Weight Improvement Programs 12.6 Summary and Lessons Learned . . . . . . .
AF
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
11 Vendor Weight Control 11.1 Purpose and General Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . 11.2 Ship Equipment and Material Supply Chain . . . . . . 11.3 Mass Properties Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11.4 Weight Criticality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11.5 Identication of Appropriate Weight Control Measures 11.6 Implementation of Vendor Weight Control . . . . . . . 11.7 Special Applications of Vendor Weight Control . . . . 11.8 Cost of Weight Control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
T
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
13 Ship Weight Measurement 13.1 Purpose . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13.2 General Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13.3 Calculating Inclining Experiment Data . . . . . . . . . 13.4 Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13.5 Data Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13.6 Reports . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13.6.1 Preliminary Report . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13.6.2 Reports, Booklet of Inclining Experiment Data 13.7 Inclining Experiment Preparation and Procedure . . . 13.7.1 Free Surface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13.7.2 Ship Conditions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13.8 Conducting the Inclining Experiment . . . . . . . . . . 13.8.1 Inventory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13.8.2 Draft Readings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13.8.3 Water Density . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13.8.4 Inclining Weights . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13.8.5 Tangent Readings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13.8.6 Plot of Tangents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13.8.7 Sally Test . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
DR
x 13.8.8 Submarine Trim Dives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13.9 Contents of Inclining Experiment Report (Part 1) . . . 13.9.1 General Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13.9.2 Boats and Ballast . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13.9.3 Light Ship . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13.9.4 Changes in Condition A . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13.9.5 As-Inclined Condition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13.9.6 Condition A . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13.9.7 Weight Movements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13.9.8 Plot of Tangents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13.9.9 Inventory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13.9.10 Tanks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13.9.11 Hull Prole . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13.9.12 Condition A Calculations . . . . . . . . . . . . 13.10 Contents of Inclining Experiment Report, Part 2 . . . 13.10.1 General Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13.10.2 Loading Conditions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13.10.3 Excessive Trim in Loading Conditions . . . . . 13.10.4 Displacement and Other Curves . . . . . . . . 13.10.5 Cross Curves of Stability . . . . . . . . . . . . 13.10.6 Diagram Showing Location of Draft Marks . . 13.10.7 Approximate Change in Metacentric Height . 13.10.8 Summary of Load Items . . . . . . . . . . . . 13.10.9 Details of Load Items . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13.10.10 Correction to Righting Arms for Free Surface 13.10.11 Tank Capacities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13.10.12 Compartment Capacities . . . . . . . . . . . . 13.10.13 Table of Frame Spacing . . . . . . . . . . . . 13.10.14 Remarks and Miscellaneous Calculations . . . 13.11 Inclining Experiment Accuracy . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13.11.1 Accuracy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13.12 General Inclining Guidance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13.12.1 Planning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13.12.2 Conducting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13.13 Example Problems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13.13.1 Example 1. As-Inclined Condition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
CONTENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 198 198 198 198 199 199 199 199 199 200 200 200 200 200 200 201 201 201 201 201 201 202 202 202 203 203 203 203 203 203 203 204 204 205 207 207 213 213 214 214 214 215 215 215 216
14 Economics of Mass Properties 14.1 Background and Purpose . . . . . . 14.2 Methods of Determining the Value of 14.2.1 Method 1 . . . . . . . . . . . 14.2.2 Method 2 . . . . . . . . . . . 14.2.3 Method 3 . . . . . . . . . . . 14.2.4 Method 4 . . . . . . . . . . . 14.2.5 Method 5 . . . . . . . . . . . 14.2.6 Method 6 . . . . . . . . . . .
DR
AF
. . . . . . a Pound . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
T
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
CONTENTS
xi
14.3 Use of Mass Properties Data in Cost Estimating . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 216 14.4 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 216 15 Risk Assessment 15.1 Denition of Risk . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15.2 Program and Project Risk Management . 15.3 Weight and CG Risk Management Process 15.4 Risk Assessment Levels . . . . . . . . . . 15.5 Risk Assessment Methods . . . . . . . . . 15.6 Reporting and Tracking . . . . . . . . . . 15.7 Introduction - In Service . . . . . . . . . . 15.8 Problem Denition . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15.9 Project Objectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15.10 Approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15.11 State of the System . . . . . . . . . . . . 15.12 RFRM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15.13 Policy Options . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15.13.1 Probability Density Functions . . 15.13.2 Expected Value . . . . . . . . . . 15.14 Decision Tree Analysis . . . . . . . . . . 15.15 Summary - In-Sevice . . . . . . . . . . . 219 219 219 219 219 219 219 219 219 219 220 220 221 224 225 225 226 228 233 233 233 234 235 235 236 236 236 236 242 242 242 243 243 243 245 245 245 246 246 250 250 252
16 Submarine Weight Control, Equilibrium, and Stability 16.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16.2 Archimedes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16.3 Factors in Submarine Weight Control, Stability, and Equilibrium 16.3.1 Volume . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16.3.2 Displacement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16.4 Weight . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16.4.1 Ballast . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16.5 Arrangement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16.6 Hydrostatics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16.7 Mass Properties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16.7.1 Weight Classication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16.7.2 Weight Reports . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16.8 Margins and Ballast . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16.8.1 Limits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16.8.2 Stability and Trim Lead . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16.9 Equilibrium . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16.9.1 Equilibrium Conditions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16.9.2 Load to Submerge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16.9.3 Variable Ballast Calculation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16.9.4 The Equilibrium Polygon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16.10 Stability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16.10.1 Surfaced Stability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16.10.2 Submerged Stability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
AF
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
T
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
DR
xii 16.10.3 Stability While Trimming Down . . . . . . 16.10.4 Longitudinal Stability . . . . . . . . . . . . 16.10.5 Stability Under Ice . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16.11 Service Life . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16.11.1 Availabilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16.11.2 Reporting Requirements . . . . . . . . . . 16.12 Example Problems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16.12.1 Eect of Added Weight on the Equilibrium . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Polygon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
CONTENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 254 255 256 256 257 259 261 261 269 269 270 270 272 274 274 275 276 276 276 278 278 284 286 287 288 291 293 303 317 325 331 333
A Glossary B ESWBS
C MARAD
D Useful Weight Tables References Index
DR
Appendices
AF
17 Other Applications of Mass Properties Engineering 17.1 Oshore Units . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17.1.1 Unusual hull forms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17.1.2 Column Stabilized . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17.1.3 Self-elevating . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17.1.4 Surface Type (Drillships) . . . . . . . . . . . . 17.2 Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle (EFV) . . . . . . . . . 17.2.1 Mission . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17.2.2 Weight Control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17.2.3 Mass Properties Measurement of the EFV . . . 17.2.4 EFV Specication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17.3 Small Craft Weight Management . . . . . . . . . . . . 17.3.1 Factors to Consider . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17.3.2 The Weight Estimate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17.3.3 Managing the Weight Estimate . . . . . . . . . 17.3.4 Verication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17.3.5 Example Problems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
T
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
T
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
List of Figures
1.1 1.2 1.3 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.5 2.6 2.7 2.8 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 3.5 3.6 4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4 4.5 4.6 7.1 7.2 7.3 7.5 7.4 8.1 8.2
U.S. Coordinate System . . . . . . . . . Referenced origins. . . . . . . . . . . . . Example of Lightship condition format. Example of Full Load Condition format. Reserve Buoyancy Diagram . . . . . . . Typical Load Line Mark . . . . . . . . . Ship Stability Diagram . . . . . . . . . . Ship Righting Arm Diagram . . . . . . .
AF
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xiii
Negative Stability Diagram . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Speed-Power Curve and Weight Growth . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Weight Distribution and Weight Growth . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
6 7 7 10 10 12 13 14 14 15 15 20 22 24 25 27 28 30 32 34 35 36 41 82 82 83 87 89 91 95
Ship Design Spiral. . . . . . . . . . . . Feasibility Design Flowchart . . . . . . Allowable KG vs Displacement Curve Maturity Index Metric . . . . . . . . . Alternative Maturity Index Metric . . Percent Calculated vs Time . . . . . .
Weight risk assessment. . . . . . . . . KG risk assessment. . . . . . . . . . . Acquisition Margins for Design Phases SLA Usage and Stability Status . . . . Method for Projecting SLA . . . . . .
High Level Weight Engineering Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Cubic Numbers for ESWBS 100 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
DR
Defense Acquisition Management Framework. Requirements Flowchart . . . . . . . . . . . . Concept Formulation Flowchart . . . . . . . . Contract Design Flowchart . . . . . . . . . . Detail Design Flowchart . . . . . . . . . . . . Acquisition Phases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
xiv 8.3 8.4 8.5 8.6 8.7 8.8 8.9 8.10 8.11 8.12 8.13 8.14 8.15 8.16 8.17 8.18 8.19 8.20 8.21 8.22 9.1 9.2 9.3 9.4 10.1 10.2 10.3 10.4 10.5 10.6 11.1 11.2 11.3 11.4 11.5 12.1 12.2 12.3 12.4 12.5 12.7 12.6 Percent of Full Load - ESWBS 100 Cubic Numbers for ESWBS 200 . . Percent of Full Load - ESWBS 200 Cubic Numbers for ESWBS 300 . . Percent of Full Load - ESWBS 300 Cubic Numbers for ESWBS 400 . . Percent of Full Load - ESWBS 400 Cubic Numbers for ESWBS 500 . . Percent of Full Load - ESWBS 500 Cubic Numbers for ESWBS 600 . . Percent of Full Load - ESWBS 600 Cubic Numbers for ESWBS 700 . . Percent of Full Load - ESWBS 700 Cubic Numbers for Loads . . . . . Percent of Full Load - Loads . . . Cubic Numbers for Light Ship . . . Percent of Full Load - Light Ship . Cubic Numbers for Full Load . . . Design and Weight Data Sheet. . . Rotational Axes . . . . . . . . . . . Levels of Weight Fidelity Sample Input Sheet . . . Sample Drawing Detail . Sub-assembly Lift. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
LIST OF FIGURES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95 100 100 100 100 101 101 101 102 102 102 103 103 103 103 104 104 104 106 125 133 134 135 138 156 157 157 158 159 160 163 163 165 165 168 172 173 173 173 176 177 178
DR
Tension Link Dynamometer. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Pallet Weight Truck. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Platform Scale. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Portable Scale. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Example of a Supplier Component Weight Form . . Notes for Completion of Supplier Component Weight Vendor weight control process. . . . . . . . . Ship Equipment and Material Supply Chain. Weight Criticality Quad Chart . . . . . . . . Example of Weight Criticality Determination Vendor Weight Control Activities Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
AF
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Reporting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Weight Improvement and Cost/Time . . . . . . . . . Tracking weight and margin consumption over time. Margin depletion tracking. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Tracking weight of specic systems. . . . . . . . . . . Weight Reduction Submittal Form . . . . . . . . . . Weight improvement alternative selection matrix. . . Selection criterion rating. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
T
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Form . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
LIST OF FIGURES 12.9 Summary of weight improvement process. . . . . . . . 12.8 Alternative selection matrix with priority percentages. 12.10 Weight Improvement Strategy Alternatives . . . . . . 12.11 CG-47 Class Weight Reduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12.12 DDG-51 Class Weight Reduction . . . . . . . . . . . . 13.1 13.2 13.3 13.4 13.5 13.6 13.7 13.8 Diagram of Inclining Weight Shift . . . . . . Draft Mark Photograph . . . . . . . . . . . . Draft Marks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Generic plot of tangents . . . . . . . . . . . . Typical Pendulum Arrangement . . . . . . . Typical U-Tube Arrangement . . . . . . . . . Typical Inclinometer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Example Sheet for Plotting Displacement and . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
xv 179 180 181 183 184 189 193 194 196 196 197 197 202 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 230 231 234 237 238 238 239 241 242 243 249 251 252 253 254 255 255 255 256 256 259 262
15.1 State of the System . . . . . . . 15.2 HHM for ShipAlt Process . . . 15.3 Bi-Criteria Filtering . . . . . . 15.4 Multi-Criteria Evaluation . . . 15.5 Quantitative Ranking . . . . . 15.7 Pareto Optimal Frontiers . . . 15.9 Loss Vector Pareto 1st Period . 15.10 Loss Vector Pareto 2nd Period 15.6 PDFs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15.8 MODT . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
16.1 Submerged neutral body. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16.2 Generic submarine diagram. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16.3 Generic submarine hydrostatics model. . . . . . . . 16.4 Generic submarine bodyplan. . . . . . . . . . . . . 16.5 Generic submarine waterlines. . . . . . . . . . . . . 16.6 Generic Displacement and Other Curves Drawing. 16.7 Submarine Weight Conditions . . . . . . . . . . . . 16.8 Weight and volume relationship . . . . . . . . . . . 16.9 Generic Equilibrium Polygon. . . . . . . . . . . . . 16.10 Surfaced Stability Diagram . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16.11 Righting Arm Comparison . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16.12 Submerged submarine stability diagram . . . . . . 16.13 SS 302 Stability while trimming down . . . . . . . 16.14 SSN Stability while trimming down . . . . . . . . 16.15 Submarine Longitudinal Metacenter . . . . . . . . 16.16 Submarine Longitudinal Stability . . . . . . . . . 16.17 Submarine Longitudinal Righting Arms . . . . . . 16.18 Stability Under Ice. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16.19 Submarine Inclining Experiment . . . . . . . . . . 16.20 Initial equilibrium polygon . . . . . . . . . . . . .
DR
AF
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Other Curves.
T
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
xvi
LIST OF FIGURES 16.21 New equilibrium polygon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 265 17.1 A semi-submersible in transit draft . . 17.2 A semi-submersible at operating draft 17.3 Jack-Up Sequence . . . . . . . . . . . 17.4 Jack-Up Unit Under Tow . . . . . . . 17.5 Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle . . . . 17.6 Measuring EFV Mass Properties . . . 17.7 Sportsherman at its design waterline 17.8 Hull Bottom Rotation . . . . . . . . . 17.9 LCG Farther Forward than the Design 17.10 Roll Periods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17.11 Outline of Hard Chine . . . . . . . . . 17.12 Dynamic Instabilities . . . . . . . . . 17.13 Wing Analogy of Buttock Shape . . . 17.14 Limits of Dynamic Stability . . . . . 17.15 Weight Breakdown Comparison . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 270 270 272 273 275 276 278 279 280 281 281 282 283 283 285
DR
AF
T
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
List of Tables
4.1 6.1 7.1 7.2 7.3 7.4 7.5 7.6 7.7 8.1 8.2 8.3 8.4 8.5 8.6 8.7 8.8 8.9 8.10 8.11 8.12 8.13 8.14 8.15 8.16 8.17 9.1 9.2
Maturity Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ESWBS one-digit weight groups. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Acquisition weight and KG ranges . . . . . . . . . Service life allowance ranges . . . . . . . . . . . . . Acquisition margin value ranges for Feasibility . . Design Characterization Ratings. . . . . . . . . . . Risk Consequences. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Value Ranges for Ship Design Acquisition Phases. . Service Life Allowances Values . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
35 70 79 80 81 82 82 85 89 94 96 97 98 99 108 109 111 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 127
Calculation of New Condition A . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 142 Calculation of New Condition D . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 143
12.2 Values for selection matrix. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 177 12.1 Weight improvement decision scale. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 178 xvii
DR
Ship Parametric Data. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Parametric Data by ESWBS . . . . . . . . . . . . Parametric Data by ESWBS . . . . . . . . . . . . Parametric Data by ESWBS . . . . . . . . . . . . Parametric Data by ESWBS . . . . . . . . . . . . Denitions used in Ratiocination . . . . . . . . . . Denitions used in Ratiocination continued . . . . Hull structure ratiocination equations . . . . . . . Propulsion plant ratiocination equations . . . . . . Electrical plant ratiocination equations . . . . . . . Command and Surveillance ratiocination equations Auxiliary Systems ratiocination equations . . . . . Auxiliary Systems ratiocination equations . . . . . Outt and Furnishings ratiocination equations . . Armament ratiocination equations . . . . . . . . . Variable loads ratiocination equations . . . . . . . Estimated Gyradius Values . . . . . . . . . . . . .
AF
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
xviii
LIST OF TABLES
14.1 Cost/Weight Sensitivity Example . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 214 15.1 Quantitative Ranking . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 223 15.2 Policy Options and Estimated Costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 224 15.3 Expected and Condition Expected Values . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 226 16.1 Density change with temperature . . 16.2 Submarine D&O Terms . . . . . . . 16.3 Submarine Hydrostatic Table . . . . 16.4 ESWBS one-digit weight groups. . . 16.5 Equilibrium loads . . . . . . . . . . . 16.6 Load to Submerge Calculation . . . 16.7 Variable Ballast Calculation . . . . . 16.8 Calculation of Condition N . . . . . 16.9 Initial Conditions . . . . . . . . . . . 16.10 Calculation of New Condition A . . 16.11 Calculating new loads to submerge . 16.12 Calculating new equilibrium points . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 235 239 240 242 247 247 248 253 261 263 264 264
17.1 EFV Specications. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 277 B.1 Expanded Ship Work Breakdown Structure (ESWBS) Three Digit Summaries . . . . . . . . . 304 C.1 MARAD weight classication listing - Hull Structure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 318 C.2 MARAD weight classication listing - Outt . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 320 C.3 MARAD weight classication listing - Machinery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 322 D.1 D.2 D.3 D.4 D.5 D.6 Weights of Common Shipbuilding Weights of Steel Plate . . . . . . Weights of Steel Sheets . . . . . . Weights of Compressed Gas . . . Weight Conversion Table . . . . Unit weights of liquids. . . . . . . Materials. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 326 327 328 329 329 330
DR
AF
Chapter 1
Introduction
by Dominick Cimino and David Tellet
The Society of Allied Weight Engineersalways seeking the opportunity to foster and promote the pro1.1 Background fession of weight engineeringidentied a need for a weight engineering textbook for the marine indusThis textbook focus is in weight engineering speci- try which combined best practices and standards into cally for marine vehicles for both military and com- a comprehensive textbook that could be used as an mercial applications. Most of the basic principles instructional tool and reference book. A volunteer of weight engineering for marine vehicles are very committee was formed to develop such a textbook. similar to other elds (i.e., aircraft, missiles, space The goal of the committee was to research the excraft, satellites, ground transportation, etc.), how- isting technical materials and literature and develop ever, there are unique aspects and considerations of an outline and then solicit technical experts to author weight engineering for vehicles in a marine environ- chapter(s) for this textbook. This material was then ment. These are captured in this textbook. reviewed for technical content, edited for readability Throughout this textbook the term weight is used and grammar, and collated into the form and format to represent all the mass properties of a marine ve- of the textbook. hicle or object. These properties are the physical The result of this volunteer eort is a textbook that characteristics which dene the magnitude, location, comprises information on overall marine weight engiand distribution of weight. They include weight, cen- neering processes as well as detailed information on ter of gravity weight moments, and moments of iner- specic practices and methods of weight engineering. tia. Also throughout this textbook the term weight All of this information has been developed by recogas commonly understood in the maritime industry is nized experts in the eld who use these processes and synonymous with mass, and the terms weight control practices every day in real-life marine engineering. and control of mass properties are interchangeable. With that in mind, weight in U.S. customary units are measured in pounds and long tons ( 2240 pounds); What are Marine Vehicles? in SI units (metric) weight is measured in kilograms 1.3 and metric tonnes (1000 kilograms). Refer to ASTM F 1332 93, Standard Practice for Use of SI (Metric) Marine Vehicles are all types of vehicles or platforms Units in Maritime Applications [1] for conversion fac- that operate in a marine environment. This includes: tors to convert inch pound quantities to SI (metric) all types of ships from aircraft carriers to small patrol quantities. boats; submarines; oshore platforms; air cushion ve-
AF
1
1.2
Purpose of Textbook
DR
New sentence 8-29-06, Tellet New sentence 8-29-06, Tellet
2 hicles; high speed craft; ferries; tankers; shing boats; passenger ships; and recreational craft. What they all have in common is that their mass properties (i.e., weight, center of gravity, moment of inertia, etc.) are important and have an impact on the performance, operation and stability of the vehicles. For example, if a sailboat is in heavy wind it must be stable enough to heel to one side when catching the wind without capsizing. Another example is that it is critical to know the mass properties of a submarine so that it can safety submerge and surface. Still another example is that the determination of the cargo capacity of a ship depends on knowing the ships mass properties; for combatant ships this is critical in order to perform its set mission. A ship that weighs more than originally planned will experience an adverse impact on fuel consumption and speed. A high vertical center of gravity can adversely aect a ships motions, seaworthiness, or safety at sea. Misballasting a submarine may result in an increased risk to the crew or the inability of the submarine to meet its operational requirements. All of these examples illustrate the importance of weight engineering in the marine eld and for all types of marine vehicles.
CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION
New sentence 8-29-06, Tellet
and weight control in the modern sense is a recent development. Historically, the prejudice in favor of high freeboard persisted in the caravels and galleons of the Mediterranean until quite late. The eect of weight was scarcely thought of as part of ship design, with the result that any new design was a gamble that depended upon the shipwrights intuitive grasp of the laws of nature. As an example of the poor understanding of the eect of weight on a ship, consider the agship vasa, recovered from the bottom of Stockholm harbor. vasa set sail on her maiden voyage, with ags and bunting ying, to the cheers of a large crowd on the shore. She had scarcely gone a mile when she suddenly listed to port, her heavy bronze cannon rolled to the lower side, water poured in through her lower gun ports, and she went to the bottom in fteen fathoms. In those days, shipwrights were never certain how a ship would oat until she was in the water. If a ship were too heavy on one side, inside ballast would be shifted; if too tender, she would be girdled with another layer of planks at the water line. Toward the latter part of the seventeenth century, mathematicians began devising means of calculating a ships weight from her drawings. By the end of the century, British designers astonished the world 1.4 History of Weight Control by accurately predicting the waterlines of their ships before they were launched. Thereafter, tonnage became a standard concept in ship design, and the efThis section includes excerpts from [2]. fect of weights an increasingly important piece of the Weight control includes all the actions necessary designers craft. Within relatively few years, designto ensure that the ships weight and weight distri- ers were able to calculate the displacement of a ship bution are consistent with the naval architectural re- within a few tenths of one percent of its true displacequirements of displacement, stability, list, trim, and ment. Control of weight began to receive more attenperformance (such as speed, endurance, strength, tion after Parliament passed a law requiring ships of and seakeeping). These actions include weight pre- over 500 tons to carry a chaplain. For many years, dicting, estimating, calculating, reporting, analyzing, most ships of the East India Company were built to and evaluating. a standard size of 499 tons. Some form of weight consideration in ship conThe changeover from wood and sail to iron and struction must have existed in antiquity. Archaeol- steam produced new and challenging weight problems ogists found that ancient ships reached sizes much for the Navy, as did the diversication that began to larger than formerly supposed. The very size of some take place in the eet. However, until 1922 weight of these ancient ships leads one to suspect a long tra- restrictions for naval ships were arbitrary, with limidition of weight control. However, the systematic ap- tations imposed at the discretion of the Government proach to weight problems was a long time coming, or the shipbuilder involved. Until that time, very lit-
DR
AF
1.4. HISTORY OF WEIGHT CONTROL tle progress had been made in the eld of naval weight engineering. Then, with the ratication of the Washington Treaty, which established mandatory limits on both the displacement of individual units and the total tonnage of the more important classes of war vessels, weight control came into its own. As most nations were expected to build ships of the maximum displacement allowed by the treaty, the most powerful ships in a given class would be built by the nation whose designers could obtain the maximum ghting power per ton of displacement. In the case of ships not designed for the maximum permissible displacement, the designers aim was to obtain a given amount of ghting power with the minimum practicable displacement, as this permitted building the greatest number of ships under the total tonnage allowed for the class. In either case, every pound of weight saved was of great importance. As a result, weight control became crucial, and because of it many improvements in design (such as the use of lighter scantlings, lightweight materials, and extensive hull welding) were undertaken. These proved costly and in a few cases prejudicial to strength and ruggedness. In general, however, the results were considered to have justied the means. The London Treaty of 1930 retained, with some changes, the limitation on displacement of individual ships, but removed the restrictions on total tonnage. With the subsequent abrogation of this treaty, all restrictions on displacement were removed. While the treaties were in eect, the need to meet treaty obligations ensured a generally healthy emphasis on weight engineering, and weight control assumed a position of the greatest importance. But when the treaties became ineective, and the displacement issue returned to pre-treaty status (with all of ships characteristics as variables, and displacement considered a secondary factor dependent on other characteristics), the art of weight engineering and weight control went into general decline. After World War II, weight engineering and weight control again began to play an increasingly important role in naval design. Today, weight control is an integral part of virtually all ship design and construction programs. Trends indicate it will play an even more important role in the future. Many factors
3 have brought this about. One of the prime factors has been the development of higher speed displacementtype ships and the development of hydroplanes and hydrofoils. Because of the sensitivity of these types of displacement changes, eective weight control is demanded. Rapid advances in electronic technology have had a twofold eect: rst, electronic equipment has become a most important part of modern ships; and second, computers have become an important tool for weight control. The phenomenal increase, by weight, of electronic equipment has been realized in ships since World War II. This increase is even more significant when it is realized that, particularly in surface craft, much of the weight is high in the ship where it has an adverse eect on stability. Weight is further increased by the added electric generating capacity needed to meet the power demands of the electronic systems. Nuclear propulsion for surface craft and submarines, and new developments in diesel and gas turbine propulsion, have also contributed to the greatly increased importance of weight. Rising demands for seakeeping endurance require more fuel, provisions, and stores. Other elds that have been relatively stable in the past, such as ballistic plating and weapon systems, also contribute to the increasing emphasis on weight control. Beginning in 1958 and continuing through 1960 there were a number of re drills because various naval architectural requirements for speed, stability, freeboard, draft, list, or trim were violated, compromised, or jeopardized by increased displacement, elevation of the center of gravity, or both. In some cases the alarm sounded simply because no one knew with condence just what the displacement and center of gravity of the ship would be. Therefore, certain technical decisions and commitments could not be readily made. In view of the frequency, nature, and lack of warning of such situations, there was an evident need for a comprehensive review of weight and moment control practices. A technical review was conducted which covered the review of existing instructions, directives, and specications; the review of in-house poli-
DR
AF
4 cies, practices and procedures; discussions with others whose actions aect ships (i.e., equipment vendors and suppliers) and with activities that might have useful information on similar problems (i.e., Coast Guard, Maritime Administration, regulatory bodies); and fact-nding on-site reviews of naval and private shipbuilding activities and design agents. The conclusions drawn from this review and the corrective actions recommended were in the general areas of weight data and weight reports, organization and administration, and requirements and responsibilities. In the area of weight data and weight reports, it was concluded that: Material weights were unveried.
Paragraphs reformated
CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION part of the technical missions by presentations and instructions; and manning requirements and resources be determined and satised. In the area of requirements and responsibilities, it was concluded that : 1. No end-product responsibility existed.
AF
1.5
To correct these deciencies, it was recommended that: ship limits be set by specication; design information be given to ship designers and builders; there Vendor weights were unreliable. would be stricter control of the change order and Information for Government-furnished equip- Government-Furnished Material process; rm policy be extended by words, deeds, and inspection; and ment was poor. nal responsibility be claried, with insistence that Weight classication was inconsistent. that responsibility include authority to act, and accountability for the results of actions. Determination of ship weight lagged ship status, In summary, the above conclusions and associated and timeliness was poor. recommendations should be kept in mind so that history does not repeat itself. Technical reports received inadequate review.
2. End-product control existed with specied limits, design information, rm discipline, and clear retribution. 3. No one had specic responsibility for weight control.
New paragraph
To correct these deciencies it was recommended that: a weight engineering standard/textbook be prepared for use as an information source for basic weights and as a reference for calculating and reporting: vendor weights be veried by enforcing certication by weighing; weight and centers of gravity data for Government-furnished equipment be brought under the same contract that orders the equipment; the classication guide be updated; and standard instructions, responsibilities, policies and instructions be kept current. In the area of organization and administration, it was concluded that design administration often nullied control, adequate weight control personnel were not available, and a false economy in high-risk decisions allowed cost savings to take precedence over weight control. To correct these deciencies it was recommended that: a rm policy be set and maintained; management attention be brought to weight control as a vital
DR
Importance of Weight Engineering
This section includes excerpts from [2]. When a ship is in the design phase, the dimensions, power, strength, and arrangements are inuenced by estimates of the weight of all items to be included in the ship, as well as by estimates of their composite center of gravity. Experience has shown that, despite extreme care in this initial estimating, ship weights do increase during the design development and building periods. To account for these increases, various margins are added to the basic weight estimate for the ship. As long as the ship remains within these specic margins, it will be completed as planned and will meet its characteristic requirements. If a ship is allowed to grow beyond the limits set forth in the basic design, its operational capabilities may be restricted
Revised, 829-06, Tellet
1.6. WEIGHT CHARACTERISTICS and costly ballasting, rearrangement, or shifting of loads may be required. The saying that the whole is equal to the sum of its parts is particularly applicable to ship design. Everyone involved in a ship weight control program is fully aware of this axiom and of the myriad parts that make up a modern ship design. Any detailed weight statement should vividly portray the eect that each of these parts has on total displacement and centers of gravity. Many groups within a ship design and building activity contribute to the design and production and, consequently, the weight of each part in the completed ship. In fact, no other aspect of a ship design and construction program is inuenced by so many dierent groups as is weight control. The inuence of basic design groups (naval architects, marine engineers, combat and weapon engineers) is modied and augmented by each supplier or vendor or purchased material or equipment, by each trade involved in fabrication and installation, by test and inspection groups, operating groups, or even by ships forces. Each has a signicant, if not directly measurable, effect on total weight. The success of a weight control program, then, ultimately depends on the extent to which each group is made a part of the program. Weight control must involve all who inuence weight. This total eort concept is essential and must be carefully factored into the basic management and engineering organization. Each group must be made aware of and appreciate its responsibility in the area of weight and weight control. There is a tendency among designers and engineers to incorporate excessive safety factors to ensure that their designs will be satisfactory. They, perhaps rightly, assume they are judged on the performance of their equipment alone, not the performance of the ship as a whole. This tendency is probably most pronounced in the design of combatant ships, where performance and reliability are of utmost importance. The approach by which a ship is designed to be rugged beyond all practical requirements should be replaced by establishing realistic design parameters derived by sound engineering techniques.
5 Skilled tradesmen in the construction program must be aware of the importance of weight to the total design and the inuence they exert on weight. A tradesman with this awareness will not arbitrarily substitute heavy material in excess of design requirements; consequently, this awareness should be considered as much a mark of good craftsmanship as technical performance. Because weight is an inherent characteristic of the entire design and building process and is inuenced by each step in the process, weight control must be considered a basic function of any design and construction organization.
DR
AF
1.6
In ship design, weight and center of gravity have profound eects on stability, performance, and strength. Other naval architectural aspects are aected, but these alone are sucient to justify the concept of weight control. According to Archimedes principle, a body in a liquid is buoyed upward by a force equal to the weight of the liquid displaced. To oat, a ship must displace a volume of water the weight of which equals the total weight of the ship. The buoyant force is applied through, but not at, a point known as the center of buoyancy, or the center of gravity of the displaced liquid. This point is also the geometric center of the underwater portion of the ship. The buoyant force opposes the force of gravity, which acts downward through the center of gravity of the total weight of the ship. With the ship in equilibrium, the center of buoyancy and center of gravity are aligned vertically and the forces working through them are equal and opposite. Ships of any size are virtually weighed, according to the above principle, by reading drafts and obtaining displacement from a prepared curve or scale. Drafts indicate volume of displacement, and weight can be accurately determined by measuring the density of the water in which the ship oats. In any ship, total weight determines displacement, and longitudinal distribution of weight determines trim. From these values, other information such as maximum draft,
Weight Characteristics
6 wetted surface, and waterline length and breadth is determined.
CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION
1.7
1.7.1
Impact on Ship Operation

Stability
M
1.7.2
Whether or not performance is satisfactory depends on whether or not the ship can carry out her mission as designed. Seaworthiness and speed are the most important performance characteristics for most ships. Seaworthiness and ship motion can be measured in terms of reserve buoyancy, freeboard, range of stability, and dynamic stability. Reserve buoyancy and freeboard are directly inuenced by weight, while range of stability and dynamic stability are inuenced by both weight and center of gravity. 1.7.3 Strength Figure 1.2 illustrates the inuence that weight can have on speed. Speed is shown plotted against shaft Figure 1.3 illustrates a longitudinal weight distribuhorsepower for two conditions: the lower, solid curve tion on a typical combatant ship. The solid line rep-
DR
Speed
When wind, wave, or other temporary upsetting forces inclines a ship, the principles of weight and displacement discussed above still apply except that the centers of gravity and buoyancy are temporarily no longer aligned (see Figure 2.7). The center of buoyancy, B, moves to the new geometric center of the underwater portion of the ship, so that a vertical line through the center of buoyancy intersects the vertical centerline. For small angles of inclination, the point of intersection is known as the metacenter, M . The height of the metacenter above, or below, the center of gravity, G, is the metacentric height, GM . With the ship inclined, the forces of gravity and buoyancy, acting through G and B, respectively, form a couple. If G is below M , the couple is positive and tends to right the ship. This is positive stability. If G is above M , the couple is negative and tends to further incline the ship. This is negative stability (see Figure 1.1. Consequently, the vertical distribution of weight, which determines the vertical location of G, is of prime importance in establishing transverse stability.
AF
Figure 1.1: Diagram showing an unstable ship and the interaction of weight and buoyancy forces. Where M = Metacenter, G = Vertical Center of Gravity, B = Center of Buoyancy, and = angle of heel.
is based on design displacement, the upper or broken curve is a speed curve for the same hull design, with a 10 percent increase in weight. At rst inspection, a 2 percent reduction in speed (relative to a nominal 30 knot speed) is noted, which does not seem critical. However, recovery of this speed to meet design requirements demands a 12 percent increase in horsepower. Such an increase, of course, has a signicant eect on fuel consumption, range, and powerplant design. Ships speed impacts endurance range which is critical to the ability for the ship to perform its set mission. Therefore, controlling the ships displacement is a important part of the ships ability to meet the overall mission requirements. As the ships displacement increases or is not controlled, the fuel consumption will be adversely impacted and will compromise the endurance range and increase the ships operating cost.
T
B
1.9. CAREERS IN WEIGHT ENGINEERING

Weight Distribution Curve
1.12
12% Power
A 10% weight growth distributed over three stations = a 15% increase in stress.
Power (% of design SHP)
1.00
10% Weight Growth
2% Speed Design +10% growth
Design Displ.
Design Speed Speed

koobtxet ewas/potkseD/~
T
5 10 15 Longitudinal Stations
20
DR
resents the original distribution of weights; the broken line represents an assumed ten percent weight growth distributed over three stations. By the beam formula ( = M y/I ), and the curves of weight, buoyancy, sheer, and bending moment, a recalculation of the principal stresses results in an increase of approximately 15 percent. Such a change could have disastrous eects on the strength of the ship. Therefore, the longitudinal weight distribution should be assessed and monitored over the ships service life.
hicle. Thus he gets to understand and inuence the big picture rather than just one small piece of the design as in other engineering elds. The mass properties of a marine vehicle is linked to cost and performance characteristics, therefore the weight engineer is exposed to contractual aspects of a contract and must understand the overall mission of the design. A weight engineer is almost always involved in the initial phases of a design and throughout the detail design and construction as well as the service life of a vehicle. The diversity of engineer1.8 Impact on Ship Acquisition ing activities that a weight engineer is exposed to tends to be challenging and provide many opportuniand Operating Costs ties. Many nd this variety interesting while others chose to remain in one specialty eld. There is a wide 1.9 Careers in Weight Engi- variety of potential employers of weight engineers including naval architectural rms, design agents, shipneering builders, marine suppliers and government agencies. The eld of weight engineering should be given seriThere are a variety of career advancement opporous consideration by graduating engineering students tunities as a weight engineer. Some stay within a as it can provide a fullling and satisfying career. weight organization and work toward opportunities Usually a weight engineer is exposed to a greater va- for advancement into management position. While riety of engineering activities and is also required to others, as they work on specic projects, develop understand the basic principles involved in the design skills that provide opportunities in the project and and acquisition contractual strategies of a marine ve- program management area as well as allied elds.
AF
Figure 1.2: Speed-power curve showing the eect of weight growth. With a 10% weight growth the shaft horsepower would have to increase by 12% to reach design speed.
Figure 1.3: Weight distribution plot showing the eect of weight growth. With a 10% weight growth over three stations, there is a 15% increase in stress.
New sentence, 8-29-06, Tellet
8 Regardless of the approach for career advancement, a weight engineers exposure to the entire design process provides a many opportunities to develop skills for career advancement at all levels of an engineering organization.
CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION sion, piping, electrical, electronics, mechanical, arrangement engineering, and ship operation. 4. Experience in weight estimating and calculating processes.
1.10
Weight Engineering Education
Paragraph reformatted
1. Sound training in the theory of basic naval architecture. 2. Thorough knowledge and understanding of structural design as applied to ships and submarines. 3. Working knowledge of other branches of engineering that inuence weights, including propul-
DR
In ship design, weight engineering is considered a branch of naval architecture which deals with the application of weight estimating in basic ship design process; evaluation of the eect of weight and moments on displacement, trim, and stability; and detection and correction of unacceptable trends in weight and moment growth. In any design, weight engineering must be applied through a weight control program beginning with the rst feasibility studies and continuing through Preliminary Design, Contract Design, Detail Design, Construction, and even after delivery. Weight engineering must continue throughout the service life of the ship. Weight calculating and estimating are not, of themselves, complete weight engineering functions, but they provide the detail weight and moment data that the weight engineer applies to the design and analyzes to detect and correct adverse trends. The weight engineer must have sucient education to provide the comprehensive technical knowledge needed to apply weights estimating techniques to ship designs, and to evaluate their individual and total impacts. Generally, a weight engineers background should include (but not be limited to) the following:
AF
A weight engineer is usually a graduate of an engineering or naval architectural program. Many weight engineers graduate with engineering degrees from a variety of elds (e.g., ocean, mechanical, civil, aerospace, etc.) and their training in computers and engineering principles provide a great opportunity in the weight engineering eld. Most colleges and universities that oer naval architecture as a eld of study have incorporated ship design courses in their curriculum that typically involve some level of weight engineering. The formal training provides the job opportunity and the informal training provides exposure to practical applications to develop further as a weight engineer.
5. Working knowledge of computers and programming skills. 6. Ability to communicate eectively with the design team.
Chapter 2
Naval Architecture
by Dominick Cimino and David Tellet
DR
9
The U.S. standard axes for surface ships are shown in Figure 2.1. The roll axis for surface ships is the x-axis. It is oriented along the centerline of the ship, running forward and aft. Longitudinal dimensions are measured along or parallel to this axis. The pitch Weight Engineering for marine vehicles and Naval Ar- axis is the y-axis. It runs transversely port and starchitecture are complimentary and overlapping elds board. Besides being the axis for pitch, transverse diof study. Any mass properties or weight engineer mensions are measured along or parallel to this axis. must also understand the fundamentals of naval ar- The yaw axis is the z-axis. It runs vertically and dichitecture to fully understand a marine vehicles mass mensions are measured along or parallel to this axis. properties and how that aects the ability of that vehicle to achieve its design operational goals. Naturally, the naval architect must also understand the Center of Gravity weight realm. The distance measured vertically along the z-axis
2.1
Introduction
This textbook is primarily a weight engineering text and therefore the emphasis is on marine vehicle weights, weight control, and mass properties and not on the details of naval architecture. That being said, some understanding of naval architecture terms and calculations is necessary. The following provides a basic explanation of how and why a ship oats, and oats upright, and how this is used in weight engineering. Similar sections for submarines can be found in Chapter 16. More detailed information on naval architecture can be found in [3].
AF
2.2.1
Standard Axes
2.2
T
Standard tems
Reference
Sys-
U.S. Customary Station 0 at FP
from the referenced origin to the ship center of gravity is referred to as the Vertical Center of Gravity (VCG)1 . The distance measured longitudinally along the x-axis from the referenced origin to the ship center of gravity is referred to as the Longitudinal Center of Gravity (LCG). The distance measured transversely along the y-axis from the referenced origin to the ship center of gravity is referred to as the Transverse Center of Gravity (TCG).
1 If the distance is measured from the bottom of the keel, the nomenclature is the KG.
New footnote, 8-29-06, Tellet
10
CHAPTER 2. NAVAL ARCHITECTURE
Figure 2.1: Isometric view of surface ship with standard U.S. coordinate system.
Referenced Origin
The location of the center of gravity of a surface ship is dened relative to the three axes shown in Figure 2.1. Distances are measured along the three axes from a referenced origin as shown in Figure 2.2. The recommended referenced origin for a surface ship is the intersection of the ships forward perpendicular (FP), the ships centerline plane and the ships baseline. It is recognized, however, that the origin can also be referenced to the ships mid perpendicular (MP) or the aft perpendicular (AP). The VCG should have a sign convention of positive for items above the referenced origin and negative for those below. For LCG the sign convention should be positive for all items aft of the referenced origin and negative for those forward. For TCG the sign convention should be positive for all items on the port side and negative for those on the starboard side. However, these LCG and TCG sign conventions are not an adopted standard in the marine industry at this time.
DR
AF
Calculation
The weight estimate for a ship at any stage in the design is composed of a nite number of items. The weight of each of these items is included in the estimate along with the location of the items center of gravity (CG). This is given as the vertical (z), longitudinal (x) and transverse (y) distance of the center of gravity from the dened referenced origin. This data is sucient to calculate the total weight and center of gravity of the ship by simply adding the weights and moments of the items centers of gravity about the referenced origin.
2.2.2
Standard Axes The standard axes for surface ships using European practice are basically the same as the U.S., except for the longitudinal reference origin and transverse sign convention. Referenced Origin The location of the center of gravity of a surface ship is dened relative to the three axes shown in Figure 2.2. The recommended referenced origin for a European surface ship is the intersection of the ships aft perpendicular (AP), the ships centerline plane and the ships baseline. It is recognized, however, that the origin can also be referenced to the ships mid per-
Figure 2.2: Referenced origins.
European Customary Station 0 at AP
2.3. STANDARD LOADING CONDITIONS pendicular (MP) or the forward perpendicular (FP). Although the AP is normally used, the referenced origin can be changed as needed depending on the design or the shipyard. The VCG should have a sign convention of positive for items above the referenced origin and negative for those below. For LCG the sign convention should be positive for all items forward of the referenced origin and negative for those aft. For TCG the sign convention should be positive for all items on the starboard side and negative for those on the port side.
11
DR
liquids in tanks), list, trim, and drafts above the bottom of the keel at the perpendiculars and midship. Full Load Condition is dened in SAWE RP No. 12 [4] and is: Full Load Condition (Condition D). The full load condition is the ship complete and ready for service in every respect. It is light ship (Condition A), plus the following variable loads: authorized complement of ocers, crew, and passengers, and their eects; full allowances of ammunition in magazines and ready service spaces; full allowance of aircraft and vehicles (fully fueled with full allowance of repair parts and stores); full supply of provisions and stores for the periods specied in the design characteristics; 2.3 Standard Loading Condi- full potable water tanks; lube oil tanks to 95 percent of capacity; fuel tanks to 95 percent capacity, or in tions the case of compensating tanks 95 percent fuel and 5 percent salt water; CHT tanks to 25 percent capacity; Weight estimates and reports commonly contain anti-roll tanks to operating levels; and all other liqloading conditions for light ship and full load, unless uids in tanks to required capacity in accordance with otherwise specied by the contract. characteristics and liquid loading instructions. The ammunition, stores, fuel, and other liquids referred to above are for the ships own use. Cargo (liquid 2.3.1 Condition A and solid) is included in the amounts normally carThe Light Ship Condition includes a summary of one- ried or to the specied portion of the full capacity of digit groups and acquisition margin. These values are the assigned spaces. combined to result in the light ship weight, centers of Figure 2.4 is a typical example of a Full Load Congravity, and associated moments. dition reporting format. Light Ship Condition is dened in SAWE Recommended Practice Number 12 [4] as: Light Ship Con2.3.3 Other Loading Conditions dition (Condition A). The light ship condition is the ship complete, ready for service in every respect, in- There are other loading conditions as well as special cluding permanent solid and liquid ballast, onboard loading conditions unique to the ship and these are repair parts, and liquids in machinery at operating usually specied in the specication. The following levels, without any items of variable load. are some of the other typical loading conditions: Figure 2.3 is a typical example of a Light Ship Condition reporting format. Condition A-1 Light Ship is Condition A without permanent ballast (solid or liquid).
AF
Revised formats 8-29-06, Tellet
2.3.2
Rearranged paragraphs, 8-29-06, Tellet
Condition D
The Full Load Condition is computed by adding specied items of variable load to the Light Ship Condition and reects the actual ship that is planned for delivery. In addition to the total weight, centers of gravity, and associated moments, each loading condition shall also display KG, metacentric height (uncorrected and corrected for the free surface eect of
Condition B Minimum Operating Condition is a condition in which the ship has the minimum stability characteristics likely to exist in normal operation. For combatant ships it represents, approximately, conditions which would exist toward the end of an engagement, after a long period at sea. Liquids are included in amounts and locations which will provide satisfactory stability and trim and limitation of
12
list in case of underwater damage. The components of load will depend on the type of ship and its service.
diesel oil, gasoline, and lube oil shall not exceed 95 percent of tank capacity, unless such tanks are compensating. Compensating tanks shall be considered lled with 95 percent fuel and 5 percent salt water. Condition E Capacity Load Condition is the Maximum amounts of cargo and supplies, other than ship complete, ready for service in every respect. It is for ships own use. However, Condition E loading shall Condition A (light ship) plus the following variable not exceed the limiting drafts. loads: maximum number of ocers, men, and passengers that can be accommodated, and their eects; maximum stowage of ammunition in magazines and ready service spaces; full allowance of aircraft and vehicles (empty weight with full allowance of repair parts and stores); maximum amount of provisions and stores that can be carried in the assigned spaces; maximum capacity of liquids in tanks. Fuel oil, JP-5,
DR
Figure 2.3: Example of Lightship condition format.
AF
2.3. STANDARD LOADING CONDITIONS
13
DR
Figure 2.4: Example of Full Load Condition format.
AF
14
2.4
New section, Cimino, 8-17-06
Displacement
It is all about Archimedes when you think about ships displacement. His law states that:
Reserve Buoyancy Freeboard
DR
Thus the weight of a ship or submarine is expressed in terms of displacement. A ship sinks until the weight of the water displaced by the underwater volume is equal to the weight of the ship or submarine. Ships generally operate in salt water and the depth to which the ship sinks depends on the density of that water. If the ship is in fresh water, it will be deeper in the water because fresh water weighs less than salt water (62.2 lbs/f t3 vs. 64.0 lbs/f t3 ). All ships have draft marks and they are a means to measure the ships displacement. These marks measure the vertical distance from the ships keel to above the waterline of the ship. Draft marks are located forward, midships, and aft on both sides of the ship. The distance from the waterline up to the main deck is called the freeboard. The volume of the watertight portion of the ship from the waterline up to the main deck (i.e., hull watertight envelope) represents the reserve buoyancy of the ship. This is a key indicator of the ships ability to survive ooding. See Figure 2.5. Typical draft marks are shown in Figure 13.3 on page 194. Commercial ships will also have Load Line Markings (or Plimsoll mark) similar to the example in Figure 2.6. These marks ensure that the ship has the proper amount of freeboard for the voyage and they take into account the geometry of the ship and seasonal variations. These marks vary in format for the types of vessels and where they operate.
T
G
Z
A body oating in a uid is buoyed up by a force equal to the weight of the water it displaces.
Waterline
Design Waterline
Draft
Bottom of Keel
AF
A
FigureM2.5: Diagram showing the reserve buoyancy, freeB board, and draft of a ship.
TF
T S W WNA
Figure 2.6: Diagram showing a typical load line mark (or Plimsoll mark). This example is for cargo steamers and tankers. (TF=tropical fresh water; F=fresh water; T=tropical water; S=summer sea water; W=winter sea water; WNA=winter North Atlantic; A, B=registration authority).
A ship or any other oating body is subjected to vertical forces due to the weight acting downward through the center of gravity and the buoyancy force 2.5 Stability acting upward through the center of buoyancy. When It is important to understand that the buoyancy of these two force systems lie in the same vertical plane any oating body is dependent on the volumetric the ship is in equilibrium. As the planes of these properties of the body as well as on the weight of force systems change due to the application of an exthe body. Correspondingly, the stability of a oating ternal force and the ship starts to heel the weight and body is dependent on centers of gravity and centers buoyancy forces form a couple that tend to right the of buoyancy and how they interact. ship (see Figure 2.7). This tendency for the ship to
2.5. STABILITY
Righting and Heeling Arm Curves
M
5
Max RA
15
Area A1
Arm (ft)
T
Area A2 Rollback Angle Equilibrium Angle RA = HA
Wind Heeling Curve
Downood Angle
-1
B
-2
-20
-10
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
Heel Angle (degrees)
Figure 2.7: Diagram showing a stable ship and the interaction of weight and buoyancy forces. Where M = Metacenter, G = Vertical Center of Gravity, B = Center of Buoyancy, and = angle of heel. (Positions of some points have been exaggerated for clarity.)
return to vertical equilibrium is a measure of its stability. The same principles apply in the longitudinal direction, though generally longitudinal stability is far greater than transverse2 and therefore most stability discussions assume transverse stability. Figure 2.7 provides an illustration and indication of the initial transverse stability of a ship. The greater the righting arm (RA or GZ) the greater the initial stability. However, to evaluate the overall stability of a ship it is necessary to evaluate the righting arm for all possible angles of heel and for certain design loading conditions (usually a full load and a minimum operating load). These righting arms must then be compared to the environmental or situational eects that are acting on the ship. For intact stability, these eects are things like beam winds and rolling, crowding of passengers to one side, lifting cargo, topside ice loads, and high speed turns. The governing eect is often wind and waves, but the design and mission of the ship must be considered when analyzing the stability of the design.
2 with the exception of submarines; see Chapter 16 for more information.
DR
AF
Figure 2.8: Plot showing an example of a ship righting arm curve and a wind heeling curve. Rollback angle, equilibrium angle, maximum righting arm and downood angle are predicated on the ship design and stability criteria used. Areas A1 and A2 are often used in stability criteria.
Figure 2.8 is an example of a righting arm curve (or GZ curve) plotted with a heeling arm curve caused by a beam wind. The rollback angle, equilibrium angle, maximum righting arm and downood angle are predicated on the ship design and stability criteria used. Areas A1 and A2 are often used in quasi-static3 stability criteria. Stability is also evaluated for damage due to weapon eects or collision and grounding. In these cases, environmental conditions still exist but the ships characteristics have changed due to the loss of reserve buoyancy, the eect of o-center weights (ooding or re-ghting water or shifting of equipment or cargo), and the free-surface eect of ooding and re-ghting water. The criteria used to determine whether a ship has satisfactory stability or not depends on the type of ship, governing regulatory bodies, and the missions and environments that the ship is designed to handle.
3 Quasi-static implies that some consideration is made for the dynamic eect of the wind (gusts) and waves but applied to a static calculation. For instance, the rollback angle is used to take into account the ship rolling to windward.
16 In addition to the static and quasi-static stability criteria, there is ongoing work in many countries to develop criteria based on fully dynamic models of vehicles in a seaway. Creating the dynamic stability models, simulations, and criteria is a monumental task and well beyond the scope of this textbook. Nevertheless, soon this criteria will be required and may require even more rigorous weight engineering. For a weights engineer, the evaluation of stability against accepted stability criteria becomes the basis for a KG Limit Curve and associated displacement limits. An example of such a curve can be seen in Figure 4.3 on page 34 and in Example 9.7.2 on page 147. These curves are used throughout the design, construction, and life of the ship to ensure that the mass properties of the ship (weight and KG) are not exceeding her naval architecture (geometry-based) limits.
CHAPTER 2. NAVAL ARCHITECTURE The draft of the ship will change accordingly, and the new draft can be read o of the Curves of Form drawing.
2.6.2
KG Change
T
KGchange = KGchange = wz old + w wz
new
If we now assume that the weight added is shifted vertically, we can use the following formula to calculated the new KG of the ship:
(2.2)
2.6
New section
Eects of Weight Changes
DR
Displacement change
new
The addition or removal of any weight to or from a ship may change the displacement, list, trim, draft, stability, and reserve buoyancy of that ship. In real life these weight changes are added to computer models and new values of displacement and centers of gravity are automatically calculated. However, to really understand the eects of weight changes, this section will examine each eect in turn (also see Example 9.7.1 on page 141).
AF
2.6.3
(2.1)
Where: w = added weight z = vertical distance w is moved in relation to the original KG
Adding this change to the old KG will produce the new KG of the ship: KGnew = KGold ) + KGchange (2.3)
This calculation is more often in a spreadsheet format where weights and moments are added and the centers of gravity are calculated by dividing total moments by total weights. This is explained in greater detail in the examples in Chapter 9.
Stability Change
The relocation of weight straight up in the ship will result in a rise of the vertical center of gravity. As Lets start with the simplest calculation: change in long as the transverse metacenter (M ) remains the displacement. Here we will assume (for a moment) same, the rise in the vertical center of gravity will that we are adding a weight to a ship that will not result in a direct decrease in the metacentric height change the trim or list or KG. The new displacement (GM ) of the ship: ( ) will simply be the old displacement plus the new weight: GM new = GM old (KGnew KGold )
2.6.1
old
+w
GM new = GM old KGchange
(2.4)
Where: w = added weight
Likewise, if a weight is moved directly downwards, the KG of the ship will move down and the GM will
2.7. FREE SURFACE EFFECT increase accordingly. Any vertical shift in the ships KG will change every righting arm (RA) throughout the range of stability. The change in the righting arm is a function of the sine of the heeling angle () and the change in KG:
17
New section, Tellet, 8-1706
Perhaps the easiest way to understand the eect of loose water is by a simple experiment. Fill a frying pan about half-way with water and, holding it only by the handle, try to walk across a room without spilling any water. Youll nd that it takes a signicant eort to keep the pan level. Now pour the water from the frying pan into a saucepan and repeat the RAchange = KGchange sin (2.5) walk. Youll nd that the smaller, deeper saucepan is easier to manage. This is exactly the principle of free surface and the dierence between the pans is similar 2.6.4 Trim Change to the dierence between tanks in a ship. If the weight is added to the ship directly above the The actual value for the free surface eect is callongitudinal center of oatation (LCF), there will be culated two ways: 1) by the actual moment shift of no change to the trim of the ship. Any other loca- the water for each angle of heel; this is the moment tion creates a trimming moment equal to the weight of transference and is commonly called free surface times the distance moved. The change in trim can be large, and 2) by estimating the free surface based on calculated by dividing the trimming moment by the the tank geometry and liquid level; this is commonly moment to change trim 1 inch4 (MTI): called free surface small. The free surface eect (small) may be considered a virtual vertical moment and can be calculated for wt (2.6) rectangular tanks by the following: Trimchange = MTI Where: I w = added weight (2.7) FSmoment = Vs t = longitudinal distance w is moved Where: I = the inertia of the surface 2.7 Free Surface Eect of the liquid Vs = the specic volume of the Free surface eect is the eect that loose water has on the stability of a ship. If a tank or compartment liquid(ft3 per ton) is partially ooded, the water surface will stay relatively level as the ship heels. In essence, there is a The inertia of the free surface is taken about the transverse shift of weight as the ship heels. This shift longitudinal axis and through the center of area of will always reduce the stability of the ship. the surface. Though the calculation of free surface eect is beyond the scope of this textbook, it is very imporb3 l tant to understand the concept and ensure that all I= (2.8) 12 stability calculations include the eects of free surWhere: face. Since free surface eects are directly related to the geometry of tanks, it is especially important for b = breadth of the free surface ships with large fuel or ballast tanks and those with l = length of the free surface shallow, broad tanks like the rapid ballast tanks on amphibious ships. Thus the free surface eect is directly related to
DR
4 Obviously for a metric ship this would be the moment to change trim 1 centimeter
AF
the shape of the free surface area and the properties of the liquid. Substituting for I we get:
18
FSmoment =
b3 l 12
Vs
(2.9)
End of new section
DR
AF
This virtual moment can now be added directly to the vertical moment of the ship (as described above) and the resultant KG and GM will reect the eects of that liquid moving in the tank. Obviously, if the tank is fully lled there is no room for the liquid to move and therefore there are no free surface eects. A tank that is nearly full or nearly empty may in fact have less free surface eect than calculated due to pocketing. This is when, under heel, the free surface comes into contact with the top of the tank or when the bottom of the tank is exposed. In either case the new free surface breadth is less than the breadth of the tank and there is a reduction in free surface moment. The calculation of this pocketing is usually too complex to warrant taking the time to do so. Normally this benecial eect is ignored, thereby adding some safety margin to these two conditions.
Chapter 3
Ship Acquisition Process

by Mark Redmond
3.1
New chapter. 9-7-06, Redmond
Introduction
The acquisition of naval ships follows a process dened by the Department of Defense (DoD) in DoD Directive 5000.1 and DoD Instruction 5000.2 as shown in Figure 3.1. This acquisition framework provides exibility for establishment and program assessment for shipbuilding programs. A cradle-to-grave view of the U.S. Navy acquisition process is presented in this chapter to serve as a framework for the discussion of weight engineerings responsibilities during the individual phases in the process. Most of the terminology used in this textbook does not match that in the DOD acquisition framework, rather it uses the more traditional terminology for the various phases of the acquisition. This is done because the actual ship design process still generally follows the traditional terminology and the new DOD terminology has changed several times since being applied to ship acquisition. Figure ?? provides the new acquisition framework with the traditional design phases mapped to it. Prior to the ocial start of a program, Exploratory Design or Force Architecture Studies may be undertaken and Joint Capabilities Integration and Development proceeds with Functional Analyses and Concept Studies to support development and approval of the Initial Capabilities Document (ICD), conduct of the Concept Decision (CD), and planning for the Analysis of Alternatives (AoA).
DR
AF
19
The conduct of concept studies continues during Concept Renement by performing a formal Analysis of Alternatives, AoA. At the end of this phase at Milestone A, an MDA[??] review will be held to evaluate the results of the AoA, technology maturity, and technical risk to approve the preferred ship design and technology development strategy and to authorize entry into the Technology Development phase. Early development and approval of a Capabilities Development Document (CDD) following the AoA may be accomplished to focus design eorts during the next phase.
The Technology Development Phase generally consists of the conduct of Preliminary and Contract Design to support Milestone B technology maturity and technical risk assessments and budgeting. Milestone B approves lead ship Detail Design and Construction and the initial follow ships and allows the program to proceed to the System Development and demonstration phase. The System Development and Demonstration Phase maps to Lead Ship Detail Design and Construction in traditional terminology. Conduct of a Design Readiness Review (DRR), also known as a Production Readiness Review (PRR), provides an opportunity for assessment of design maturity and is accomplished prior to the start of construction. For shipbuilding programs where follow ships are initially approved at Milestone B, Milestone C and the [??]may be combined. The FRP[??] DR[??] provides the MDA[??] the results of the completion of Initial Operational Test and Evaluation (IOT&E) and [??].
20
CHAPTER 3. SHIP ACQUISITION PROCESS
Figure 3.1: Defense Acquisition Management Framework.
DR
Development of a Capabilities Production Document pabilities and acquisition, and operational costs. The (CPD) or CPD update may be required. objectives of these studies are: Production and Deployment Phase follows the Milestone C and Full Rate Production Decision To provide Navy leadership with insight to cost Review (FRP DR) decision to authorize the construcversus capability trade-os for ship and force tion of the remaining follow ships enter full producconcepts. tion. The Operations and Support Phase is where To create and assess attractive new whole ship the engineering support is provided to the ships durand total force concepts. ing their service lives.
To assess the potential of the synergistic eects of multiple technological advances. To identify and prioritize technology gaps and Research and Development (R&D) programming shortfalls.
3.2
Early Requirements Development and Planning

Exploratory Design and Force Architecture Studies
3.2.1
To support the development of a new concept or Exploratory Design and Force Architecture Studies technology. are concerned with far-term programs, which are independent of planned ship acquisitions. These ef To investigate proof of concept through feasiforts expand the base of knowledge upon which asbility demonstrations. sessments of the bounding capabilities of naval-based forces are made. In short, they provide a means to accurately characterize the art of the possible. InLittle hard engineering or ship design is performed cluded in these assessments are the potential impact during these studies, but the results can have a direct of specic new naval technologies on operational ca- impact on future programs and designs.
AF
3.3. CONCEPT REFINEMENT
21
3.2.2
Joint Capabilities Integration the evaluation of the alternatives. ROM cost estimates will be prepared for each of the alternatives and Development
3.3
Concept Renement
DR
and the basis for these critical cost estimates will be The objectives of the Functional Analyses and Con- the weight estimate for the alternative. cept Studies during Joint Capabilities Integration The purpose of this phase is to select a preferred soand Development are: lution from a matrix of alternatives to be presented at the Milestone A review. This preferred solution To support Functional Area Analysis (FAA), should be selected based on the AoA analysis, but Functional Needs Analysis (FNA), and Func- in order to ensure that this decision is made based tional Solution Analysis (FSA). on the most complete data possible, further study may be authorized on selected options to provide ad To create and assess whole ship concepts to supditional data. This data will be developed through port a mission need. the execution of feasibility studies for selected alter To support development and approval of the Ini- natives. In general the feasibility data will be used tial Capabilities Document (ICD), conduct of to further rene the cost estimate, the risk assessthe Concept Decision (CD), and planning for the ment and the technology assessment from the AoA analysis. Analysis of Alternatives (AoA). Options considered must span the full range of reaThese eorts formulate a mission need validated by sonable possibilities including performance, cost and aordable ship concepts and documented in an ap- risk. The AoA must identify early on those elements proved ICD. The Concept of Operations (CONOPS) of performance that are major cost drivers and their is usually developed during this eort. It cites ap- underlying requirements. Identifying drivers is critiproved scenarios and is an important prerequisite cal to the design process and provides valuable feedfor conduct of the AoA. A Design Reference Mis- back to OPNAV who will review the requirements sion (DRM) is also developed to characterize the and make necessary adjustments to the ICD. The objectives of the AoA and feasibility studies CONOPS in terms of the ship requirements for speed, endurance, stores and other characteristics. Technol- are: ogy assessment and any required technology devel To dene a set of feasible alternative whole ship opment continues. This phase ends with a Concept solutions to a set of operational requirements. Decision that typically results in kicko of an AoA. To verify assumptions and estimates developed during prior design phases. Following a positive Concept Decision, OPNAV issues the ICD that has been approved by the Joint Requirements Oversight Council (JROC). This document formulates broad, time-phased operational goals and describes the requisite capabilities for the ship. The Concept Decision will initiate the Concept Renement Phase as shown in Figure 3.1. Concept renement consists of AoA and feasibility design studies. The design alternatives to be considered in the AoA will be selected to fully explore the dened design space. Costing of the alternative is a key aspect of this phase so that cost may be considered in is
AF
To structure the studies to aid a ship acquisition decision maker to select a preferred balance between capabilities, cost, and risk. (In other words to help the customer decide what to buy.) To dene each alternative suciently for preparation of Class F procurement and Total Ownership Cost (TOC) estimates. To identify the major technical risks associated with each alternative.
A owchart for a typical concept formulation eort shown in Figure 3.2.
22
T
Examine Alternatives
Requirement (Strategic Studies)
Intelligence Data
Mission Analysis
Threat Analysis
Environmental Analysis
Generate Concepts
Functional Synthesis
DR
Develop Gross Evaluation Criteria Feedback to Strategic Studies
Figure 3.2: One example of a denition of requirements process owchart.
AF
Concept Evaluation Functional Analysis Performance Requirements
3.4. PRELIMINARY AND CONTRACT DESIGN
23 the characteristics of a ship design that is compatible with the draft CDD. The objectives of Preliminary Design are to:
Assist the OPNAV Sponsor in rening operational requirements.
3.4
3.4.1
Preliminary and Contract Design

Preliminary Design
The Milestone A decision following the completion of the AoA and Feasibility Studies ocially initiates Preliminary Design (PD). PD is the rst element of the Technology Development phase of the acquisition as shown in Figure 3.1. Preliminary Design begins with the ship concept dened at Milestone A serving as the basis for the design and culminates in a design that provides a rm technical baseline with the level of technical condence required for a Class C cost estimate. It provides a complete engineering description of an integrated ship system whose major characteristics and performance will not signicantly change in subsequent design phases. Major risks associated with the ship are resolved through specic technical solutions, and subsystem selections are validated. Changes in ship requirements initiated after this phase of the ship design process should normally be incorporated as modications to the existing baseline, rather than re-optimizing the design, in order to remain on schedule for contracting the ship. The requirements for the chosen baseline design and principal characteristics will be documented in the draft Capabilities Development Document (CDD) that should begin development prior to Milestone A. During PD, development and renement of the CDD will occur based on feedback from the design and continued evaluation of emerging mission requirements. Approval for the CDD may be sought during PD or deferred until CD depending on the trade o between retaining exibility and the need for rm requirements. The CDD renes the integrated architecture and claries how the program will lead to joint war ghting capability. It builds on the ICD and provides the detailed operational performance parameters for the design. A owchart showing the development of design requirements is shown in Figure 3.3. At the end of PD a Preliminary Design Report (PDR) will be prepared with an updated Class C acquisition on cost estimate. The PDR will describe
Support Class C procurement and TOC estimates. This is generally accomplished through renement of the design and supporting documentation, and identication of risk mitigation strategies. Identication of critical system interfaces. Identication of Government Furnished Equipment (GFE), Government Furnished Information (GFI) and Class Standard Equipment (CSE). Verify availability and function of IDE/design tools for subsequent design phases. Establish the conguration managed Functional Baseline for the ship. Develop and evaluate concepts for optimizing manpower while at the same time enhancing human performance, workload, safety, survivability, and quality of life.
DR
AF
3.4.2
The achievement of these objectives will establish the rm technical baseline necessary for the start of Contract Design (CD).
Contract Design (CD) is the second part of the Technology Development Phase of the acquisition as shown in Figure 3.1. CD is used to translate engineering ndings and decisions from PD into a biddable technical package. It provides a design baseline Class C cost estimate suitable for Milestone B review. There is a general validation of the PD through increased levels of system/subsystem denition. A typical Contract Design eort is shown in the owchart in Figure 3.4.
T
Contract Design
Assess that ship performance is achievable within cost constraints.
24
Performance Requirements
Weapons Analysis
Sensor Analysis
Analyze Manning
DR
Evaluate Acquisition Costs Operation Costs
AF
Select Promising Solution Complete Conguration Analyze Utilization and Vulnerability Feedback Synthesize Optimum Solution Evaluate Conguration Effectiveness Approve for Preliminary Design Prepare Preliminary Design
Synthesis of Potential Design (Specic Ship Design Analysis) Feasibility Study
Figure 3.3: One example of a concept formulation process owchart.
Develop Evaluation Criteria
3.4. PRELIMINARY AND CONTRACT DESIGN
25
Preliminary Design
Subsystem
Hull Machinery Electrical
AF
Characteristic Plans Engineering Design Plans Prepare Draft of Design Contract Plans Correct Design Coordinate Final Design Contract Design
Specic Ship Design
Guidance Plans
DR
Figure 3.4: One example of a contract design process owchart.
T
Design
Weapons Auxiliary Systems Analysis and Structural Studies
Develop Design Criteria and Plans List
26 The objectives of the CD are to establish a rm technical baseline, which will:

Conrm to the OPNAV Sponsor that the ship design meets the stated operational requirements and determine its cost.

An extensive review and comment adjudication phase to enhance the quality of the bid package, conrm technical feasibility, and obtain design approval.
Document criteria for Navy acceptance of the ship. Rene critical system interfaces.
Rene Government Furnished Equipment (GFE), Government Furnished Information Lead ship Detail Design and Construction (DD&C) is (GFI) and Class Standard Equipment (CSE) also referred to as System Development and Demonstration in DODI 5000.2 as shown in Figure 3.1. Durlists. ing CD, emphasis was placed on development of a Verify availability and function of IDE/design rm technical baseline to support shipyard proposals to perform detail design and construction of the tools for subsequent design phases. ship. During DD&C, emphasis shifts to preparing for Identify technical and schedule risks. Develop production. and implement risk mitigation plans. The detail design is reviewed and approved for construction at the Design Decision Review (DDR), Five major design activities take place: also referred to as the Production Readiness Review. Only after successful completion of the DDR can ship Engineering development of the PD. construction begin. In some cases, a phased DDR Translation of the completed design into the may be employed to enable early commencement of specications, drawings and other data that fabrication of assemblies and sub assemblies in order form the technical portion of the contract or bid to comply with schedule constraints. The nal phase of acquisition design is preparation package. by the shipbuilding contractor of ship detail construc Risk reduction through execution of mitigation tion drawings, equipment procurement specications, plans. and other working documents used to direct ship construction. Support Class C procurement and TOC cost estimates.
DR
AF
3.5
The end result of CD is a technical package that will provide all of the contractually binding data for Provide a contractual baseline(s) in the form of the detail design and construction. This package inan Allocated Baseline(s) for timely and accurate cludes ship performance and construction specicashipbuilder bids for a detail design and construc- tions, contract drawings, guidance drawings, CDRLs, project peculiar documents, Interface Control Doction contract. uments (ICD), GFE and GFI lists, and the Detail Enable the successful shipbuilder to develop the Design and Construction contract. Detail Design, construct, and test the ship in the The completed technical package will be subjected most cost eective manner while ensuring that to the Milestone B review that will provide the auall requirements are met. thorization for the awarding of the contract for the lead ship. Optimize manpower use.
Production and Deployment - Detail Design and Ship Construction
3.5. PRODUCTION AND DEPLOYMENT - DETAIL DESIGN AND SHIP CONSTRUCTION
27
Contract Design
Detail Design
Hull Machinery Electrical
AF
Detail Engineering Analyses Resolve Interferences Resolve Contract Design Changes Design Documentation Construction
Specic Ship Detail Design Plans
DR
Figure 3.5: One example of a detail design process owchart.
T
Subsystems
Weapons Auxiliary Systems Launching Studies
Develop Preliminary Cost and Schedule
DESIGN PHASES
PRE-AWARD DESIGN PROCESS
FEASIBILITY
FEASIBILITY STUDY WEIGHT ESTIMATE RFP

CONTRACT AWARD
INITIAL PRELIMINARY DESIGN WEIGHT ESTIMATE OR
INITIAL CONTRACT DESIGN WEIGHT ESTIMATE
PRELIMINARY DESIGN INTERIM REPORTS
CONTRACT DESIGN INTERIM REPORTS
SUPPLEMENTAL DOCUMENTS (AS REQUIRED)
MILESTONE A: CONCEPT AND TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT
MILESTONE B: SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT AND DEMONSTRATION
MILESTONE C: PRODUCTION AND DEPLOYMENT
Figure 3.6: Phases of the ship acquisition process and the corresponding weight reporting products. Full descriptions of these products can be found in the next chapter.
28
DR
FINAL PRELIMINARY DESIGN WEIGHT ESTIMATE
FINAL CONTRACT DESIGN WEIGHT ESTIMATE
AF
BIDDERS INDEPENDENT WEIGHT ESTIMATE ACCEPTED WEIGHT ESTIMATE OR PRELIMINARY ALLOCATED BASELINE WEIGHT ESTIMATE ALLOCATED BASELINE WEIGHT ESTIMATE
T
CONTRACT
DETAIL DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION PHASE
IN-SERVICE
PRELIMINARY
QUARTERLY WEIGHT REPORTS
ACCEPTED SHIP REPORT
DELIVERY
FINAL WEIGHT REPORT
INCLINING EXPERIMENT
AVAILABILITY WEIGHT REPORTS
ESTIMATED
PRELIMINARY
ACTUAL
Chapter 4
Weight Control Processes

by Dominick Cimino, Burt Walker, and Christos Filiopoulos
The following sections are broken down into specic design phases and post-construction phases, and discuss the associated processes and typical products for those phases. Figure 3.6 in Chapter 3 shows the overall acquisition and in-service process and the re4.1 Introduction lated weight processes and products. This chapter primarily describes the process and The weight control process covers the ships incep- phases followed by the U.S. Navy for combatant tion to the end of its service life, including any ser- ships. Many, if not all, of these processes and phases vice life extensions (i.e., cradle to grave). During the correspond to similar ones used by other navies or by ship conceptual formulation phase, and as the ship commercial shipbuilding concerns. The reader should design process evolves and design denition matures, not construe the information in this chapter as the the techniques to develop a weight estimate become one and only path for weight engineering and ship more dened and reective of the design level of de- design and construction, but rather as a representanition. For example, in the beginning the estimate is tive example. developed based on the ship dimensions, parametrics and ratiocination processes. As the design further matures the weight estimate is based on a combina- 4.2 Concept, Feasibility, and tion of techniques including estimating from sketches, Preliminary Design Phases ratiocination, and specic design inputs as in a contract design level of maturity. 4.2.1 Background Throughout the weight estimating process the estimate becomes reective of the ship design deni- During the initial design evolution for a new ship tion and the uncertainties associated with it. As design, the naval architect will dene the hull platthe weight control process continues into the conform dimensions based on various coecients of form tract design/detail design and construction phases as and mission area/volume requirements. Preliminary well as the post-construction phases (i.e., in-service), main machinery requirements are developed based the weight estimating techniques are based on spe- on powering characteristics for speed and endurance cic design inputs (e.g., working drawings, weighing, range requirements. The weight engineer will develop and detail weight calculations) and as a result the the initial ship weight estimate based on parametric weight control process shifts from a weight risk and data and algorithms that have been established over control management emphasis to the weight control the years based on weight data of ships with simagainst limits process. ilar naval architectural proportions and mission re-
AF
29
New paragraph, 8-30-07, Tellet
DR
This chapter has been revised and now includes most of the old chapters 7 and 8 of Rev A.
30 quirements. A careful analysis of the correlation between the ships naval architectural properties, powering and electrical generation requirements, mission requirements and manning requirements and weight data should be undertaken by the naval architect and weight engineer.
CHAPTER 4. WEIGHT CONTROL PROCESSES

START Mission Requirements Cost Estimate
Machinery
Lines & Body Plan
Stability
DR
The most important weight and center-of-gravity estimate ever developed for a ship design is the initial estimate made during the Concept Design/Feasibility phase. The weight estimate is comprised of an estimate for light ship, loads, acquisition margins and service life allowance margin. Center of gravity estimates are developed for vertical center of gravity (VCG) to determine if the ship has the necessary transverse stability. Longitudinal and transverse centers of gravity are estimated to determine the ships trim and list.
AF
In the early design phases of naval ship design, Hydrostatics Weight Estimate Detail weight engineering is a very complex iterative proDesign cess that is a challenging balancing act to ensure that the ships principal hull platform dimensions (length, Floodable Length beam, depth) and the ships weight estimate are in Systems proper agreement. For example, if the weight estimate is under-estimated then the hull platform Arrangements Structure Powering will likely be undersized resulting in a ship with less that the required service life allowances. Conversely, if the weight estimate is too conservative or overFigure 4.1: Ship Design Spiral. estimated then the hull platform will likely be oversized resulting in a ship that will be much more costly Developthan necessary because of an increase in main propul- 4.2.2 Concept/Feasibility sion plant, auxiliary systems and steel. ment It is during the Concept Renement Phase (also called the Concept Design/Feasibility Design Phase) that the design translates the mission requirements into naval architectural and engineering characteristics. It involves technical feasibility studies to determine fundamental elements of the proposed ship such as length, beam, depth, draft, fullness, power, and other characteristics, all of which meet the required speed, range, cargo cubic, and deadweight. It includes preliminary light ship weight estimates that are usually derived from curves, formulas, or experience. Analyses of Alternative (AoA) designs are analyzed in parametric studies during this phase to determine the most economical design solution. A owchart illustrating this early process is shown in Figure 4.2 on page 32. For U.S. Navy ship designs, the weight engineer will promulgate the acquisition margins based on the requirements of NAVSEAINST 9096.6B [5]. The service life allowances for weight and KG should be promulgated by NAVSEA1 in the Initial Capabilities Document (ICD) or in the Circular of Requirements
1 Naval Sea Systems Command, the engineering and acquisition organization for the U.S. Navy
The Ship Design Spiral
New paragraph Edited, 8-3006, Tellet
Ship design has traditionally been an iterative process in which various aspects of the design pertaining to power, strength, stability, weight, and space are developed and balanced in sequence to arrive at a optimum design. This iterative process of working from mission requirements to a detailed design can be conceived as moving along a Design Spiral as illustrated in Figure 4.1.
4.2. CONCEPT, FEASIBILITY, AND PRELIMINARY DESIGN PHASES (COR) document. This weight estimate will serve as the Baseline for the preliminary design phase. In the event that the ship design undergoes a major characteristics change or requirements change during the subsequent design phases, the updated weight estimate should become the New baseline weight estimate.
31
DR
AF
32
Feasibility Design Process
Fix Payload, Speed, Range, Cp, Cx, Margins, etc. Input Weight and Volume of Payload
Est. and Installed SHP
Estimated Total Required Volume
Required Volume equals Available Volume
DR
Stability Powering
Weight equals Buoyancy
AF
Size Hull and Deckhouse Vol Req'd = Vol Avail ?
YES
Calculate Weight and VCG
= Weight ?
YES NO
Change L, B, D
GMt= 0.10B ?
YES
Calculate SHP Required
YES NO
Adjust Installed SHP
SHP Req'd = SHP Installed ?
Design Okay
Figure 4.2: Feasibility design process owchart.
T
NO
Adjust Dimensions
NO
Adjust Displ Est.
4.2. CONCEPT, FEASIBILITY, AND PRELIMINARY DESIGN PHASES Acquisition margins for weight and KG In order to predict the full load of the ship at delivery (several years in the future), acquisition margins are applied to address design development, programmatic, and budgetary decisions. These decisions collectively, and invariably, increase the displacement of the ship and therefore an allocation has to be built into the initial weight baseline. This predicted displacement at delivery serves as the design baseline for many performance parameters such as range and speed, propulsion, etc. The development of acquisition margins are discussed in detail in Chapter 7.
33
Preliminary Design Baseline Weight Estimate The Preliminary Design Baseline Weight Estimate (PDBWE) establishes the desired full load displacement at delivery. It is developed with inputs from design team members, associated contractors and any identied vendors. The methods used to establish the baseline are discussed in Chapter 8. The weight estimate consists of light ship with acquisition margins and variable loads. The initial development of the displacement limits in order to measure service life allowances for weight and KG also occurs at this stage. The PDBWE contains acquisition margins for weight and centers and also measures the initial availability of service life allowances. The goals and level of weight control management are dened at this stage and a weight control program is developed. The weight management products are similar to those for the contract design phase and are described in Section 4.3.1. Weight budget allocation The PDBWE is allocated to the associated contractors and prime vendors. The goal is to establish a corporate agreement on the weight budgets. These budgets are managed during all the design phases so everyone remains within their budget allocations to the greatest extent possible. However, these allocations are examined and rened as the design evolves to prevent some systems that have liberal allocations from being over-designed at the expense of systems that have not been allocated sucient weight. These allocations should be the guidelines and incorporated into the weight control plans of associate contractors and vendors.
4.2.3
Preliminary Design
Edited, 8-3006, Tellet Edited, 8-3006, Tellet
It is during the Technology Development Phase (also called Preliminary Design Phase) that the design renes the previous concept renement phase. It usually will involve one or more loops around the design spiral thereby rening the concept/feasibility design. Major ship characteristics aecting cost and performance are rened. Factors such as length, beam, horsepower, and deadweight are not expected to change after this phase. Its completion provides a precise denition of a vessel that will meet the mission requirements. It is extremely important during this phase that the lead weight engineer be part of the ship design management team. This often takes the form of an Integrated Process Team or IPT. The IPT should have weekly meetings so that the current status regarding the evolution of the ship design is known, that the status of acquisition margins and service life allowance for weight and KG are communicated, and that any proposed design changes and their eects are openly discussed and evaluated. During this design phase the naval architect should develop an Allowable KG vs. Displacement plot. The full load condition with and without the promulgated acquisition margins should be plotted on this plot. The weight engineer should ensure that the service life allowances for weight and KG are meet or exceeded. Figure 4.3 illustrates a typical plot of the Baseline full load condition weight and KG, without margins, and the Projected full load weight and KG with the promulgated acquisition margins.
DR
AF
34
Allowable KG vs Displacement
12.5
12.0
Allowable KG at End of Service Life Allowable KG at Delivery
11.5 Allowable KG (M)
11.0
10.5
AF
PFL CFL AWE CD PD
10.0
9.5
DR
9.0 21000 22000 23000
24000
T
Limiting Displacement
25000
26000
27000
28000
Full Load Displacement (MT)
Figure 4.3: Plot of full load conditions vs the allowable KG and displacement curve. The points represent Full Load conditions without acquisition margins at dierent stages of design and construction. PD is at the start of Preliminary Design; CD is at the end of Contract Design; AWE represents the Accepted Weight Estimate; CFL is the Current Full Load Condition at delivery; and PFL is the Projected Full Load Condition at delivery. This example reects an SLA of 5% for displacement and 0.3 m (0.98 ft) for KG.
4.3. CONTRACT DESIGN PHASE Maturity index

New section heading, 830-06, Tellet
35
Percentages for Maturity Indexes
15
T
30
During the design phase a weight estimate matures as a result of design development. Therefore it is essential to evaluate this maturation and assess it against the acquisition margin consumption. One of the methods used is to implement a maturity index. Table 4.1 is an example of a maturity index that characterizes the level of maturity of the weight estimate. This example uses a 5-level index, however, other levels can and are used to capture the required level of maturity. 5 (lowest risk) 4 Actual scale weight (dry weight) of delivered vendor equipment. Actual calculated weight from nal production drawings and nal vendor drawings. Estimated weight from FSD ship drawings such as scantlings, diagrams, catalogs, or vendor drawings. Supplier estimated or budgeted weight. Parametric or ratiocinated weight.
Table 4.1: Maturity Index
5 10
40
2 1 (highest risk)
As the weight estimate matures, the condence that the estimate reects the design increases. This helps in the assessment of risk that the weight estimate will meet the threshold requirements. Figure 4.4 is a graphic example of a maturity index relative to the weight percentage of the estimate. As the design develops the weight percentage should change to reect design. Another example is shown in Figure 4.5. This gure shows the maturity index as compared to the previous weight report. Both of these gures are useful tools to gauge the maturity of the estimate and as a result provide a metric to evaluate risk and assess the remaining acquisition margins of the design. For example, a more mature weight estimate will most likely reduce the risk associated with exceeding the allocated design margin and will help evaluate if
DR
AF
4.3
4.3.1
evitcanI - )3( ztrauQ
Maturity Index M1 M2 M3 M4 M5
Figure 4.4: Example of a Maturity Index Metric showing the relative weight percentages for each of the ve maturity indices
the allocated margin for the detail design and construction phase is reasonable.
Contract Design Phase

Weight Considerations during Contract Design
It is during the System Development and Demonstration Phase (formerly Contract Design Phase) that the design renes the previous technology development phase. During this phase, plans and specications are developed suitable for shipyard bidding and contract award. Important features of contract design include weight and center of gravity estimates that take into account the weight and location of each major item of the ship. This xes the overall volumes and areas of cargo, machinery, stores, fuel oil, fresh water, living spaces, combat spaces and utility spaces and their interrelationship to other features such as cargo handling equipment, and machinery components. As the functional design evolves into a more specic product, systems are sized and in many cases fully designed. Depending on their level of design,
36
Percentages for Maturity Indexes
CHAPTER 4. WEIGHT CONTROL PROCESSES Development of the Contract Design Weight Estimate (CDWE) The nal weight estimate prepared during this design phase contains comparable detail to the design development that has occurred during functional design. Additional detail is incorporated into the weight estimate based on design drawings development, the specications, and any other project peculiar documents. The last iteration of the weight estimate during functional design is labeled as the CDWE. Final naval architectural limits for weight KG, list and trim are rened based on intact and damage stability criteria. Preliminary/Contract Design Products The following products are usually required by the U.S. Navy, however, industry also has similar requirements.
M5
M4 Maturity Index
M3
M2
M1 Quarterly 10 Quarterly 11 0 20 40 Percentage 60 80 100
Figure 4.5: Another Example of a Maturity Index Metric showing the relative weight percentages for each of the ve maturity indices with comparison between two weight reports.
CAD systems should have the capability of handling mass properties attributes and doing basic area, volume, and unit weight calculations with appropriate dimensional references. They should have design libraries from which items are checked-out and incorporated in the design. Design model should be built with the capability of extracting weights and centers information, and producing engineering drawings with this information. See Chapter 13.
DR
Weight estimates and reports Weight estimates and reports prepared during these phases consist of system information may exist in schematic drawings, baseline weight estimates, interim reports, and nal a mix between parametric or ratiocination estimates design weight estimates. These estimates and reports and schematics, or very dened drawings approxcontain detailed information appropriate to the deimating detail design. Regardless of the state of sign phase with loading conditions for light ship and denition of each system, estimating mass properfull load. ties data should be an integral capability built into the work procedures of the lead integrator and associate contractors. Therefore, the weights engineer Baseline weight estimates The initial estimate has to use various methods and tools to estimate for a given design phase is designated the baseline the weight of each system. Chapter 8 discusses the weight estimate. The baseline weight estimate conearly phase weight estimating process and describes sists of the light ship, full load, and any other specivarious methods and approaches used in developing ed loading condition. The estimate is titled Baseline Preliminary or Baseline Contract Design Weight Esweight estimates during the early design phase. timate. Interim reports Weight estimates produced at specied intervals during a given design phase are designated interim weight reports. The interim report summarizes the current weight and moment status of the design and highlights any changes that occurred during the reporting period. The report contains the light ship, full load, and any other specied loading condition.
AF
4.4. DETAIL DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION PHASES Final design weight estimate The nal estimate produced during a design phase is designated as the nal design weight estimate. This estimate reects the nal weight and moment data for light ship, full load, and any other specied loading condition. The estimate is titled Final Preliminary or Final Contract Design Weight Estimate. Supplemental reports These reports are produced as specied and include weight and moment trade-o studies. These studies consist of determining the mass properties impact of various conguration change proposals and engineering alternatives that are being considered for inclusion in the design. These studies are delivered on an as requested basis. The Pre-award Process
37
This is the period between the release of the request for proposals (RFP) or request for bids and the award of the contract. Estimates and supplemental documents required during this process are: The Bidders Independent Weight Estimate (BIWE) This establishes the potential contractors estimate of the ship design prior to contract award. It is based on the contract, ship specications, all of the documents referenced therein, the factors for determining loads, and the weights for GFM. The BIWE includes estimated values for design and building margin, and contains loading conditions for light ship and full load. The variable loads are realistically distributed throughout the ship in their appropriate spaces. When not to exceed (NTE) displacement and KG values are dened in the contract, the bidder (or offeror) shall take the appropriate measures to reect the design solutions and building practices that ensure delivery of a satisfactory ship.
DR
The Preliminary Allocated Baseline Weight Detail Design and Construction Estimate (PABWE) The PABWE establishes the potential contractors estimate of the ship design The detail design and construction phase evolves the prior to the award of a performance-type contract. It design closer to the actual product. To ensure the
AF
4.4
4.4.1 4.4.2
The Preliminary weight control plan This plan is submitted with detail design and construction proposals and outlines the procedures that will be followed to meet contractual weight control responsibilities.
Detail design is carried out by the shipbuilder to further develop the contract plans as required to prepare shop drawings used for an actual construction of the vessel. This phase provides installation and construction instructions to ship tters, welders, outtters, metal workers, machinery vendors, pipe tters, etc. It is during this phase that highly detailed weight and centers-of-gravity calculations are developed and supersede the estimates previously made during the Accepted Weight Estimate. The Weight Engineer and the Design Engineer/Designers should work very closely during this phase to ensure that the various aspects of the design, vendor selection and material choices are optimized to the fullest extent.
is based on the contract, Circular of Requirements, all the documents referenced therein, and the bidders (or oerors) proposed hull and propulsion congurations and includes estimated values for design and building margin, and contains contract modication and GFM margins as specied. Variable loads are realistically distributed throughout the ship in their appropriate spaces. After contract award, the PABWE of the successful bidder (or oeror) becomes the basis for the ABWE, which is used to measure contractor responsibility.
Detail Design and Construction Phases

Weight Considerations during Detail Design and Construction
Customers Requirements for
38 design is producible and will meet its performance requirements, the customer includes specic leverages and requirements in the Request-for-Proposal (RFP). Principally, the Bidder responding to the RFP has to demonstrate via an independent weight estimate that the vessel can be detail designed, constructed and delivered to the customer under a Notto-Exceed (NTE) displacement and KG constraint, thus preserving the full service life allowances. The following is a typical language that is usually included in the RFP requiring submittal of an Bidders Independent Weight Estimate: The Contractor shall, prepare and submit a Bidders Independent Weight Estimate (BIWE) as part of the proposal. The preliminary BIWE will be based on the nal Contract Design Weight Estimate with full details, and shall be within the Not-to-Exceed (NTE) values specied in Section H, Weight Control. The BIWE demonstrates the Bidders potential of meeting the NTE values specied in Section X-X, Weight Control. If the BIWE Full Load Condition exceeds the NTE values, the Bidder shall describe the technical actions it will take within the specication requirements to detail design and construct the ship so that the delivered ship will be within the NTE values specied in Section X-X, Weight Control. The weight and moment impact of these technical actions shall be included as an appendix to the preliminary BIWE. Cost impacts associated with the technical actions shall be included in the cost estimates submitted with the proposals. In addition, the Bidder shall prepare and submit a preliminary Detail Design Weight Control Plan, as part of the proposal, that outlines the plans and procedures in meeting the NTE values.
CHAPTER 4. WEIGHT CONTROL PROCESSES in the contract drawings and specications will have the strength, stability, and performance characteristics needed to carry out her mission. Careful engineering analysis is essential to ensure the validity of the estimates. Failure to exercise proper weight control during detail design and construction can destroy the assurance provided by these weight estimates. On the other hand, weight control programs initiated during late stages of design and construction cannot correct major deciencies in the basic design estimates without large expenditures of time and money for weight reduction eorts.
Chapter 6 discusses in more detail typical standard contract clause language requiring an NTE and its administration. This clause may be implemented with or without liquidated damages. Documentation of these estimates establishes the basis for the weight control program, and ensures that the ship described
DR
AF
1. Award Fee
4.4.3
T
Performance cepts
2. Evaluation Board
Incentive
Con-
The customer may decide to incentivize the shipbuilder for eorts geared towards exceeding standard weight control requirements. Below describes a performance incentive plan that is structured for the shipbuilder to receive rewards for design and construction decisions along the acquisition timeframe.
Successful weight control of the full load displacement, vertical center of gravity (VCG), and longitudinal center of gravity are critical for the ability of the ship to accept service life modications, control signatures, and preserve ballasting down capability over its service life. An incentive fee is awarded in accordance with the below procedures, in order to encourage superior Contractor eort which exceeds performance specications requirements directed towards this contract. The baseline of measuring performance of the above parameters will be the Accepted Weight Estimate (AWE), as modied by contract modications, and modications to GFM beyond contractors control.
The Contractors performance evaluation for each period will be conducted by the following evaluation board consisting of no fewer than ve of the following members:
4.4. DETAIL DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION PHASES

Customer (Owner) Ship Design Manager Weight Control Others
39
Estimate. The Design and Build (D&B) phase consists of two distinct weight control functions: weight monitoring and weight control.
DR
Allocated Baseline Weight Estimate (ABWE) The ABWE establishes the Contractors estimate of 3. Award Fee Process the ship design when the hull and propulsion conguGenerally, the award fee process follows the steps rations are dened. The ABWE reects a design that meets all of the required performance criteria, satisbelow: es the required service life allowances, and includes Contractor will present their eorts towards the appropriate margins. The basis for the estimate maximizing the predened parameters for is the Contractors PABWE that was submitted durthe specied evaluation period ing the solicitation process, adjusted as necessary to reect design changes and corrections. The ABWE Board will meet and evaluate results includes loading conditions, summaries, margins, and Prot Determining Ocial will convey dean appendix that establishes the baseline for measurcision ing detail design changes in GFM. Prot awarded via a Contract Modication The decision of the Prot Determining Of- Quarterly Weight Reports (QWR) The QWR cial is nal and not contestable. documents the current mass properties status of the ship design and construction eort. The light ship Prot Pool & evaluation periods and full load conditions reects the ship that is projected for delivery, including the current mass properDetail Design and Construction Products ties values for GFM and contract modications, both For U.S. Navy ships, the weight estimates, reports, adjudicated and unadjudicated. The Contractorand supplemental documents prepared during this responsible condition is used to adjust the current phase should be in accordance with the requirements full load to account for changes that occur after the specied in SAWE RP # 12. The weight estimates establishment of the contractual baseline and are not and reports prepared during this phase consist of within the control of the shipbuilder. the ABWE or AWE and Quarterly Weight Reports (QWR). These estimates and reports contain detailed Final Weight Report (FWR) The FWR reects information appropriate to the status of the design at the nal status of the ship design and construction the time of submittal and loading conditions. eort that resulted in a delivered product and is norDevelopment of the Accepted Weight Estimate The Accepted Weight Estimate is derived by comparison and analysis of the Contract Design Weight Estimate (developed by Governments agent, if applicable) and the Bidders Independent Weight Estimate that meets the NTE values as stated above. If agreement on the Accepted Weight Estimate cannot be reached within a specied period, or within such extended time as may be granted by the Contracting Ocer, the Contracting Ocer may unilaterally impose the NTE values as the Accepted Weight
AF
mally based on an inclining experiment. All of the reporting requirements of a QWR also apply to a FWR. In addition, when inclining experiment full load displacement and KG values dier from the weight estimate without margin predictions, an analysis of the data is conducted to reconcile the dierences. Those ndings which result in the correction of inaccuracies, reevaluation of factors, and so forth, are incorporated in the FWR. The only acquisition margin that may appear in the FWR is building margin. This margin accounts for irreconcilable dierences between the weight report and the inclining experiment. The de-
40 tail data comprising the FWR is submitted via an electronic media. Weight estimate and report appendices These appendices include: 1. GFM summary. The purpose of the GFM summary is to extract GFM weight and location data from the estimates and reports, and to identify the Government responsible net weight and moment change that occurs to GFM during detail design. GFM summaries accurately reect the Schedule A portion of the contract and are included as an appendix to the BIWE or PABWE, AWE or ABWE, each QWR, and the FWR.
CHAPTER 4. WEIGHT CONTROL PROCESSES dier from the preliminary plan in basic content, intent, or signicance. 5. Accepted Ship Report (ASR) The ASR is the document that demonstrates the Contractors performance with regard to weight control. It constructs Contractor responsibility by reporting the light ship values for displacement, KG, trim, and list from the inclining experiment, and the current loads from the most recent QWR. 6. Design and Weight Data Sheet The design and weight data sheet contains the information, and follows the format indicated on Figure 12 of SAWE RP # 12. This document is submitted with a note indicating whether the units are in the SI system or inch-pound system. 7. Weight moment of inertia report A weight moment of inertia report is submitted for the full load condition. Current weights, centers of gravity, and engineering information describing the shape and orientation of each data element are used to develop weight moments of inertia. The minimum required data is tabulated as follows:
Ship oriented roll, pitch, and yaw weight moments of inertia about the ships centroid in the full load condition and each individual data elements centroidal axes summarized by the three digit system. Ship oriented roll, pitch, and yaw weight moment of inertia about the ships centroid in the full load condition and each individual data elements centroidal axes summarized by group. Ship oriented roll, pitch, and yaw weight moments of inertia about the ships centroid in the full load condition and each individual data elements centroidal axes for the total ship. The gyradius for roll, pitch, and yaw.
3. Supplemental reports. When required by the CDRL, these reports provide additional information and background data during the detail design and construction phase. 4. Weight control plan A weight control plan is submitted that outlines the procedures to be followed in meeting the contractual weight control responsibilities. The plan addresses, but is not limited to, the topics listed in Section ??. In the event a preliminary weight control plan was submitted during the solicitation process, the post-award plan described herein should not
2 For U.S. Navy ships this would be the Supervisor of Shipbuilding (SUPSHIP)
DR
2. Contract modication summary. Prior to each claim for equitable adjustment in price and/or delivery asserted pursuant to the Changes Clause of the contract, an estimate of the net weight and moment change resulting from the contract modication is prepared and submitted to the Customer or the customers representative2 . The contract modication summary reects these weight and moment impacts as they appear in the details of the weight estimate, for both adjudicated and unadjudicated changes (including eld changes). The contract modication summary is submitted as an appendix to the QWRs, the ASR, and the FWR.
AF
8. Weight distribution report. A longitudinal weight distribution is submitted in a tabulated
4.4. DETAIL DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION PHASES format in accordance with the standard longitudinal station breakdown. Weight and longitudinal center of gravity is determined for each ship station for both light ship and full load condition. The resultant total weight and longitudinal center of gravity for the weight distribution report equals the values reected in the basic weight estimate or report for the same reporting period. Weight Monitoring Functions
80
41
100
Weight Control Functions
Control functions are those which cause the compilation of before-the-fact reports, detect trends, and evaluate corrective measures in a timely manner. These include compilation of quarterly reports, plotting and review of margin and weight growth curves, and evaluation of the eect on contract modications.
Figure 4.6 idealizes the relationship between monitoring and control functions. As monitoring functions are applied, estimated weights are gradually conrmed and the percentage completion increases. Control functions are applied primarily in areas not yet conrmed; this permits early detection of weight trends. Theoretically, as the percentage completion increases the possibility of weight growth and the need for control diminishes. However, this is not always the case. If a design were tight in any of its naval architectural characteristics at the beginning of construction, this might become extremely critical as the ship neared completion. More, rather than less, control would then be required in the nal period of ship construction. For the review, verication, and revision of estimates to keep pace with design development, the weight group must receive a systematic ow of information. This can best be done by including the weight group on distribution for all correspondence
DR
The lead Integrator maintains the responsibility for reporting the condition of the ship. As the design proceeds to development of a construction unit, design zone, and drawing, the weight control program encompasses a group of functions broadly classied as weight monitoring. Monitoring comprises functions that verify the estimates from the AWE. These functions include continual re-estimations of previous estimates, calculations of from ship construction drawings, reviewing vendors data, weighing of material, and verication of eld data such as paint, underlayments, steel mill tolerance, and others. The principle of successive approximations is applied to reect the latest data. The data is continuously checked against the budget numbers that were established via the AWE. Extractions from CAD systems are utilized to rene this data and improve on its accuracy. This area comprises the bulk of the work, therefore calculations are made by draftsmen; in other situations calculations are made by calculators and estimators assigned to the weights group. There are various possible combinations, but to be successful they must have internal procedures of how and when this workload will be accomplished and must have active management support.
Weight % Completion
AF
40 20 0 AWE
60
T
Application of control functions on areas still to complete allows of corrective measures detection of trends and application increases % completion
Examples of before-the-fact reports are reports in which the contractor, without waiting for completion of detail drawings, gives estimated weights and moments for items such as contract changes and anticipated design developments. In eect, weight engineers, estimators, and calculators must look over the shoulders of the designers and vendors to prepare before-the-fact reports.
Application of monitoring functions conrms estimates and thereby
Quarterly Reports
Final Report
Figure 4.6: Relationship between percent calculated and time for the detail design and construction phases.
42 aecting weights and centers of gravity, assigning weight group representatives to scoping conferences, and requiring that all departures from contract and contract guidance drawings be evaluated, before acceptance, for eect on weight and moment.
nal weight reports, a separate listing of incorporated contract modications. This listing must include the modication number, title, net weight, levers, and moments. Each modication listed must be marked to indicate whether the information is estimated, calculated, or actual and if the modication has been adjudicated. Also changes to GovernmentEvaluation of Contract Modications Furnished Materials provided for the modication The ship specications require that each claim for must be clearly identied. The line entries for each an equitable adjustment, asserted pursuant to the modication should be submitted in accordance with changes clause of the contract, shall include an es- the appropriate three-digit weight classication systimate of the net weight and moment eect of the tem, and the entire listing must be totaled so as to modications. show the net eect of all contract modications. Evaluations of the weight and moment eects for Initial evaluation of weight and moment eects of contract modications should be based on the best contract modications is sometimes based on incomcurrent design weight information available at the plete information. Only by comparing initial estitime of the evaluation. Where calculated or actual mates with calculated and actual weights can the weights are available for the work prior to the change, true net eect of change orders be determined. To these weights should be used as a basis for develop- do this, the contractor must be able to extract the ing the estimated eect of the modication. Where nal eects of contract modications from drawing calculated or actual weights are not available for the calculations and actual weights. In many cases this work prior to the change, the values from the Ac- requires frequent updating of the detail drawing calcepted Weight Estimate, revised to reect current de- culations. velopments, should be used to determine the eects of the modication. If the modication has been performed prior to evaluation or adjudication, detail cal- Evaluation of Government (Owner)-Furnished culations or actual weights for the change should be Material (GFM) used in the evaluation. Adherence to this method will ensure that the best possible weight and mo- Government-Furnished Material (Owner) supplied to ment eects are reported in the evaluation and adju- the contractor is listed in a document commonly redication of contract modications. This is extremely ferred to as Schedule A. Equipment on this list must important, since the adjudicated values for the con- be monitored and reported separately. The source of tract modication represent a contractual agreement the initial weights for Government-Furnished Mateto perform the change within the stated weight and rials is provided as part of the contract package. Although the contractor is not responsible for the moment values. If the weight and moment for the contract modication exceed the adjudicated values, weight growth of Government-Furnished Materials, it the excess is considered to be absorbed by the conmust be carefully monitored to determine its eect on the overall weight and center of gravity of the ship. tractors design and building margin. Upon receiving the contractors evaluation of the Just before the inclining experiment for a ship, the contract modication, the owners representative contractor must submit a report on the weight and compares this evaluation and if the two dier signif- moment eect of Government-Furnished Material. icantly, they should work to resolve the dierences. These weights and moments must be agreed upon by The resolution is set forth in a supplemental agree- both parties and incorporated into the contract by ment implementing or adjudicating the modication. supplemental agreement. This report is not subject In addition to the initial evaluation and report, the to change in determining Government and contractor contractor must submit, with the quarterly and - responsibility for weight and moment change.
DR
AF
4.4. DETAIL DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION PHASES Manufacturers or Vendors Weight Data Requirements Weight and center of gravity data for large contractor-furnished components must be controlled and reported by the vendor. To ensure this, the contractor must include, in the procurement documents or specications, a clause describing weight control procedures, weight limitations, and other required information. Reliability of a vendors calculated and actual weight data is frequently questionable. Use of penalty clauses in purchase orders can often improve vendor weight control outlook and reliability. To minimize the amount of actual mass determination necessary by the contractor in order to comply with the ship specications, the contractor shall, in his acquisition documents, require subcontractors or vendors to submit information on the current mass and location of the centers of gravity of all major assemblies, equipment, ttings, or components to be installed on the ship. It is suggested that information be submitted by subcontractors or vendors in accordance with [6]
43
4. Discussion of an understanding of the mass properties requirements based on [4]. 5. Method of communicating the importance of weight control to line personnel.
7. What actions will management take if adverse trends are detected. 8. Methods and degree of weight control imposed on vendors.
2. A schedule of brieng to management concerning the condition of the ship. Does it have the appropriate visibility?
DR
The shipbuilder must implement an aggressive weight control plan to monitor steel plate mill tolerance and paint tolerances that are over the specied nominal requirements. The shipbuilder should verify all vendor supplied components weight data by weighing those items and updating his weight database with Development of the Weight Control Plan actual scaled weight data. The weight engineering A weight control plan is nalized at the beginning of group should schedule meetings with the various outdetail design. The weight control plan serves as the tting crafts that are responsible for the installation builders internal guidelines and procedures of how of hull insulation and deck underlayment/coverings weight control will be accomplished to achieve the to stress the importance of optimizing their applicadesired results. Chapter 5 discusses the weight con- tions. trol plan in detail and also shows what a typical plan looks like. In short, the standard requirements (based Component weighing and Weighing Devices on SAWE RP No.12 [4]) are: Various types of scales are used when weighing and 1. A discussion concerning the condition of the ship are discussed in Chapter 10. These scales should be with respect to its naval architectural character- tested and certied periodically. Equipment to be istics. This discussion should include plans of weighed is witnessed and recorded by the designated which areas need to have weight control applied, personnel. and how it will be done. Plates and Shapes The shipyard typically develops a weighing schedule that may include every plate of each thickness, or a statistically signicant number. Mill tolerances are developed and incorporated in the weight report.
3. Discussion of appropriate weighing equipment an calibrations.
AF
4.4.4
6. Verication of steel mill tolerance, paints, welding and other similar factors.
Weight Considerations during Construction
44 Bulk Material and Equipment
4.5
4.5.1
Post-Construction Phases
Later Phases of the Weight Con- During the post-inclining and tting-out period, the weight group is faced with an increased workload trol that must compete against an extremely tight schedule. At the same time, normal channels of communication between the weight group and design and construction personnel can break down as a result of the rush to meet schedules for construction, testing and trials, and tting out. The general desire to avoid holdups during this period creates a tendency (among design, construction, and test personnel) to de-emphasize weight control, especially the returned-weight program. The weight control group must make every eort to anticipate these problems and, through careful planning and frequent personal contact with other groups, maintain the integrity of the weight program. Besides determining the eects of changes on the weight and center of gravity resulting from the test and trial program, the weight group during this period must, where applicable: verify estimated and calculated net capacities of tanks and uid-lled systems and components; estimate weight and moment data for repair parts, special tools, and other items
Following the detail design and construction period, the weight program can be divided into three distinct phases: post-inclining and tting out, sea trials, and recapitulation. These phases are linked by the common problem of the tendency of design and construction groupsin the rush to meet schedules and deliveryto overlook or de-emphasize weight control. This is especially evident in the program of calculating and weighing late modications, repair parts, and other items of portable outt. This tendency must not be allowed. Instead, the weight group must continually stress the importance of the weight program and intensify its monitoring and control functions. The sea trial period discloses many contractorresponsible and government-responsible deciencies. Although most of these are simple repairs that have no weight eect, some cause signicant weight changes that must be considered in the weight control program. Delivery of the ship at the end of the Final Weight Report is the starting point for post-delivery
DR
AF
contract changes. Both post-delivery contract modications and post-shakedown availability changes are Material is weighed to satisfy vendors requirements. evaluated, but are not included in the Final Weight Samples of insulation, sheathing, deck covering, Report. The Final Weight Report is compiled as soon joiner work, damping material, and electrical cable as possible after delivery. In preparing the report, all are weighed as necessary to develop a sampling data. calculated and estimated weights are reviewed and In addition, paint thickness samples are developed, replaced by actual weights where ever possible. The and welding allowances. report also includes a review of the eects of all ultimate and interim installations, as dened and reAssemblies and Erection Units quired by specications. During the later phase of the program the contracMajor assemblies and erection units are weighed to tor must keep track of all changes. This is especially monitor production practice, thus ensuring satisfactory values for detail design calculations, material true of the period between the last quarterly report tolerances, and paint factors. All units are weighed and the Final Weight Report, because large weight following sandblasting and painting. This practice changes, which frequently occur during this period, allows reconciliation of the variances between actual may make the last quarterly report misleading. Up and calculated weights. Actual versus calculated to date weight data is to be submitted during this peweights are typically reconciled to be within 3% for riod, either as change sheets for the quarterly report or through special reports. assemblies and vendor equipment. Post-inclining and Fitting-out Period
4.5. POST-CONSTRUCTION PHASES
45
of portable outt; and verify all previously unveried Sea Trials, Delivery, and PSA Products portions of the Accepted Weight Estimate. Builders and acceptance sea trials invariably disclose many contractor and Government-responsible deThe testing and trial program invariably turns up ciencies. Most of these are minor repairs that have needed design modications. Advance authoriza- negligible weight eects. Others, however, require tions, memoranda, sketches, etc. initiate most of careful evaluation for their eect on both weight and these modications. The weight group must receive arrangements. The weight control group must keep all of these. Changes on detailed ship construction informed of the status of the various deciencies and drawings lag actual installation of these changes by the eects of the proposed corrective action. On satisfactory completion of acceptance trials, the weeks or even months, and if the weight group must ship is delivered to the Navy. The delivery date eswait for drawing changes, they cannot properly evaltablishes the cuto point for the Final Weight Report uate weight eects. and xes the submittal data for that report. Changes and modications, which occur after delivery, are Repair parts, tools, and general portable outt rep- evaluated either as post-delivery contract modicaresent considerable weight that is virtually impossi- tions or as Post Shakedown Availability (PSA) items. ble to dene completely. Determination of a reliable Post-delivery contract modications are those apweight and moment allocation for this equipment re- proved after the delivery date of the ship. The weight quires both calculation and actual weighing. Most and moment eects of these modications are evalof the data needed to verify the Accepted Weight uated exactly as other contract modications. PSA Estimate allocation for portable outt must be ob- items are those developments and changes which betained from the ships allowance list. Data from ship come necessary during shakedown, and are installed construction drawings, vendors drawings and data during an availability at the end of that period. These sheets, stowage drawings, and actual weights must changes, like post-delivery contract modications, are supplement this information. Information from draw- also evaluated. ings is usually collected before tting out. The allowance list data and actual weights can only be obPost Shakedown Availability Weight and Motained during tting out. Ideally, all items of portable ment Report This weight and moment report is outt should be weighed in the storehouse. If this is prepared to document all changes that occur after done, the material need only be identied and located the post-delivery inclining experiment and that are when placed aboard the ship. Not all material can initiated prior to custody transfer. be weighed in this manner; some must be weighed as it is carried aboard. For this reason, weighing equipment and weight personnel must be stationed at or Final Consideration near the gangway. The active assistance of ships force is essential in this eort. They are normally re- On completion of a successful ship and submission sponsible for loading a large part of the portable out- of the Final Weight Report, the contractor usually t on weekends or during other slack periods when closes the books and les on the weight program for weighing personnel are not available. The ocer in that ship; however, this should not be done without a charge of loading must cooperate with the weight brief period of review and reection. Each aspect of group in weighing and identifying material loaded by the weight program should be considered not only in the ships force. The Supervisor must also visit and its individual application, but also in its contribution enlist the assistance and cooperation of supply and to the complete program. A detailed discussion of the outtting personnel in the control and reporting of entire weight program with the customer or owner weight, and provide them with guidelines. can determine areas of weakness or strength in the
DR
AF
46 program and contribute to the development of better programs for future contracts. During the review, nal design and weight data should be gathered on convenient forms, and a brief weight control history for the ship should be compiled. The weight history is essential for future reviews of the actual application of the weight control program to the design.
CHAPTER 4. WEIGHT CONTROL PROCESSES Another method is to monitor the ships growth against a projected growth trend line over the ships planned service life. If the ship is experiencing excessive weight and/or vertical moment growth then corrective action must be implemented and usually that is placing the ship in a restrictive stability status. In summary, during the ships service life the ships mass properties are monitored and managed so that the ship can carry out its set mission withduring out exceeding its naval architectural limits during the ships planned service life. In-Service Products
4.5.2
Weight Considerations In-Service
During the ships service life it is essential to keep the ship within its naval architectural limits. An initial and critical step in that process is to provide the appropriate Service Life Allowances (SLA) for weight and KG in the beginning of a ship design process. The next step is to deliver the ship with the full SLA required for weight and KG. At delivery, the ship will have a known full load displacement and KG based on its inclining experiment data. The amount of available SLA can then be determined by subtracting the ships displacement and KG values from the limiting displacement and KG values (see Figure 7.4 on page 89 ). The available SLA weight and KG must be analyzed against the required SLA weight and KG. If the full SLA is available once the ship enters the eet, the likelihood that the ship will stay within its naval architectural limits is greatly enhanced. However, it is important to monitor and track the ships mass properties during the Availabilities and Overhaul periods over the ships entire service life. This will allow the ship to accommodate planned and unplanned growth over the ships service life. If a ship is delivered with less SLA than required (see Chapter 7 for SLA requirements) and projections indicate that the ship may be at risk of being over its service life prior to the end of its planned service life, then ship is placed in a restrictive stability status (i.e., status 2, 3 or 4). Once the ship is placed in a restrictive stability status all future weight and/or vertical moment changes must provide full weight and/or vertical moment compensation (see Chapter 7 for details on weight compensation and stability status). Therefore, controlling the ships growth is the method used to manage the ships mass properties.
DR
AF
In order to evaluate the usage of SLA during a ships life, every time the ship has an availability or is overhauled, weight reports are prepared to document the weight and moment changes that occur during the availability. In general, these report are: Preliminary Weight and Moment Report. This report is the rst weight and moment report prepared for a shipyard availability and is generally based on preliminary ship alteration work packages and weight estimates. Estimated Weight and Moment Report. This weight and moment report is prepared with greater detail to include all weight and moment changes. Actual Weight and Moment Report. This weight and moment report includes actual weight and moment changes of all completed work items for the availability. This report is used to update the weight and moment baseline for the ship.
Chapter 5
Weight Control Program

New chapter. Filiopoulos, 8-18-06
DR
AF
47
by Christos Filiopoulos
An associate contractor may be another builder that has a dened ship zone of design (and possibly build) responsibility, as opposed to a vendor that simply supplies specic equipment to be integrated 5.1 Introduction into the design by others. Both must develop weight control functions that fall under the guidelines of the In todays defense shipbuilding practices most Weight Control Program. Therefore, the design and projects are bid by teams versus a sole bidder. This build pyramid that starts with production labor, the teaming environment involves several companies that vendors and part suppliers, design, and all the way come together to propose a single bid for the design, to the lead integrator becomes more complex and neconstruction, and in-service support of a ship class. cessitates a weight control program that denes the The team typically has a lead integrator who is con- goals so that everyone understands their responsibiltractually the prime designer/builder with the Gov- ity and their impact to the total ship. ernment or other contracting agent. As such, the lead Thus a Weight Control Program is dened as the integrator must bring together a team and integrate management of the weight by the design team durtheir products seamlessly into the design. ing design and construction to ensure that the ships Depending on the novelty of the design, a team mass properties are consistent with the naval archimight consist of the hull envelope designer and equip- tectural requirements of strength, stability, and perment integrator, associate contractors, and other sec- formance. ondary members designing weaponry, radars, and electric propulsion motors. Therefore, the role of the lead integrator is to guide the design, procurement, 5.2 Weight Control Plan and production to ensure that the delivered ship has the required service life allowances for weight and 5.2.1 General KG, and manage the consumption of these allowances during the ships service life. To do this the lead inte- When a contractor accepts a contract for the design grator has to develop an appropriate Weight Control and construction of a naval ship, he assumes a conProgram that addresses the requirements and ensures tractual responsibility for delivering a ship that does that the program is an integral part of the ship class not exceed weight and KG values established by the design, material denition, and production process. contract, the specications, and the Accepted Weight The weight control program must begin with the ini- Estimate. To fulll this responsibility, the contractor tial design and pace the ships development step by must establish a weight control plan that is commenstep to delivery of the vessel. surate with the contract requirements and the avail-
48 able design trade-space. This chapter provides some guidelines and a template for formulating a proper weight control plan. The weight control plan, along with the appropriately allocated acquisition margins, establishes the basis of meeting the weight and KG contract requirements. A weight control program is a higher-level document that guides (in terms of weight control) the design team, procurement, production, and associate designer/builder relationships. It is applicable from functional design until the end of service life. A weight control plan is usually associated specically with the detail design and construction phase. However, elements of the plan are applicable for both the functional design phases as well as post-construction phases. A successful weight control plan consists of a proper mix of weight monitoring and weight control functions. Weight monitoring functions include: successive calculations that improve their maturity and decrease risk; actual weighings; and eld sampling. Weight control functions include: development of the AWE; recognition and handling of adverse trends; and other actions proceeding the detail design. Another critical factor is the corporate implementation of the plan. In other words, internal company procedures should be developed or revised to reect the goal of the weight control plan otherwise it is just another document led for the customers satisfaction. These procedures should also be executed via Memoranda-of-Understanding when associate designers and builder are involved in the project.
CHAPTER 5. WEIGHT CONTROL PROGRAM (b) Contractual limits (c) List and trim tolerances and limits (d) Acquisition margin allocation vs. limits (e) Special hull forms and their sensitivity to the above limits.
5.3
DR
Plan Components
(a) Displacement and KG limits
The basic structure of the weight control plan should address in detail the following points: 1. A discussion of design risk with respect to the ships naval architectural characteristics, including special weight control problems and the areas that will receive weight control emphasis. Specic topics should include but be not limited to:
AF
2. A discussion of the methodology to be used in controlling and adjusting margins. 3. A description of the Program Management organization that includes the weight control function. The description should include: the relationships of various ship systems Integrated Product Teams (IPTs) with the weight control IPT or sub-IPT; the specic makeup of the weight control function sub-IPT, lead and other personnel; and frequency and make-up of briefings to top management. In addition, the following interfaces should be discussed in detail: (a) Weight Control Production Planning. This interface is necessary for release of drawings, purchasing schedule, production schedule for module lifts and inclining experiment.
(b) Weight Control Engineering and Drafting. This interface provides the coordination between engineers and weight control personnel in terms of design, weights (i.e., budgets), drawings and revisions, request for quotations from vendors, and other impacts. (c) Weight Control Purchasing. This interface is necessary to ensure all purchase orders satisfy weight control requirements. (d) Weight Control Production. This interface determines the adherence level to the production drawings, denes material substitutions, and communicates the weight control goals to the rank and le workers. (e) Weight Control Quality Assurance. This interface denes the control and acceptance of materials, manufacturing and inspection
5.4. SUMMARY processes, and coordination of warehouse inspections for weighings, etc. 4. A discussion that conveys an understanding of the actual weight determination requirements of the contract. 5. The method, procedures, and degree of weight control that will be required of associate shipbuilders, design agents, single source vendors, and other open competition vendors and suppliers. The discussion should include any documentation that denes the contractual responsibilities of the allocated margins and budgeted margins for associates and vendors.
49 pacity, accuracy, tolerance, calibrations and certication frequency. 10. A description of plans to eld verify weight of equipment, steel mill tolerances, welding, actual cable usage, hangers, paint, coatings, and other appropriate eld measurements. Specically, the plan should include: (a) A list of selected material to be weighed in order to validate that the weight of the received material is in accordance with the specications, purchase orders, and drawings. (b) Validation of vendor weight. [6] (c) Validation of Government Furnished Material.
DR
6. A detailed discussion that explicitly addresses plans for calculating the design and construction drawings, in a timely manner, to project and address any adverse trends. The discussion should include: the release of the construction drawings schedule; an accompanying schedule of planned calculations module by module with beginning and ending timeframes of these calculations; reporting of these drawings; and a schedule of the actual module construction. If the design involves legacy drawings from the unchanged portion of a previous design, the extent of evaluation and refresh of calculations of such drawings should be discussed. [4] denes the drawings maturation and calculation levels. 7. Recognition of an adverse trend, and the managements actions that will be taken upon detection of weight and margin adverse trends that indicate the contractual values will exceeded. An explanation of what is considered an adverse trend and what processes are in place to reverse and correct it.
The weight control program, and its subset the weight control plan, are integral functions of the de8. A description of the software used to calculate sign, material selection, and procurement processes and report the weight control eort, including that result in a delivered ship that successfully meets CAD systems, mass properties software, and all of the designs performance, safety, and contractual requirements. The outline above denes the other design software. goals and sets forth methods that can be used by 9. A listing and description of appropriate eld management for the development of a credible weight weight measurement equipment that includes ca- control plan. However, its implementation depends
AF
5.4 Summary
11. A description of the method of communicating the importance of weight control to personnel involved in the design and construction of the ship. This should involve separate training classes focusing on integrating weight control in all ship systems during detail design, and likewise training classes for production personnel. A regular schedule of reporting the condition of the ship to personnel should be included. 12. A discussion of how the construction will be veried by the quality assurance department and how this information will be passed to the weight control manager. Reconciliation techniques should be discussed.
50 on the development of appropriate corporate organizational and technical procedures that will ensure a successful execution.
CHAPTER 5. WEIGHT CONTROL PROGRAM
5.5
New section, 9-3-06, Tellet
The following pages provide an example of a weight control plan for a naval ship. An actual weight control plan will dier based on the type of ship or vehicle (naval, commercial, private, etc.), mission, the engineering organization structure, and contract details.
DR
AF
Weight Control Plan Example
5.5. WEIGHT CONTROL PLAN EXAMPLE
51 [ Class ]
TABLE OF CONTENTS
l. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. Introduction Denitions Purpose Outline of Weight Control Program Organization and Administration Responsibilities, Key Personnel Manning Discussion of Naval Architectural Characteristics Special Weight Problems Computer Usage Vendor Weight Control Weighing and Sampling Welding & Mill Tolerance & Paint Factors Change Order Procedure Weight Reports & Final Weight Report, Schedules and Submittal Dates Government Furnished Material Detailed Weights Per Plan Margins and Trends Management Brieng Weight Control Organization Chart Weight Monitoring & Control Chart Appendix: Section 096 of Ship Specications
DR AF T
52
CHAPTER 5. WEIGHT CONTROL PROGRAM [ Class ]
1. INTRODUCTION
The shipyard received a contract from the U.S. Navy for the construction of [ Ship ], [ Class ]. The contract specications with the contract and contract guidance drawings dene the ship as to dimensions, structure, arrangements, performance, and power. The Shipyard engaged a Detail Design Agent to perform certain design and detail engineering as required to construct and deliver the vessel. Section 096, Weights, of the Specications describes the requirements for the Accepted Weight Estimate and other Weight Reports and Weight Control Procedures. Section 096 is attached as an Appendix to this Plan. This Weight Control Plan describes the methods to be followed in meeting the weight control responsibilities.
2. DEFINITIONS
Weight Control Program All action (estimating, reporting, weighing, calculating, analyzing and projecting) needed to insure that ships weight. and centers are consistent with approved Accepted Weight Estimate as adjusted for approved changes and conrmed growth in weight of Government Furnished Equipment. This includes the timely evaluation of the eect of dierences in weight and moments on the displacement, trim and stability, and the detection and correction of unacceptable trends in weight and moment growth. Weight Control Manager - Naval Architect, Shipyard.
Weight Control Coordinator - Senior Naval Architect, Detail Design Agent The individual who has been assigned the responsibility for the execution and proper operation of the Weight Control Program and Plan.
Weight Engineers - Naval Architects, Detail Design Agent The individuals assisting the Weight Control Coordinator by performing detail calculations and gathering and checking weight data obtained from the weight control coordinators and vendors and the results of sampling and actual weighing of equipment and material at the shipyard.
Weight Control Monitors - Detail Designers, Detail Design Agent The individuals assigned the responsibility of assisting the Weight Control Engineers by monitoring and reviewing the input from their respective departments to the weight control eort.
DR
The individual in charge of all shipyard weight estimating and weight control.
AF
53 [ Class ]
Government Furnished Material Material procured and furnished by the Navy Department. In addition to the above classications, all government furnished materials shall be so designated in estimated weights and in all calculated weights. Weight Classication Three Digit System A system for ship weight classication dened and illustrated in Expanded Ship Work Breakdown Structure (ESWBS) and Appendix A thereto, publication NAVSHIPS 0900-039-9010. Other Denitions Other denitions are contained in Section 096 of the Specications which are included as an Appendix to this Plan.
3. PURPOSE
The purpose of this document. is to establish a weight control program by dening responsibilities and initiating standard procedures. The weight control program is instituted so that the vessel, as delivered, will not exceed the weight and centers stated in the Accepted Weight Estimate adjusted for accepted Change Orders and proven changes in the weight of the Government Furnished Material.
DR AF T
54
4. OUTLINE OF WEIGHT CONTROL PROGRAM

The Weight Control Program will be executed as follows: 1. By calculating detail weights of selected construction plans. (See Section 16).
2. By accurately weighing items of Government Furnished Material. Standard items and hardware and equipment with known conrmed weights will not be weighed. (See Section 15). 3. By actual weighing of vendor supplied equipment and components of same. (See Section 10). 4. Material and components such as alloys, insulation, piping and cabling shall be weighed on a selective or sampling basis. (See Sections 11 & 12) . 5. An attempt shall be made to keep weights of vendor equipment under control so that the weight of equipment, as delivered, will be within the estimated weights. The word attempt is used deliberately because it is often necessary to balance equipment performance against increased weight necessary to obtain that performance. Very often performance requirements override weight considerations. The use of this word is made in recognition of this problem. 6. By constant monitoring of selected plans and materials as the vessel is designed and constructed. 7. By timely monitoring assessment of the ships weight status during the detail design and construction phases, analysis and reporting of adverse trends, and developing recommendations for corrective actions, when necessary. These actions will primarily be taken at the time of each quarterly report. (See Section 17). The Weight Control Program is fully detailed and explained further in this Plan.
DR AF T
55 [ Class ]
5. ORGANIZATION AND ADMINISTRATION
1. Monitor the Detail Design Agents administration of the Weight Control Program.
2. Develop with the Detail Design Agents weight group, detailed plans for weighing vendor and Government equipment and check tolerances and weight factors. 3. Carry out the physical work for various weighing plans.
4. Accomplish any special weighings requested by the Detail Design Agents weight group. 5. Maintain communication with the Detail Design Agent on weight matters.
DR AF T
The proper execution of the Weight Control Program requires the closest of cooperation between the Shipyard, the Shipyards contractors and the shipyards Detail Design Agent. To this end, several concrete actions have and will be taken. First, during the critical initial detailed design phase, the shipyard has stationed a representative at the Detail Design Agent, one of whose primary duties is to assure that good lines of communication are opened and kept open. It is also intended that as construction progresses, members of the Detail Design Agents weight group will visit the Shipyard to inspect vessels under construction to gain an understanding of the vessel which will facilitate their work. To further communication, the Shipyard provides copies of all Engineering Change Notices (ECNs), Design Request Notices (DRNs), and revised drawings to its design agents on a real time basis so that all parts of the design agents organization as well as the weight group are fully up-to-date on the status of the ship as it is being constructed. The Detail Design Agent has, as part of its organization, a weight group of [ number ] people with a total of [ number ] years experience in weight estimating and weight control for Naval ships as well as Merchant ships. Of this group, [ number ] will be dedicated to the ship for the duration of the contract. The head of the weight group, as Weight Control Coordinator, will have overall control and will administer the program. The Shipyard will also establish a formal weight group in their organization to accomplish the following:
56
6. RESPONSIBILITIES, KEY PERSONNEL MANNING

The Shipyard, as prime contractor for the design and construction of the [ Class ], has full responsibility for all phases of the Weight Control Program. The Shipyards Detail Design Agent has been tasked to perform all weight calculations, weight report preparation and weight analysis. The Shipyards Detail Design Agent will jointly develop and prepare detailed plans for weighing vendor and Government Furnished Material, checking weight factors and monitoring tolerances. It is also expected that the Detail Design Agent will, from time-to-time, feel the need to check items not covered by joint plans. They will, in these cases, request the Shipyard to make appropriate check weighings or measurements. Key personnel in the weight program will be designated by position to obviate the necessity of revising this plan each time a key person is reassigned. The head of the weight group at the Detail Design Agent will be that rms senior Naval Architect who will report to their Technical Director and Project Manager for all matters concerning weights and act as Weight Control Coordinator. The Weight Control Coordinator will designate one or more other Naval Architects as the Ships Weight Engineers. The Detail Design Agents Project Manager will task each functional design section manager to designate a section weight monitor whose job it will be to ensure that all weight data developed in the section is reported to the weight group and that weight control measures developed by the weight group are implemented in the functional design section. The Weight Control Coordinator will perform the following functions: 1. Receive and integrate into the weight calculations weight information generated in the functional design sections. 2. Maintain liaison with the Shipyard Weight Control Manager. 3. With the Shipyard Weight Control Manager, develop various detailed plans and procedures needed to obtain actual weights of equipment and material. 4. Request special weighings at the Shipyard. 5. Develop quarterly and special weight reports. 6. Set up a trend monitoring system; evaluate trends in both weight and centers of gravity. 7. Based on trend analysis make recommendations to correct adverse trends to the Shipyard Weight Manager via the Detail Design Agents Project Manager. At the Shipyard the Weight Control Manager will be the rms Naval Architect assisted by the rms Naval Architect Technician. The Weight Control Manager will report directly to the Chief Engineer. The Weight Control Manager will perform the following functions: 1. Maintain liaison with the Detail Design Agents Weight Control coordinator. 2. With the Weight Control Coordinator, develop detailed plans and procedures to obtain actual weights of equipment and material.
57 [ Class ]
3. Direct the Shipyards Naval Architectural Technician during his execution of weighing plans and ensure timely reporting to the Detail Design Agents Weight Group.
7. DISCUSSION OF NAVAL ARCHITECTURAL CHARACTERISTICS

The performance requirement of each ship is relative to the importance of the mission for which the ship was designed. Whether the ship is successful or not depends on how well she carries out her assigned tasks. Seaworthiness in extreme weather conditions, a high degree of stability and maneuverability are the main performance requirements. It is important that these relationships are not disturbed. Any major change in vertical center of gravity could adversely aect the roll period of the vessel and hence seriously impair the performance of the ship. Seaworthiness and speed would also be aected by major change in weights and weight centers. Care must be taken to monitor all weight input to prevent any undue weight growth. Timely reporting of weight data, detection of adverse trends, and development of recommended corrective actions, when necessary, are essential to the implementation of an eective Weight Control Plan.
8. SPECIAL WEIGHT PROBLEMS
(Use as necessary to describe known 0r suspected problems which may occur during the ships detail design and construction.)
DR AF T
4. Report to the Shipyards Chief Engineer regarding the current weight status of the ship, any adverse trends, and recommended corrective actions.
58
9. COMPUTER USAGE
10. VENDOR WEIGHT CONTROL
It is of vital concern to keep the weight of Vendor supplied material within the estimated gures with no compromise in reliability or other basic requirements. The vendor shall furnish, with his proposal, an estimated weight and center of gravity of the equipment intended to be furnished and the Weight Control Group will determine if these weight gures are within allowable limits. Vendors of distributive materials (insulation, sheathing, piping, cable, etc.) shall also submit a trade sample of each item to be furnished. The vendor shall keep the Shipyard advised by letter of any deviation of weight. Changes in weight of the lesser of [100 ] pounds or [10 ]% (total purchase order) need not be reported. If the actual weight of the equipment exceeds the estimated weight by [emph10]% or more, the vendor will be required to reduce the weight or justify the increase. Upon completion and shipment of the rst unit, a vendor shall submit a report of estimated, calculated and scaled weights and center of gravity for each item having a unit weight of [200 ] pounds or more. Weights for repair parts shall be for the as packaged condition. Weight information shall be provided for each piece of equipment and separately mounted components. The location of the center of gravity of equipment and/or separately mounted components shall be shown in outline views with respect to three reference planes normal to each other. The center of gravity shall be shown for the dry condition and for wet operating condition as applicable.
DR AF T
(Use as necessary to describe shipyards or detail design agents facilities, data processing methods, computer programs, and priorities. )
59 [ Class ]
11. WEIGHING AND SAMPLING
DR AF T
The weight group established at the shipyard will have as its primary mission the execution of weighing and sampling plans developed by the Weight Control Manager and the Weight Control Coordinator. The plans shall consist of detailed lists of items to be weighed and they shall be prepared well in advance of the rst deliveries of materials and equipment to the yard. Weighing will be initiated by the Shipyards Naval Architectural Technician in accordance with the plans at delivery of the equipment. SUPSHIP personnel will be notied in writing before any material or any equipment weighing [500 ] pounds or more is weighed. Reports of actual weights will be transmitted to the Weight Group via letter with copy to SUPSHIP. One unit of each piece of equipment to go on board ship weighing [200 ] pounds or more will be weighed as will one sample of each item of distributive material. Results will be transmitted to the Weight Group for incorporation into the Weight Reports. Special weighing or special weight information may be requested by the Weight Group from time to time. Such requests will be made and responded to in writing. The equipment on the following page is available at the Shipyard for weighing materials and equipment to be used for the construction of the ship.
60
CHAPTER 5. WEIGHT CONTROL PROGRAM [ Class ] SHIPYARD SCALES AND THEIR LOCATIONS [list of equipment]
DR AF T
61 [ Class ]
12. WELDING AND MILL TOLERANCES AND PAINT FACTORS

Welding, mill tolerances, and paint factors will be determined by and shall be given to the Detail Design Agents Weight Control Group by the shipyard. These factors shall be based on the Shipyards past experience as well as current conditions and materials to be used in construction. As part of the weighing plan, samples of materials aected by these factors to be used in the construction of the Ship will be weighed and compared with unit weights used in the Accepted Weight Estimate. Determination of the validity of factors for welding, mill tolerances, and paint may be made early in the program as weighing is less dependent on receipt of material and equipment at the shipyard. A report of the Shipyards recommendations regarding these factors shall be prepared and submitted to NAVSEA for information.
13. CHANGE ORDER PROCEDURE
For each (adjudicated and unadjudicated) modication, the weight and moment eect will be evaluated by either the Detail Design Agent or the Shipyard, dependent upon who is reviewing the modication. The results of these calculations will be forwarded to SUPSHIP by the Shipyard with the contract modication. Changes in weight of less than [100] pounds or change in moment of less than [1000 ] foot-pounds shall not be reported. A contract modication weight report can have a decrease or increase in either weight and/or moments. There can be a change in moment without a change in weight. A separate listing of adjudicated and unadjudicated contract modications, listed numerically by SUPSHIP change order number and including title and change in net weight and moments will be included with each Quarterly Weight Report and Final Weight Report. Supporting details for each change will be prepared and submitted with the three digit system and load summary. Items of Government Furnished Material will be indicated.
DR AF T
62
14. WEIGHT REPORTS AND FINAL WEIGHT REPORT, SCHEDULES AND SUBMITTAL DATES
Weight Reports
After approval of the Accepted Weight Estimate, a Quarterly Weight Estimate will be prepared and forwarded to SUPSHIP every three months. The Quarterly Weight Reports shall be as dened in Section 096 of the Specications. As required by the Specications, each Quarterly Report will include reasons for change from the previous report as well as recommendations for reversing unsatisfactory trends toward exceeding the established margins or limits. Quarterly Reports will reect the latest evaluation of the ships weight condition as indicated by the current revision of calculated detail drawings and the most recent actual and vendor weights received from the Shipyard. As the reports will be based on design, vendor, and actual weights, they will reect the ships detail design status but not its construction status. The input weight cuto date for each Quarterly Report will be 30 days prior to the required submittal date for that report. The last Quarterly Weight Report will be submitted approximately three months prior to the scheduled date of the Inclining Experiment.
Final Weight Report
Ninety days after delivery of the vessel, the Detail Design Agent shall submit a Final Weight Report to the shipyard for forwarding to SUPSHIP. Items will be grouped and detailed as in the Accepted Weight Estimate. Where found appropriate, the data generated when calculating detail weights for plans will be incorporated in the Final Weight Report. The report will include all data for Contract Modications and GFM and will be prepared according to the Contract specications, Section 096, reecting the condition of the ship as built.
DR AF T
63 [ Class ]
15. GOVERNMENT FURNISHED MATERIAL
16. DETAIL WEIGHTS PER PLAN
The Accepted Weight Estimate is based on the plan schedule of the subject ship. This will permit the substitution of calculated weights on selected plans in the Quarterly Weight Report for the estimated weights previously entered. All plans having an estimated total weight of [500 ] pounds or more shall be calculated, as will subsequent revisions having an estimated total weight of [200 ] pounds or more. When calculating weights from plans, the total weight of all material on the plan shall be considered. These weights may be calculated, scaled or manufacturers weights and shall be taken from the installed dimensions and not from the ordered dimensions. Weights of individual components as furnished by the vendors shall be substituted for the estimated weights as they become available. Care shall be taken to avoid duplication of items appearing on more than one plan. The calculations for weights and moments of selected plans will be accomplished only after the plan has been approved and is released for construction. The Weight Group will be on distribution for all correspondence dealing with receipt of GFM and CFM vendor drawings and will therefore search out and extract weight data from each drawing as received. As the weight estimates and reports are based on detail design information and not on ship construction progress, they are expected not to be concurrent with construction but should reect the ships status well in advance of it. Agreement between the detail design information and the conguration of the ship as built will be conrmed by onboard inspections by both the Shipyard and the Detail Design Agents weight control personnel referred to in Section 5. Vendor weight control and reporting between the Shipyard and the Detail Design Agent shall be accomplished as mentioned above and in accordance with Section 10.
DR AF T
A Government Furnished Material List will be included with the Accepted Weight Estimate, Quarterly Weight Reports and Final Weight Report. The GFM report submitted with the Accepted Weight Estimate will be based on estimated weights, levers and moments. The GFM and its eect on displacement, trim, list and stability is the responsibility of the Government and not of the Shipyard. Therefore, proper weight data of GFM is to be obtained. It is the intent of the shipyard to weigh all items of GFM having a unit weight of [200 ] pounds or more before this material and equipment is installed on board and consequently this data will update the GFM reports periodically. A schedule of GFM items to be weighed will be prepared within advance of the rst deliveries of GFM to the shipyard and submitted to SUPSHIP. SUPSHIP will be notied in writing before any major item of GFM (weighing [500 ] pounds or more) is weighed. SUPSHIP signature will be required as witness to weighing of all major items of GFM but SUPSHIP non-attendance at a scheduled weighing will be construed as approval of the scale weight of the item as determined by the weighing.
64
17. MARGINS AND TRENDS
18. MANAGEMENT BRIEFING
The Weight Control Coordinator shall brief management concerning the ships naval architectural condition prior to each Weight Report submittal. A formal verbal brieng will be made to management and to the detail design section managers at the time of submittal of the Accepted Weight Estimate, thereafter management and line personnel will be provided with a written description of the condition of the ship at each Quarterly Report. Special verbal or written briengs to management and line personnel shall be made as necessary to ensure their awareness of the naval architectural condition of the ship.
19. WEIGHT CONTROL ORGANIZATIONAL CHART

The Weight Control Organizational Chart on the following page corresponds to the organization detailed in Sections 5 and 6 of this Plan. Locations of personnel are indicated in parentheses where Shipyard refers to location at the Shipyard and DDA refers to location at the Detail Design Agents oce. The six blocks at the bottom of the chart refer to the Weight Control Monitors in each detail design section who report all weight data developed in the sections to the Weight Control Group. As stated in Section 6, key personnel in the weight program are designated by position rather than by name in order to obviate the necessity of revising this plan each time a key person is reassigned.
DR AF T
Margins are assigned to the shipbuilduilder and become part of the Accepted Weight Estimate, and are composed of Design Margin and Building Margin. Design Margin is available through the entire contract period. Any Contractor responsible change to the ships displacement or vertical moment will be reected in a corresponding increase or decrease in the previously agreed upon Design Margin. Building Margin is based on mill tolerances, dierences in ship and curves of form, and omissions from plans. This margin is held until the vessel is completed and then adjusted to suit the ships actual weight. In order to detect trends, weight reports will include margin and weight curves. Analyzing and correction of trends depend upon the accuracy of these curves and therefore all weight data will be reviewed continually. When analyzing, care will be taken to insure that the detected trends are true and not caused by extraneous data. Once a true trend has been detected, corrective action will be taken in the form of recommendations by the Weight Control Group to the appropriate Shipyard personnel via the Weight Control Coordinator. These recommendations will also be forwarded to SUPSHIP and NAVSEA personnel via the next scheduled Quarterly Weight Report as required by Section 14 of this plan and Section 096 of the Specications.

WEIGHT CONTROL ORGANIZATION CHART
65
Chief Engineer (Shipyard)
Technical Director (DDA)
Hull Structure Monitor
Eng
DR AF T
Weight Control Manager (Shipyard) Contract Administrator (Shipyard) Sub-Contractors Project Manager (DDA) Data Processing (DDA) Weight Control Coordinator (DDA) Weight Control Engineers (DDA) Propulsion Monitor Electric Plant Monitor Comm. and Control Monitor Aux. Systems Monitor Outt & Furnish. Monitor Vend Eng Vend Eng Vend Eng Vend Eng Vend Eng Vend
66
20. WEIGHT MONITORING AND CONTROL CHART
DR AF T
The Weight Monitoring and Control chart on the following page was developed from Figure 7-1 of NAVSEA publication S9096-AA-WCM-010/(U) WT CNTRL, Weight Control of Naval Ships, Volume 1. The chart generally indicates how the sources and reports containing weight data are coordinated and related to one another. It also provides an indication of responsibility for each weight control action described in Sections 10 through 16 of this plan.

SYSTEM FOR WEIGHT MONITORING AND CONTROL
MONITORING
DDA Weight Est. of Contract & Guidance Dwgs & Specs
67
CONTROL
Contract Mod Calcs ECP, ECN, FMR
DR AF T
VENDORS NAVSEA Vendor Weights Contract Design Weight Estimates SHIPYARD SHIPYARD/ DDA/NAVSEA Accepted Weight Estmates Scale Weights DDA AS REQ'D DDA DDA DDA Comparison Studies Machinery Weights Detail Drawing Calculations Quarterly Weight Report DDA Equilibrium Conditions DDA DDA GFM Report Final Weight Report Contract Mod Report Reason for Change Analy. Weight Dist Studies DDA Design and Weight Data Sections Launching Weights
68
CHAPTER 5. WEIGHT CONTROL PROGRAM
DR AF T
Chapter 6
Management of Mass Properties

by Dominick Cimino
The system and subsystem components of a ship design are generally classied in a one and three digit hierarchical numeric system. The weight estimate for 6.1 Weight Classication Sys- the ship design will be summarized by an estimate of light ship, margins and loads. tems Weight estimates will generally be categorized by one of several type of Work Breakdown Structures The weight classication system is a method by which all weight estimates are functionally organized. The (WBS) or weight classication systems. The followweight classication system provides the naval archi- ing classication systems are those most commonly tect or weight engineer with a format for organizing used in todays weight engineering environment for weight data that will be in a consistent format. The the design of naval and commercial ship design prosystem allows for the grouping of materials, equip- grams. ment and components of the ship in a structured order to facilitate weight estimating, comparison to previous designs, and to assure completeness. Ad- 6.1.1 ESWBS (U.S. Navy) ditionally, the weight classication system provides guidance and denition at a system and subsystem The Expanded Ship Work Breakdown Structure level and aids in the preparation of a complete and (ESWBS) [7] is a ve-digit functional classication system. For weight reporting purposes, only the rst accurate estimate. A common term used in weight engineering is three digits of this system apply. The fourth and weight group. Group is a fundamental unit of ship fth single digit classication levels are used to incorclassication, identied by one numeric digit or an porate the functions that support maintenance and alphabetic designator. For weight estimates and re- repair needs. There are nine one-digit groups in the ESWBS ports, a group is the rst character or digit of the multi digit system. The summation of weights and weight classication system that comprises the moments for all of the three digit elements that be- weight estimate. They are shown in Table 6.1. gin with the number 1 is the total for Group 1, and The ESWBS groups (17, and M) represent the similarly for the other groups. projected ship design in Condition A (Lightship with The basic weight group denition of a ship design Margins). The ESWBS group F (loads) added to the is represented by the ships structure, machinery and projected light ship results in Condition D (deparequipment, auxiliary systems, outt and furnishing, ture full load). Other unique loading conditions may mission equipment, acquisition margins and loads. added and dened by other letters. 69
DR AF T
70 ESWBS 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 M F Description Hull Structure Propulsion Plant Electric Plant Command and Surveillance Auxiliary Systems Outt and Furnishings Armament Margins, Acquisition Loads, Departure Full
CHAPTER 6. MANAGEMENT OF MASS PROPERTIES
6.1.2
Weight estimates and reports prepared for U.S. commercial ship designs are classied in accordance with the Maritime Administration (MARAD) weight classication system [8]. The MARAD weight classication system is comprised of the three major groupings below: Hull Structure Outt Machinery Weight Codes 0-0 to 9-9 Weight Codes 10-0 to 19-9 Weight Codes 20-0 to 29-9
Appendix C provides a complete listing of the MARAD weight classication system.
6.2
6.2.1
Weight control is applied to all designs starting from feasibility through all design and building phases.
DR AF T
MARAD (U.S. Commercial) 6.2.2
The applied methods and the role of the mass properties engineers dier with each design phase. Initial methods include development of parametric equations, ratiocination, and estimation. Later practices involve manual calculations from drawings, CAD produced data, detail estimations, vendor weights, actual scale weights, monitoring the data, and incorporating ECPs to keep the database current. A mass properties software or modules from other software should address each of these aspects of weight control functions by providing capabilities that develop, store, manipulate, and report ships weight data from Table 6.1: ESWBS one-digit weight groups. feasibility to delivery of the ship. The mass properties software should at least be capable of producing As previously mentioned, the weight classication detailed weight reports according to the requirements is a hierarchical numeric system. The ESWBS 1-digit of SAWE Recommended Practice No 12. In addition, groups represent the system level and the subsystem other auxiliary reports are needed, such as: moments level is dened by the ESWBS 3-digit elements. of inertia, 20-station weight distribution, engineering Appendix B provides a complete listing of the changes, and weight design data sheets. ESWBS 1-digit groups and 3-digit elements.
Database Development
Accounting and Reporting Systems Computer Applications

Software Selection
The convergence of data from various methods and sources mentioned above is best handled in a single relational database. In the past this data was accumulated into a at le, meaning a single table. This single table was an ascii character le and later a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet. This method works well for most cases, however, the le size, redundancy of data, and the limited ability to extract desired data connections renders the at le less desirable than currently available technologies. The standard practice was to split this at le into several sections. Each weight estimator would work on their section and reassemble the le and produce a weight estimate. Since weight reports have to account for every item making up the ship, they are inherently very large les. Therefore it becomes apparent this method is not very ecient, nor does it provide the total solution until the le is reassembled again. The current technology of a relational database splits the data into several tables internally. These tables may be joined to produce a desired result via a linkage called the key eld (in this case, usually the ESWBS and item number). This technology provides
6.2. ACCOUNTING AND REPORTING SYSTEMS COMPUTER APPLICATIONS far more capability in mining the database, making quick global changes with conditions, reducing space requirements, and eliminating data duplication. The weight estimate is available to the user on a continuous basis. One of the most powerful features of a Relational Database Management System (RDMS) is the capability to set up a client/server network architecture to develop and manage the weight estimate. The Server allows the creation of the database les, tables, elds and records. Since weight reports from some of the larger Naval ships run into the range of 400,000 lines of data, the server is usually a fast machine with multiple processors and drives that speeds up the production of weight estimates. The Client interface allows workstation users to work with database les by adding and retrieving mass properties data for various purposes. A weight estimator accesses the database as a client by inputting data from his area and processes the data at the server and gets back a report. This Server/Client model becomes necessary in todays ship design process which may involve partnerships of several national or international companies doing design development via an Integrated Data Environment (IDE). Developing a relational database requires sucient skill that it is best left to software designers. However, mastering the skill to develop stored procedures and execute them, as well as develop calls to a relational database to extract any ad-hoc request for data should be considered necessary for mass properties engineers.
71
6.2.4
Weight Reporting
1. Lightship Group Group Group Group Group Group Group
DR
6.2.3
Viewing Weights Data
As mentioned above, the weight report le grows in size very quickly. Viewing detailed data is done best via relational database writers such as SEAGATE Crystal Report Writer. These report writers enable navigation technology via the Group Tree View command. This way the ESWBS tree directory can be used to jump immediately to a specic ESWBS element for viewing. There is no need to page down hundreds of pages to get to a specic ESWBS element. In addition, the output is easily customized by expanding and collapsing capabilities.
AF
2. Variable loads 3. Acquisition margins
Weight reports that represent various functions are: Feasibility Weight Estimate an initial estimate produced by primarily using ratiocination equations Contractor Design Weight Estimate represents the ship as solely estimated by the contractor Accepted Weight Estimate the weight estimate that represents the agreed upon condition of the ship and represents the baseline for the quarterly weight reports. Quarterly Weight Reports are progress reports submitted to the customer quarterly. They contain completed detailed calculations and estimates from the AWE. This is the document from which the customer monitors the weight growth due to the eects of drawing calculations, revised estimates, revised vendor estimates, and actual scale weights. Engineering Change Reports progress reports that dene the changes initiated by the customer.
T
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 -
Detail weight reports are prepared in accordance to the format dened in [4]. They may be summarized to a three, two, or one digit level of detail depending on needs. The basic structure of each weight estimate/report is as follows:
Hull Structure Propulsion Electric Plant Command and Surveillance Auxiliary Systems Outt and Furnishings Armament
72
New paragraph
20-Station weight distribution reports The light ship and Full Load Condition (and any other additional conditions) are used to produce a longitu Government Furnished equipment dinal weight distribution. Weight per unit length is Weight changes from follow ships or yards determined to develop the weight curve. The buoyancy per length is used to determine the buoyancy Various weight studies curve. The load curve is determined by subtract Launching weights ing the weight curve from the buoyancy curve. Using Summary and sorting of materials (for cost- simple beam theory, shear and bending moments and ing) stress are derived at any point along the length of the Budget weight allocations (organizational ship. In order to derive the longitudinal distribution, the responsibility) ship is longitudinally portioned o into 22 equal sta Lifting weights tions. Each station has the length of 1/20 of the length All of these reports can be prepared easily by query- between perpendiculars (LBP). The rst station contains items whose LCG is forward of the forward pering the relational database. In addition, the following reports are typically pro- pendicular (FP), and the last station contains items whose LCGs are past the aft perpendicular (AP). The vided to assist other ship design functions: rst station past the FP and working towards the FP Moment of inertia reports The ability to im- contains items whose LCG falls between the FP and LBP/20). The next Station prove on ships motions prediction has become in- the end of Station 1 (FP + creasingly important over the past decades as indi- includes items whose LCG is between Station 1 and LBP/20), and so on. Weight entries cated by many unconventional hull forms that range Station 2 (FP + from SWATHs1 to SES-type2 ships. Therefore, the can be distributed over a maximum of nine stations. ability to calculate gyradius during design, or predict In addition, margin may be distributed over the 22 a reasonable value during feasibility design has be- stations in proportion to the basic hull structure discome important. The calculation of inertia (in air) tribution. Reference x contains a further explanation involves two components. The rst is the transfer- and graphical depiction of this process. ence component which comprises the weight times the distance squared as referenced from the ships 6.3 Weight Control Contract centroid. This is done for the longitudinal, vertical, and transverse directions. All necessary information Clause is contained in the rst record of the data input. The second component is held in the second record The following is a typical example of a Standard Conand relates certain common shapes to estimate the tract Clause for Weight Control and is discussed in mass moment of inertia3 about the axis through the SAWE Recommend Practice No. 14 [10]. The clause equipments or components center of gravity. There- may be tailored to suit the specic acquisition stratfore the inertia of each line entry is summed up to egy of a ship contract. Below is an example of such provide the total ships inertia in various loading con- a clause: ditions by applying the equations shown in Section In accordance with the procedures 8.7.1 and in Reference [9]. set forth in section xxx of the Speci1 Small Waterplane Area Twin Hull cations, the Contractor shall enter into 2 Surface Eect Ships agreement with the Owner/Government as 3 The mass moment of inertia is actually the weight inertia, to the Accepted Weight Estimate (AWE) however, since the ultimate value derived is the gyradius which is expressed in feet for the ship(s) under this contract, and
Special Reports are weight reports that may be sorted according to various other needs:
DR AF T
6.4. STANDARDS ORGANIZATIONS such an agreement shall be set forth in a Supplemental Agreement. The AWE values for full load displacement and vertical center of gravity above bottom of keel (KG) are the baseline of measuring Contractor responsibility within the meaning of this clause. The aforementioned AWE values shall be equal or less than the Not To Exceed (NTE) values: Contractor responsible Full Load Displacement Contractor responsible KG xxxxxxx long tons KG For each whole xx.xx foot increment in excess of the NTE vertical center value set forth in paragraph (a) of this clause, the Contractor shall pay to the Owner/Government xxxxx dollars up to a maximum of xxxxxxx dollars.
73
In the event an agreement on the AWE cannot be reached within four months after contract award of this contract, the NTE values become the AWE values. (OPTIONAL clause damages invoked) with liquidated
AF
6.4
6.4.1 SAWE
xx.xx feet
Also, list and trim requirements are usually set forth in the Specications. In addition the Owner/Government may oer monetary incentives for measures that the Contractor has undertaken that are considered above the performance of the contract to develop some performance area specied by the Owner/Government. In such cases a Board is established that denes the evaluation period, expected performance level, and available monetary award for that period.
Standards Organizations
New section 8-21-06 Tellet
DR
The parties also recognize and agree that it is virtually impossible and completely impracticable to establish actual damages, which would be suered by the Owner/Government for the failure of the Contractor to deliver the ship(s) within the NTE values. Therefore in recognition of the above, the parties hereto have specically agreed to and established the following schedule of liquidated damages as a reasonable forecast of the potential damages which would arise in the event that the Contractor responsible does not meet the full load displacement and/or KG, as determined above exceed the NTE values: Weight For each whole xx ton increment in excess of the NTE displacement set forth in paragraph (a) of this clause, the Contractor shall pay to the Owner/Government xxxxxxx dollars up to a maximum of xxxxxxx dollars.
This section provides an introduction to some of the professional societies and regulatory organizations that are involved in the marine industries. Many of these organizations create and maintain industry standards, rules, and guidance materials that are used in ship design, construction, and operation. The marine weight engineer should be aware of these organizations and their publications, and should understand how their own organization uses the industry standards in ship specications and design and operational documents.
The Society of Aeronautical Weight Engineers was organized in 1939 in Los Angeles, California, and was incorporated as a nonprot organization April 2, 1941. As membership grew to include engineers associated with shipbuilding, land transportation, and other allied industries and technologies, the Society name was changed on January 1, 1973 to the Society of Allied Weight Engineers, Inc. (SAWE). The purpose of the Society is several fold, and is focused on:
74

SAWE RP-12 Weight Control Technical Requirements For Surface Ships 4 SAWE RP-13 Standard Coordinate System for Reporting Mass Properties of Surface Ships and Submarines SAWE RP-14 Weight Estimating and Margin Manual For Marine Vehicles SAWE RP-15 Vendor Weight Control for the Marine Industry
1. Providing a means for those interested in mass properties engineering to work together to further their professional goals. 2. Promoting recognition of mass properties engineering as a specialized discipline in the entire spectrum of professional engineering.
3. Serving as a medium for the exchange of current mass properties related techniques and state of the art improvements in the profession. 4. Promoting the design and manufacture of optimum weight equipment, development of new materials, and improvements in the state of the art.
5. Encouraging members to promote continuous improvement in the interrelations between mass properties engineers for mutual benet.
6. Publicly recognizing any person or organization that signicantly enhances the professionalism of the Society or develops new technology that improves the state of the art of mass properties engineering eciencies. 7. Promoting the inclusion of mass properties engineering in the curriculum of study in institutions of higher learning.
8. Providing training for those working in the eld of Mass Properties.
Besides this textbook, SAWE provides valuable reference material for the marine weights engineer including the SAWE Weight Engineers Handbook which contains technical information for generally used materials, engineering formulas, as well as other general engineering reference material of use to both mass properties engineers and engineers in other related disciplines. There are also marine specic papers and Recommended Practices that are used for general guidance as well as cited in ship design specications for proper weight control practices. These practices are:
DR AF T
6.4.2 SNAME
One of the premier marine engineering societies is the Society of Naval Architects and Marine Engineers (SNAME). The following is a description of the society taken from the current website at www.sname.org: The Society of Naval Architects and Marine Engineers is an internationally recognized nonprot, technical, professional society of individual members serving the maritime and oshore industries and their suppliers. SNAME is dedicated to advancing the art, science and practice of naval architecture, shipbuilding and marine engineering, encouraging the exchange and recording of information, sponsoring applied research, oering career guidance and supporting education, and enhancing the professional status and integrity of its membership. The Societys scope includes all aspects of research, production, maintenance and operation of ships, submersibles, yachts, boats, oshore and ocean bottom structures, hydrofoils and surface eect ships. It administers and supports an extensive Technical and Research (T&R) Program involving over 1,000 individuals as voluntary members and permanent sta in cooperation with government and regulatory
4 This is now used instead of the obsolete MIL-STD-2137A for US Navy ship weight control.
6.4. STANDARDS ORGANIZATIONS agencies, scientic and research laboratories, academic institutions, and the marine industry. Founded in 1893, the Society comprises over 10,000 individuals throughout the United States, Canada and abroad. Membership is open to all qualied applicants in or associated with the maritime, oshore, and small craft industries. SNAME is a valuable source for technical information and guidance for the marine weights engineer. Their textbooks provide valuable information on all aspects of naval architecture, ship design, and marine engineering and it is highly recommended that the marine weight engineer have these references at hand:
75 ASNE membership is drawn from a broad spectrum of military and civilian professionals and students, engaged in or associated with the many facets of naval engineering. The work of the Society is carried out by standing committees and by the Sections that have been established throughout the nation. Like the other societies and associations, ASNE provides valuable information for the marine weight engineer and naval architect in the form of symposia and other educational opportunities, periodicals, and reference books.
6.4.4
DR
The American Bureau of Shipping (ABS) is a classication society started in 1862 for setting safety standards for the marine industry . ABS does this 1. Principles of Naval Architecture: Volume I - Stathrough the establishment and application of technibility and Strength cal standards, known as Rules, for the design, con2. Principles of Naval Architecture: Volume II - struction and operational maintenance of ships and other marine structures. Classication is a process Resistance, Propulsion that certies adherence to these Rules. As a classication society, ABS is authorized to 3. Principles of Naval Architecture: Volume III perform surveys and issue certicates for commercial Seakeeping and Controllability vessels as well as some Naval and Coast Guard ships. 4. Marine Engineering In addition, ABS provides numerous publications in various marine subjects like Equipment and CompoIn addition to the textbooks, SNAME provides im- nent Certication; Survey and Inspection; Rules for portant information in their T&R publications like: Building and Classing; Design and Analysis; and OWeight Estimating and Margin Manual ; The Impact shore Service. of U.S. Navy Stability Criteria on T-Ship General Publications that are of interest to the weight enArrangement Design; and ****** gineer or naval architect include (but are not limited SNAME also oers periodicals, symposia, educa- to) the following: tion programs, conventions, and exhibitions for the maritime industries. Rules for Building and Classing Steel Vessels
6.4.3
ASNE
Another important marine society is the American Society of Naval Engineers. The purpose of the society, from their website at www.navalengineers.org, is to: advance the knowledge and practice of naval engineering in public and private applications and operations; enhance the professionalism and well-being of members; and to promote naval engineering as a career eld.
AF
Rules for Building and Classing Aluminum Vessels Rules for Building and Classing Mobile Oshore Drilling Units Rules for Building and Classing Underwater Vehicles, Systems, and Hyperbaric Facilities. Rules for Building and Classing Oshore Installations
T
ABS
76

Rules for Certication of Cargo Containers
6.4.5
Det Norske Veritas
DR
ASTM
Det Norske Veritas (DNV) is one of the worlds leading classication societies, and helps the maritime industry manage risk in all phases of the ships life, through ship classication, statutory certication, fuel testing and a range of technical, business risk, nancial and competency related services. According to the DNV website, (www.dnv.com), this classication society classify more than 5100 ships totalling more than 101 million grt. This constitutes 16 percent of the worlds eet in tonnage terms. Ship classication entails verication against a set of requirements during design, construction and operation of ships and oshore units. Unlike the previously mentioned societies like SNAME and ASNE, DNV is more of a regulatory body in that it employs surveyors who inspect vessels and who are authorized by ag administrations to carry out surveys and, in most cases, issue statutory certicates on their behalf.
6.4.6
ASTM was formed in 1898 as the American Society for Testing and Materials by engineers and scientists to address frequent rail breaks. This led to the standardization of steel used in rail construction and built
AF
an organization that was capable of addressing new standardization requirements in other industries. Guide for Building and Classing High Speed Today ASTM International is one of the largest Craft voluntary standards development organizations in Guide for Building and Classing High Speed the world and is a recognized source for technical standards for materials, products, systems, and serNaval Craft vices. Guide for Certication of Cranes Standards developed at ASTM are the work of over 30,000 ASTM members. These technical experts rep Guide for Preparing Fishing Vessels Stability resent producers, users, consumers, government and Booklet academia from over 100 countries. Participation in For U.S. Navy ships, the Navy and ABS have de- ASTM International is open to all with a material veloped the ABS Naval Vessel Rules [11] which are interest, anywhere in the world [12]. The following is a partial list of standards that now used for the design and construction of certain may be of interest to the marine industry and maU.S. Navy combatant ships. More information on ABS can be found on their rine weight engineers and naval architects: website at www.eagle.org. F906-85(2003) Standard Specication for Letters and Numerals for Ships
F1166-95a(2006) Standard Practice for Human Engineering Design for Marine Systems, Equipment and Facilities F1182-90(2001) Standard Specication for Anodes, Sacricial Zinc Alloy F1297-90(2005) Standard Guide for Location and Instruction Symbols for Evacuation and Lifesaving Equipment F1332-99(2005) Standard Practice for Use of SI (Metric) Units in Maritime Applications (Committee F25 Supplement to IEEE/ASTM SI 10) F1337-91(2001) Standard Practice for Human Engineering Program Requirements for Ships and Marine Systems, Equipment, and Facilities F1547-06 Standard Guide for Listing Relevant Standards and Publications for Commercial Shipbuilding F1808-03 Standard Guide for Weight Control Technical Requirements for Surface Ships F1994-99(2005) Standard Test Method for Shipboard Fixed Foam Fireghting Systems
6.5. WEIGHT CONTROL IN A TEAM ENVIRONMENT
77
New section 8-15-06 Tellet
F2016-00(2006) Standard Practice for EstablishThough there are many organizations that have reing Shipbuilding Quality Requirements for Hull tained the traditional structure, many have turned to Structure, Outtting, and Coatings team environments or Integrated Process Teams IPT where one or two engineers from each discipline are F1321-92(2004) Standard Guide for Conducting co-located and work together every day. This drastia Stability Test (Lightweight Survey and Inclin- cally improves communication between elds for that ing Experiment) to Determine the Light Ship one project, but separates the project weight engineer Displacement and Centers of Gravity of a Vessel from the central weights authority and often clouds the chain of command or authority. F1455-92(2001) Standard Guide for Selection of Within a team environment it is vital that good Structural Details for Ship Construction weight control practices are followed and that analyses and decisions are not unduly inuenced by pro F1754-97(2004) Standard Guide for Marine Ves- grammatic pressure. It is often the job of weight sel Structural Inspection Considerations engineer to say no to design decisions that might jeopardize the safety or future capability of the ship. These standards and guides are available on line In a team environment a weight engineerespecially at the ASTM International website: www.astm.org. if they are new and inexperiencedcan feel overAlso available online are a multitude of reference whelmed by the programmatic pressure (whether well books, magazines, technical reports, and databases. intentioned or not). This pressure is exacerbated if the program manager is in the weight engineers suto biased weight risk 6.5 Weight Control in a Team pervisory chain and may lead in the team environanalyses. A weight engineer ment must understand these pressures and must not Environment allow them to alter the course of good weight control As in all other engineering disciplines, the weight en- practices and processes. gineer must work within the organizational structure The role of the weight engineer in the team enviof the company or activity and must adapt to changes ronment is that of an integrator of weight information in that structure or in the management process. Un- from all the major systems on the ship or submarine. like some other elds, and no matter what the orga- It is vitally important for the weight engineer to unnization looks like, a weight engineer must retain a derstand the overall design of the vehicle as well as systems engineering approach to weight control and understand the major systems and how those sysmust nd ways to eciently interact with all the sepa- tems interact. Additionally, it is important for the rate systems engineers while maintaining good weight engineer to educate other systems engineers on the control practices and adhering to the organizations importance of accurate weight accounting and keep weight control policies. them apprised of ship limits, margin, or weight alThe traditional organization structure has a sepa- lowances that might aect the design of the individrate group for weight control (and/or mass proper- ual systems. Cultivating these relationships with the ties) which receives information from other separate individual systems engineers will make the weight engroups (hull, combat systems, mechanical, electrical, gineers job easier by ensuring that all design change etc.) and distills that information into weight report information is reported to him in a timely manner. products. This stovepipe or matrix type of organiSo while the concept of a teaming environzation puts all the weight engineers together in one ment promises better communication and greater group (working on separate projects) which provides eciencyespecially for the total system engineer good consistency of weight control policies and over- like a weights engineerit can only work if the orsight (including training) at the expense of poorer ganization has solid weight control policies and praccommunication between the other disciplines. tices and there is a clear delineation between the tech-
DR AF T
78
nical authority chain and the program management chain.
DR AF T
Chapter 7
Acquisition Margins and Service Life Allowances

by Dominick Cimino and Christos Filiopoulos Weight KG Commercial: Maritime Administration Detail design and construction Vessels/Crafts
DR AF T
3% 10%
applications.
3%
7.1
General Requirements
N/A
Acquisition weight and KG margin values are reMilitary: quired for all ship designs to ensure that the estiU.S. Navy Surface Ships mated displacement and KG values as originally proTotal acquisition margin 617.5% 4.814.5% jected during the initial conceptual phase of the ship design are met at delivery. These weight and KG U.S.C.G. Vessels margins are an important element of the displaceTotal design margin > 8% > 4% ment and KG projections for a ship design, regardless of whether the ships are for commercial or military U.S. Navy Small Crafts 220% 00.5 feet applications. Table 7.1 shows examples of the ranges of margins for dierent applications. Table 7.1: Acquisition weight and KG ranges for various Service Life Allowances (SLA) for weight and KG are included in designs to accommodate changes due to both authorized and unplanned growth during the ships service life without compromise of the hull strength, reserve buoyancy, and stability characteristics established for the class. 1 Table 7.2 shows examples of the ranges of SLA for dierent applications.
7.2
Considerations for Navy Surface Ships
U.S.
1 Speed and endurance characteristics which are satised at delivery, are usually permitted to degrade during the ships service life.
This section discusses weight and KG acquisition margins and SLA for U. S. Navy Surface Ships.
79
80
CHAPTER 7. ACQUISITION MARGINS AND SERVICE LIFE ALLOWANCES Weight KG N/A
7.2.2
Service Life Allowances (SLA)
Commercial: Vessels/Crafts Military: U.S. Navy Surface Ships U.S.C.G. Vessels
1%
510% 1012% 5%
0.51.0 ft 56%
U.S. Navy Small Crafts
Table 7.2: Service life allowance ranges for various applications.
7.2.1
Acquisition weight and KG margin values are essential elements of the ship design weight estimating practice to cover the inherent limits of precision in initial weight estimates and the unknown additions that will take place in the life of the ship. This practice assumes the predicted baseline weight estimate reects the displacement and KG of the ship at delivery. These margins are essential to mitigate the risk of delivering a ship that does not meet the required mass properties characteristics. The margin allocation process takes the following into account: 1. Historical patterns of renement and growth as reected in weight estimates during the progress of a design and during shipbuilding are reasonably well established and are subject to statistical analysis. 2. Each ship design requires a systematic and structured approach which gives individual consideration to its unique features, unknowns, indeterminates, and complexities.
Acquisition margin is introduced into the design weight estimate during the earliest stages of development and it reects the degree of condence in the initial estimates, the rmness of the design, and Injudicious application of margins, whether ex- anticipated contingencies. As mentioned previously cessive or insucient, can result in unrealistic margins only address the inherent limits of preciprojections of ship displacement and KG at de- sion in terms of design development, and the unlivery, which generally either increase shipbuild- dened precision of the calculations of individual ing costs related to ship size or result in expen- components. Design development is explained as: sive corrective measures to meet the specied ship systems or subsystem congurations changes ship performance. that result from improved denition and detailing of
DR AF T
0.30.5 ft
SLA for weight and KG are included in design to accommodate changes due to both authorized (e.g. ship alterations), and unplanned growth (e.g. accumulating of paint and deck covering, personal belongings, unauthorized changes, etc.) during the ships operational lifetime which increase displacement and impact stability. 1. SLA for major modernizations and conversions shall be assessed on a case basis. A study taking into account the age of the ship, the remaining service life, the available weight and KG growth potential, etc., shall be performed to determine a specic recommendation for the modernization or conversion. These values, with supporting rationale, shall be highlighted in appropriate sponsor presentations. 2. SLA are generally depleted during the service life of a ship. Depletion of the SLA and the status of each ship with respect to its naval architectural limits shall be monitored throughout the ships active service. Compensation requirements for weight and/or moment for any alteration, which unacceptably degrades the remaining stability, or reserve buoyancy allowances shall be identied.
Acquisition Weight Margin Values
and
KG
7.3
Acquisition Margins for Weight and KG Feasibility Level
7.3. ACQUISITION MARGINS FOR WEIGHT AND KG FEASIBILITY LEVEL these systems. They do not include characteristic changes that are dened as: specied requirements changes, and subsystem design requirements or criteria changes. While feasibility studies only require a single overall margin allocation for weight and one for KG, as acquisition programs develop they require more denitive weight and KG margins allocations for each phase of the design to account for increases associated with design development and building during those phases. This section discusses the initial margins allocation at the feasibility stage, and subsequently the breakout of this total allocation into separate margin accounts based on the expected design phases and construction. Mean Weight Margin
(% of light ship displacement)
81 Mean + 1 17.5
6.0
KG Margin
(% of light ship KG)
4.8
14.5
be addressed through a structured and systematic approach, which characterizes the design uncertainty. 2 Table 7.3 provides the range of total margin values for the Feasibility Phase. As discussed previously, these values provide a historical comparison to assess the margins developed using a systematic approach. Figures 7.1 and 7.2 and Tables 7.4 and 7.5 provide associated risk. Once the appropriate total margin values have been selected, a level-of-condence (or risk) may be associated by using Figure 7.1. Table 7.4 provides a summary of the design characterization ratings, which along with the selected margin will give an associated risk. Table 7.5 relates the three general levels of risk (i.e., low, moderate and high) to the necessary programmatic risk consequences. The selection of margin values with high risk must be fully justied and appropriate risk mitigation planned. The selection of low risk margin values should also be justied, as it could result in extra cost to the acquisition program. Once acquisition programs have Milestone I approval, (i.e., entered Preliminary Design), the previous weight and KG margin values need to be apportioned for each design phase and generally remain within the ranges shown in Table 7.6 on page 85. Ship design practice utilizes the concept of a predicted displacement and KG at delivery. To accomThe margins selection process should be tailored to the specics of the proposed design and reect plish this, the amount of margin to be provided must aspects such as the uniqueness of the design, the be determined and included in feasibility studies for degree of denition of developmental systems incor2 A sample method is presented in Weight and KG Marporated, the acquisition process, and shipbuilding gin Analysis of Naval Surface Ships, Society of Allied Weight methods and practices. These considerations must Engineers, Inc., Paper No. 2356, dated 19 May 1997 The data in the margin range tables in this enclosure is derived from historical growth results. The ship databases from which these ranges have been derived include only lead ships of the class or follow ships built by a dierent yard. In addition, they reect normal design development with growth due to many indeterminate inuences. Excluded are ship designs, which had their normal design development disrupted or basic characteristics, altered by outside inuences. Margins that result from a systematic and structured approach would be expected to fall within the mean and mean plus one standard deviation guidance values shown in the tables in this section. The mean represents a 50% chance that the selected margin will be exceeded, and conversely, the mean plus one standard deviation represents a 16% chance that the selected margin will be exceeded. In special cases, rational deviations from the guidance values may be considered. For example, design studies reecting radical hull forms, exotic hull materials, or major subsystems that are in the early development stages may entail larger margin allocations. Conversely, incorporating identical items from previous designs may allow smaller margin allocations.
DR AF T
Table 7.3: Total acquisition margin value ranges for Feasibility (Concept Exploration) and other special studies showing the mean and the mean plus one standard deviation.
82
CHAPTER 7. ACQUISITION MARGINS AND SERVICE LIFE ALLOWANCES

Weight Risk
0
Margin Values (percentage of light ship)
Rating 1 2 3 4 5
DR AF T
15 Low 20 25 5 4 3 Rating
Design Characterization Developmental design High level of uncertainty New concept design Some signicant level of uncertainty Similar design with major changes Some level of uncertainty Similar design with minor changes Little level of uncertainty Follow design with minor changes Almost no uncertainty
High
10
Moderate
Table 7.4: Design Characterization Ratings.
Figure 7.1: Weight risk assessment.
KG Risk
Margin Values (percentage of light ship)
Risk Assessment HIGH
Risk Consequences
High
Design might not meet safety limits (subdivision, strength, service life allowances), might involve redesigns and schedule impacts. Extreme weight control measures will be required.
Moderate
10
15
Low
20
MODERATE
An eective weight control program that would involve incentives, Not-toExceed values, and other risk mitigation measures can control risk.
Rating
Figure 7.2: KG risk assessment.
LOW
Safe design with very little uncertainty and applying standard weight control and reporting procedures.
Table 7.5: Risk Consequences.
conversions and modernizations. Figure 7.3 shows this concept. Once the acquisition margin values have been established by design phases, they are monitored and controlled within each phase. At the end of each phase, the remaining margin is usually re-allocated to the next phase. If there is strong evidence that the margin is in excess, it is eliminated and the predicted Full Load ship is re-adjusted. Margin allocated
7.3. ACQUISITION MARGINS FOR WEIGHT AND KG FEASIBILITY LEVEL to future phases should not be used to mitigate margin deciency within the present phase. If the margin values are consumed at a rate that is high (i.e., above the trend line), a more robust weight control plan that should include weight reduction initiatives has to be implemented to maintain the established baseline. A Weight Control Plan (see Chapter 12) is an eective mechanism that is used during the Detail Design and Building Phase to control and maintain margin usage within the allocated values.
Design Phase Margin Usage
83
Service Life Allowance
Acquisition Margins Weight or KG B A
Current Weight or KG Preliminary Design Margin = A Contract Design Margin = B
Feasibility Studies
Design Time Intervals

Figure 7.3: Acquisition Margins for Design Phases
Figure 7.3 assumes design maturation and is basically achieved via a process of successive approximations in which greater detail is developed as the design progresses. Experience has shown that early estimates tend to grow as this detail is developed. Therefore, the margin selection should be tailored to the specics of each design by a characterization method applied to each design phase separately to produce specic weight and KG margin values for each design phase. At this point, the characterization approach becomes more detailed and it involves programmatic as well as technical aspects. Typical programmatic considerations are: applicable design phases and their length; imposition of an Accepted Weight Estimate; Not-to-Exceed values; liquidated damages, or conversely, performance incentives for weight and KG. Typical technical considerations in-
DR
AF
DELIVERY C Detail Design and Construction Margin = C
1. Preliminary/Contract Design This margin allocation is associated with design development. No portion of the Preliminary Design margin is consumed prior to the start of the Preliminary Design Phase; nor is any unused margin carried over into the next design phase. The same applies to the Contract Design Phase 2. Detail Design and Construction This margin allocation compensates for all contractorresponsible discrepancies between the end of Contract Design and the results of the inclining experiment, which includes variations in the inclining experiment itself, as well. Specically, it addresses weight growth due to ship construction drawing development, growth of contractorfurnished material by vendors, omissions and errors in the Accepted Weight Estimate, shipbuilding practices, unknown mill tolerances and outtting details, variations between the actual ship and its curves of form, and other similar differences. Likewise this margin is carried in the Feasibility, Preliminary, Contract design phases. However, the actual value may change at the start of the Detail Design Phase since this margin represent an allocation that is actually the contractors responsibility. Thus it is subject to negotiation and substantiation with the selected contractor. Margin allocated but not consumed in this design phase accrues to the Service Life Allowance. 3. Contract Modication this margin is associated with increase due to contract modications issued during detail design phase. This margin is carried in the Feasibility, Preliminary, Contract Design Phases, and no portion of this margin is consumed prior to the Detail Design Phase.
volve: overall maturity of the design; evaluation of each system in terms of developmental versus traditional; available weight and KG estimating methods; a weighting method that relates each system to the overall design, shipbuilders weight control plan and practices; and others. Design margins are generally allocated into the following accounts:
84
7.4
7.4.1
1. Preliminary design margin is applied to Groups 1 through 7. Fixed ballast is excluded. The KG margin is applied at the center of Groups 1 through 7.
2. Contract design margin percentages are applied at the new sum of Groups 1 through 7 including the preliminary design margin. KG margin is applied at the new center resulting from the preliminary design. 3. Detail design, contract modications and GFM margins percentages are applied individually from the same sum of weight and KG of Groups 1 through 7 resulting from the contract design phase. They are not cumulative.
4. Once the initial percentages have been converted to actual tons, margins are tracked based on tons The modied repeat design recognizes that the new remaining for the current phase, all tons for subship will be very similar to the parent ship with desequent design phases remain unchanged. ned areas of change. Therefore the margin selection 5. If there is a decrease to Groups 1 through 7 or is a compromise between the procedures of a new deloads the margins are increased for that phase sign and a conversion or modernization. Since the only to maintain the constant baseline. At the preliminary and contract designs may take the apend of the design phase the remaining margins pearance of a conversion, margins for these phases for this phase are removed. They do not carry will take a lesser percentage as new designs. During construction, however, the contractor is faced with over to the next phase. construction and some measure of detail design as 6. If during a design phase, the estimated sum of well. Therefore, the detail design and building marGroups 1 through 7 increases to the level which gin should include a base value that reects the cannot be compensated by the allocated margin total construction and an additional value needed for for this design phase, the projected displacement his modications.
DR AF T
Administration of Acquisition Margins
New Designs 7.4.3 Modied Repeat
4. GovernmentFurnished Material (GFM) This is increased. The increase is not compensated margin is associated with increases in nonfrom the other margins. nuclear GFM or Government Furnished Information (GFI). This margin is carried in the Feasibility, Preliminary, Contract Design Phases, and no portion of this margin is consumed prior to 7.4.2 Conversions and Modernizathe Detail Design Phase. tions 1. The aforementioned procedure of margin application for new design essentially applies to conversions and modernizations.
2. The initial margins percentage selection for each design phase is based on the combined weight and KG of the changes resulting from removals and additions instead of the net change. Thus, the allocated margin could be substantial even through there is little or no net weight or KG change. For example, for a ship with a total light ship weight of 3,000 tons and undergoing a change involving 400 tons of removals and 600 tons of additions, the design and building margins expressed as a percentage would be applied to the 1000 tons or one third of the light ship weight.
7.5. SERVICE LIFE ALLOWANCES FOR WEIGHT AND KG Acquisition Phase Weight Margins
(% of light ship displ.)
85 KG Margins
(% of light ship KG)
Mean
Mean + 1
Mean
Mean + 1
Preliminary and Contract Design

(Program Denition and Risk Reduction)
0.8 4.5
4.4 9.8
2.7 1.7
6.1 5.1
Detail Design and Building (Engineering and Manufacturing Development) Contract Modication
Government Furnished Equipment
7.5
7.5.1
Service Life Allowances for weight and KG

New Designs
The required weight and KG values in Figure 7.7 on page 89 are for new U. S. Navy Surface Ships and based on historical growth data for the ship types noted. These are the minimum values that must be provided in new construction ships. As the values in Figure 7.7 are based on a service life of 20 years, an increased SLA may be required for ships with longer projected service lives. The increase in SLA should be evaluated on a case basis until there is data to update.
7.5.2
Conversions tions and designs
The amount of service life available prior to the conversion and modernization is based on the dierence between the governing naval architectural limits and the last inclining experiment values. The selected allowance values should consider the following: the remaining allowance to the hull form; the scope of the magnitude of the conversion and modernization
DR AF T
0.4 2.1 0.3 1.9 0.2 0.7 0.1 0.4
Table 7.6: Value Ranges for Ship Design Acquisition Phases.
and Modernizamodied repeat
package; the age of the ship; and the projected remaining life of the ship. For ships designed to carry dry cargo, i.e., auxiliary and amphibious ships, the Full Load departure condition will include the notional dry cargo load as dened by the operational requirements. For ships designed to carry liquid cargo the cargo tanks shall be considered lled to 95% of the total net volume of each tank designed to carry petroleum products and 100% of the total net volume of each tank designed to carry cargo potable water or cargo reserve feed water. For SWATH or other unique hull form designs, the minimum SLA for weight and KG shall also be based on Table 7.7 (page 89) for the applicable ship type. In addition, an analysis shall be conducted to determine the center of anticipated SLA growth for KG to validate the values in Table 7.7. The results of this analysis shall be highlighted to the sponsor along with the rationale for values used.
7.5.3
Reporting lowances
Service
Life
Al-
Generally beginning with the feasibility design phase where sucient hull form, arrangements, and weight data are available to determine the naval architectural limits for displacement and KG, and SLA have
86
CHAPTER 7. ACQUISITION MARGINS AND SERVICE LIFE ALLOWANCES weights, and crowding of personnel. In addition, for certain types, protection of cargo deadweight, ability to land on a beach at specied drafts, structural strength, freeboard and dryness and speed requirements are considerations which enter into status assignment. The magnitude of the hazards and the extent to which naval ships can withstand such hazards vary with the ship type, size of ship, number of crew and passengers, and absence or presence of side protective systems for torpedo defense. Ability to Withstand Underwater Damage
In most cases, ability to withstand underwater damage is the governing factor in status assignment. Sufcient reserve buoyancy and initial stability are provided so that the ship will remain aoat without excessive heel after underwater damage (extent of ooding varies with ship type). As a guide against overloading, limiting draft marks are painted on the sides 7.6 Weight and Moment Com- of the ship. To protect stability, liquid loading instructions are issued and, where applicable, limitapensation tions are placed on the vertical distribution of cargo For U.S. Navy ships the Chief of Naval Operations and other loads. As the ships actual drafts in the (CNO) has directed that the Navys ships will be kept Full Load condition approach the limiting drafts the within naval architectural limits to ensure that essen- ship is assigned a status requiring weight compensatial survivability features are maintained. For each tion for weight addition. ship class, the Weight Control and Stability Technical Authority Warrant Holder is to keep track of the Ability to Withstand Beam-Winds Combined weight and stability status, limiting draft and other with Rolling limitations including identication of weight and moment compensation necessary to adhere to the es- For certain destroyer types, cruisers, and small auxtablished limits. This requires that weight and mo- iliaries, the ability of the intact ship to withstand ment compensation be obtained for ship alterations, beam winds combined with rolling may actually reallowance list changes, and other changes in loading, quire more stability than that required to withstand as found necessary to protect buoyancy and stability underwater damage. The extent of stability margin of naval ships. Each ship is assigned a status, which a ship has with respect to this criterion is a factor in indicates the nature of compensation, if any, which is status assignment. required for changes in weight and moment.
7.6.1
Each U.S. Naval ship is provided with sucient stability and buoyancy to withstand the eects of certain hazards such as underwater damage, beam winds combined with rolling, heel while turning, lifting
DR AF T
Stability Status Factors
been established, the actual amount of service life weight and KG available is determined and compared to the required values. The available amount at any stage of the design is the dierence between the predicted delivery condition of the ship based on the Full Load and the governing naval architectural limit for displacement(based on strength, subdivision, or speed). Also, displacement limits related to performance shall normally be associated with cases where draft is critical, as in the cases of amphibious landing craft, tumblehome design, and ships with protective systems. The available KG limit can be achieved by meeting the requirement inherently or by utilizing excess weight to ballast down to the requirement. This is illustrated in Figure 7.4. If during any design phase the ship evolves such that the predicted Full Load Condition has increased, an appropriate adjustment shall be made to the required SLA.
Landing Drafts, Structural Strength, Speed, Cargo Deadweight, Dryness, Side Protective Freeboard A status requiring weight compensation is generally assigned to those types where it is important to avoid exceeding specied landing drafts, where structural
7.6. WEIGHT AND MOMENT COMPENSATION strength or speed limits the full load displacement, where the cargo deadweight must be maintained (as on tankers) and to those large combatant types with layers of side protective tanks for torpedo defense.
87 weight and moment resulting from changes will not require any compensation unless the magnitude of the additions is so large as to make the ship approach stability limits. Status 2 Neither an increase in weight nor a rise of a ships center of gravity can be accepted. Status 3 An increase in the ships weight is acceptable, but a rise of the ships center of gravity must be avoided. Status 4 A rise of the ships center of gravity is acceptable, but increase in weight must be avoided. Compensation for added weight may be obtained by removal of an equal or greater weight at any level.
7.6.2
Stability and Buoyancy Margins
Figure 7.5 is an example of how SLA is managed during a ships life. Once a ship is delivered, its available SLA for weight and KG is established and a pro7.6.3 Stability Status Denition jected usage trend is drawn based on historical data The denitions for the U.S. Navy Stability Status are from past ships. The SLA is continuously monitored. If the SLA usage is at a rate which is below the trend as follows: line the ship is in Stability Status 1. However, if the Status 1 An increase in weight and a rise of the SLA usage is high and falls above the trend line, then ships center of gravity are acceptable. Added the ship is place in a restrictive Stability Status (i.e.,
Damage stability and reserve buoyancy analyses are not exact because of the assumptions that have to be made regarding the extent of ooding and the loading of the ship prior to damage. In addition, the basic weight and vertical center of gravity determined from inclining experiments are subject to experimental error. Factors of safety are included in the analysis to account for these uncertainties. Thus, when a ship is assigned a status requiring weight and moment compensation, it does not mean that the next ton added high in the ship will cause the ship to capsize; however, the ship will be in a condition such that it is close to or exceeds stability criteria developed after years of experience. It does mean that insucient buoyancy and stability margins exist to permit further weight and moment increases. It also means that accumulations are as serious as a single large increase. It is not uncommon for ships of the same class having the same status to dier as to weight and stability. However, the stability and buoyancy margins with respect to the criteria that govern for the ship are approximately the same for all ships of the class. Dierences in margins exist, but usually are not of sucient magnitudes to warrant a change in status. Where damage stability is the governing factor in status assignment, intact stability will generally be well within limits and the reason for assignment of a status requiring moment compensation may not be readily apparent to the operating personnel. Consideration must be given to the damage stability requirements.
DR AF T
SLA Usage and Stability Status
Service Life Allowance (Wt or KG) No SLA Stability Status 2, 3, or 4 Stability Status 1 Full SLA Delivery Years of Service
Stability Status 2, 3 and 4 places the ship or ship class in a restrictive status.
End of Ship's Life
Figure 7.5: SLA Usage and Stability Status.
88
7.6.4
The Navy administers the weight and moment compensation program. Each approved ship alternation or allowance list change indicates the magnitude of the weight and moment changes. Required compensation is dealt with in the Fleet Modernization Program. The Weight Control and Stability Division shall determine when it becomes necessary to change the status of a class of ships and notify the Program Oce and the Chief of Naval Operations (CNO) when the status of a class of ships is changed.
DR AF T
Service Life Weight Control
status 2, 3, or 4 depending on the cause: weight, KG, or both). In a sense, the placing of a a ship in a restrictive stability status is the mechanism to control growth to ensure that the ship can operate during its service life without any operational restrictions and within its established naval architecture limits. Therefore, a ship in a restrictive stability status is always monitored to ensure it stays within the established limits.
7.6. WEIGHT AND MOMENT COMPENSATION Ship Type Combatants Carriers Amphibious Warfare Ships types - Large deck - Other Auxiliary Ship types Special Ships and Craft Weighta
Percent(%)
89 KGb
Meters(Feet)
10.0 7.5 7.5 5.0 5.0 5.0
0.30 (1.0) 0.76 (2.5) 0.76 0.30 0.15 0.15 (2.5) (1.0) (0.5) (0.5)
a Weight b KG
percentage based on the predicated full load departure displacement at delivery. values based on the predicted full load departure KG at delivery.
25.0
24.5
24.0
23.5
23.0
Figure 7.4: Example of method of projecting service life allowance for weight and KG from current baseline (BL).
DR AF T
Table 7.7: Service Life Allowances Values
Example
Method of Projecting Service Life Allowance for Weight and KG
2. Add 1 ft KG
Nav Arch KG Limit
3. Add Ballast to attain KG Limit
KG (ft)
BL
1. Add 10% Displ
Nav Arch Displ Limit
Required S.L. is 997 tons
Available S.L. is 1185 tons
8315
8500
8750
9000
9147
9312
9500
Displacement (tons)
90
DR AF T
Chapter 8
Weight Estimating
by Dominick Cimino
8.1 8.2
Introduction
Weight and CG Estimating
The weight estimate is the rst step in a process to ' $ ' $ ' $ predict the nal weight of the ship design in a weight control process. The purpose of the weight control E Calculate E Weigh process is to insure that the ship will be delivered Estimate within the naval architecture limits of the hull de& % & % & % sign. The nal weight of the ship is predicted using d estimating methods presented in this chapter. As the d ' $ c detailed design is developed, the nal detailed weight d d estimate is rened to include new information. The Weight weight is conrmed by weighing individual compoControl nents, assemblies and eventually the whole ship. The & % nal weight of the ship is monitored through a weight control process during all the dierent stages of design and construction as well as during the ships service life. Figure 8.1: High Level Weight Engineering Process Weight Estimating is usually associated with the initial prediction of the nal ship weight, but it is actually used in all phases of the process. For example: during detail design, the weight of paint on the ship may be estimated using factors because it 8.3 Basic Weight Estimating may not be cost eective to do surface area calcuElements lations; estimating methods may be used as a check of the reasonableness of detailed weight calculations; during the ship weighing or inclining experiment, a This section includes excepts from: SAWE Recomsurveyor may estimate the weight of stores in a store- mended Practice Number 14 [10]. 91
DR AF T
room based on the available volume and a stowage factor. All of these examples employ the same principals of weight estimating. Figure 8.1 is a high level overview of the weight engineering process. The continuing weight engineering process from early estimating to actual weighing is always monitored with respect to weight control throughout the ships service.
92 All weight estimating methods are done in the context of an organization and there must be certain elements in place to insure that the weight estimating eort will be successful.
CHAPTER 8. WEIGHT ESTIMATING the database may be used as parents for a new ship, or as similar components for a ship.
8.3.4
System Knowledge
8.3.1
Weight Control
The weight estimate must be done during the ship design process as governed by a sound weight control program. A weight control program describes how the weight will be controlled to be within the naval architectural limits of the ship and the implied accuracy of estimate at each design stage. It is very easy to either spend too much eort or too little eort in preparing a weight estimate at any point in the ship design process. During early stage ship design, the design manager may be interested in a weight that is accurate within 5% of the nal weight. During detail design and construction, the weight of an assembly or module may need to be more accurately estimated for the safety of the personnel lifting it with 8.3.5 Design History a crane. Conversely, methods that are appropriate for early stage design may not be appropriate for the The weight estimate must be documented so that someone can check the estimate for reasonableness detail design phase. and so that it can be used as a basis of estimates for future projects. The design history should include 8.3.2 Calibrated Methods the reference for the baseline, and parent informaA weight estimate should not be forwarded to an in- tion, and how the data was manipulated into an estiternal or external customer without validating its ac- mate. Each design oce will have its own format and curacy by some method of checking which should be method to document the basis of the estimate, such part of the overall analyses. There are several meth- as engineering calculation or department procedures, ods to do this such as the top down method and the or validation test reports of estimating software. bottom up methods described below for the same design, or by a line item review of the dierences between the current ship weight estimate to a similar 8.4 design. However, both methods should be calibrated 8.4.1 against a known ship or component.
DR AF T
Parametrics
General
The weight engineer should have a working knowledge of the function and arrangement of the subject of the estimate. In many design oces weight engineers are senior personnel who have spent time building, designing, or operating ships. The weight engineer must be familiar with the entire design and building process and the operations of the ship. In fact some shipyards use training programs to establish a common basis of understanding of the weight engineering process. The weight engineer must be able to interpret specications, drawings, and system specications. This knowledge is invaluable when an expert opinion is required for checking a weight estimate for reasonableness.
Ships parametrics are important of the early phase ship design process. The collecting and maintaining 8.3.3 Database of ships parametric historical database is a vital part A database of ship designs, components and materials in the development of an early phase mass properties is invaluable when creating a weight estimate. The synthesis tool and also is the basis of the rationcinadatabase can be as simple as an organized set of les tion process that usually follows. To apply parametrics in the weight estimating proon various subjects, or a complete software storage, retrieval and analysis program. The information in cess requires access to extensive detailed weight data
All tables and plots in this section have been revised, 9-11-06, Tellet
8.4. PARAMETRICS and the corresponding design data on a large and diverse group of recent in-service ships. This information should be compiled on convenient data forms. The initial development of a le of this type is admittedly a dicult, time-consuming task. Once compiled, however, it is relatively easy to maintain and keep current. In addition to ship weight data, detailed weight and design information on major components is also useful. Analysis of data on this type along with ship weights often allows factors and ratios to be developed for ancillary weights that are always dicult to estimate. Tables 8.1, 8.2, 8.3 and 8.4 represent ship parametric data. This data is based on Final Weight Report and ship characteristic data for a group of ships that are representative of various types of navy combatants. Parametric and ratiocination techniques can be applied to weight estimating for individual weight groups in various ways. The three that are described briey here are: 1. Developing an estimate for a group as a function of the principal characteristics of the ship. For instance, as a percentage of displacement, or on a basis of tons per foot of length, depth, beam, tons per cubic foot, or tons per shaft horsepower. 2. Developing an estimate for a group from a parent ship by ratio. For instance, one may assume the weight of hull structure for ship A will vary directly with the parent ship B, in the same ratio as their lengths, beams, cubic numbers, and displacements. 3. Developing an estimate for a group or element by separately estimating the weight of major parts or components, then developing the remaining weight in the group or element as a function of the major component or by some other means. The selection of a particular method will be inuenced by the amount of ship reference data available. Often, where sucient relevant information is available, various methods can be used to check one another.
93 It is essential to exercise extreme care and good judgment in the choice of a parent ship or in the choice of parameters. In some cases it may require creating a parent ship using detailed weight data from several similar ships. This hypothetical (model) ship can then be used for the various ratios in developing the weight estimates for a new design. Figures 8.2 thru 8.20 show various comparisons and relationships of weight data that can be used to select the appropriate method in developing a weight estimate. 1
DR AF T
1 Throughout this sub-chapter the weight classication system is ESWBS.
CHAPTER 8. WEIGHT ESTIMATING
Ship
(LBD) 100
Wt Light Ship 92 5.56 330 11.15 816 15.60 1193 15.84 1774 16.70 2991 20.64 5846 25.67 6744 27.47 7184 28.08 6929 26.71 11314 36.08 11515 33.45 18188 40.20 14528 41.45 28410 48.71 78278 51.36 Full Load 152 6.55 380 10.48 901 14.87 1294 15.43 2520 14.70 3833 18.60 7822 22.00 8779 23.85 9297 24.63 9558 22.86 15832 31.27 16340 31.20 24803 36.49 40587 31.89 40730 39.87 98415 46.09
KG
KG Depth
Wt
Wt LB
% of FL
LBD 100
L B
L D
B D
B L
LCAC PC 14 MHC 58 MCM 7 FF 1037 FFG 54 DDG 992 DDG 73 DDG 95 CG 64 Icebreaker LSD 52 LPD 17 TAO 193 LHD 6 CVN 73 94
DR AF T
1.7889 0.7821 0.8940 0.9645 0.5106 0.6200 0.5238 0.5702 0.5863 0.5443 0.7446 0.5426 0.5837 0.6378 0.4406 0.7201 0.3811 0.6097 0.8023 0.9274 0.6186 0.6958 0.6401 0.6824 0.7094 0.7294 1.0952 0.5833 0.5689 1.2289 0.5457 1.0509 0.0171 0.0817 0.1334 0.1484 0.1781 0.2087 0.2688 0.2854 0.2980 0.3063 0.4600 0.3354 0.3556 0.6144 0.4939 0.6726 80.46 179 188 224 350 408 529 466 567 567 420 580 658 678 778 1092 43.73 26 35.93 38.9 40 45 55 66 55 55 82 84 106 97.5 106 134 4.50 13.40 16.63 16.00 28.79 30.00 42.00 41.83 42 42 42.00 57.5 0 62.50 50.00 90.5 0 64 158 623 1122 1396 4073 5508 12220 12865 13105 13105 14456 28014 43599 33028 74634 93650
Table 8.1: Ship Parametric Data.
LCAC PC 14 MHC 58 MCM 7 FF 1037 FFG 54 DDG 992 DDG 73 DDG 95 CG 64 Icebreaker LSD 52 LPD 17 TAO 193 LHD 6 CVN 73
1.2353 0.8321 0.9382 0.9899 0.5801 0.6880 0.6112 0.6567 0.6687 0.6361 0.8591 0.5817 0.6431 0.8291 0.5382 0.8026
0.5788 0.5293 0.7270 0.8546 0.4355 0.5431 0.4784 0.5242 0.5482 0.5287 0.7827 0.4110 0.4172 0.4399 0.3807 0.8359
0.0260 0.0709 0.1209 0.1367 0.1254 0.1629 0.2009 0.2193 0.2302 0.2221 0.3287 0.2364 0.2608 0.2199 0.3445 0.5349
60.53 86.84 90.57 92.19 70.40 78.05 74.74 76.82 77.27 72.49 71.46 70.47 73.33 35.79 69.75 79.54
80.46 179 188 224 350 408 529 466 567 567 420 580 658 678 778 1092
43.73 26 35.93 38.90 40.42 45 55 66 55 55 82 84 106 97.5 106 134
4.50 13.40 16.63 16.00 28.79 30.00 42.00 41.83 42 42 42.00 57.50 62.50 50.00 90.50 64
158 623 1122 1396 4073 5508 12220 12865 13105 13105 14456 28014 43599 33028 74634 93650
1.84 6.88 5.23 5.76 8.66 9.07 9.62 7.06 10.31 10.31 5.12 6.90 6.21 6.95 7.34 8.15
17.88 13.36 11.30 14.02 12.16 13.60 12.60 11.14 13/51 13.51 9.99 10.09 10.53 13.55 8.60 17.06
9.720 1.940 2.161 2.43 1.404 1.500 1.310 1.578 1/31 1.310 1.95 1.461 1.696 1.950 1.171 2.090
0.543 0.145 0.191 0.173 0.115 0.110 0.104 0.142 0.097 0.097 0.195 0.145 0.161 0.144 0.136 0.123
1.84 6.88 5.23 5.76 8.66 9.07 9.62 7.06 10.31 10.31 5.12 6.90 6.21 6.95 7.34 8.15
17.88 13.36 11.30 14.02 12.16 13.60 12.60 11.14 13/51 13.51 9.99 10.09 10.53 13.55 8.60 17.06
9.720 1.94 2.161 2.43 1.404 1.500 1.310 1.578 1/31 1.310 1.950 1.461 1.696 1.950 1.171 2.090
0.543 0.145 0.191 0.173 0.115 0.110 0.104 0.142 0.097 0.097 0.195 0.145 0.161 0.144 0.136 0.123
8.4. PARAMETRICS
95
Cubic Numbers for SWBS 100

50
q
Percent of Full Load for SWBS 100

CVN 73
100 Full Load Displacement (thousand ltons)
CVN 73
q
40 Weight (thousand ltons)
80
30
60
20
DR AF T
TAO 193
q
LHD 6
q
40
LHD 6
LPD 17
q
10
LPD 17 q TAO 193
20
LSD 52 Icebreaker
q q
LSD 52
Icebreaker
CG 64 DDG 95 DDG 73 DDG 992 FFG 54q PC 14 q

q q q q
MHC 58
CG 992 64 q q q DDG 95 q DDG 73 FF 1037 q FFG 54 q PC 14 q LCAC
MCM 7
FF 1037 LCAC q
q
MCM 7 MHC 58
q q
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
25
30
35
40
45
50
Cubic Number (Wt/(LBD/100)
Percent of Full Load
Figure 8.2: Cubic Numbers for ESWBS Group 100. Note that the y-axis is in thousands of long tons.
Figure 8.3: Percent of full load for ESWBS Group 100. Note that the y-axis is in thousands of long tons.
8.4.2
ted against the weight. Here the points are more spread out than in Group 100, and it appears that the ESWBS Group 100 includes all the major hull strucamphibious ships form one group with cubic numbers ture: shell plating, bulkheads, framing, decks, etc. ranging from 0.018 to 0.037, and the other combatFigure 8.2 shows the plot of the cubic numbers ants form a group with values ranging from 0.053 to (weight divided by an approximation of hull vol0.068. ume (lengthbreadthdepth)divided by 100) plotted The grouping of the ships in this gure may indiagainst the weight of that ESWBS group for repcate that the mission of the ship is more important resentative ships. From the plot we can see that most of the ships are grouped between cubic values than its size in choosing a group weight from the cuof 0.20 and 0.30. The aircraft carrier naturally shows bic number data. That is, a lower cubic number for a greater weight, and also shows the greatest cubic Group 2 is appropriate for ship designs where speed number which is expected as the mission and size of is not one of the major priorities. Figure 8.5 shows the weight of Group 200 as a perthat ship requires more weight for a given volume. centage of the full load displacement of the ships. Figure 8.7shows the weight of Group 100 in percent of the full load displacement of the representa- Again, the amphibious ships are grouped at the lower tive ships. This shows that the structural weight of end of the plot and the faster ships (larger propulsion the ship is a large percentage of the full load condi- plants) are at the higher end. tion, and, in general, the larger the ship the greater the weight percentage of Group 100 weights. 8.4.4 Group 3 - Electric Plant
Group 1 - Hull Structure
8.4.3
Group 2 - Propulsion
Group 200 includes the propulsion plant and everything that goes along with ship propulsion including reactor components, condensers, shafting, etc. Figure 8.4 shows the cubic numbers for this group plot-
Figure 8.6 shows the cubic numbers for the electric plant and associated equipment. The plot shows that most of the values are grouped around 0.02 with no immediately discernible pattern to the data. Similarly, the plot of weight as a percentage of full load displacement (Figure 8.7) does not show a trend,
96
Ship
Wt
KG
KG Depth
Wt
(LBD) 100
Wt LB
% of LS
% of FL
DR AF T
LCAC PC 14 MHC 58 MCM 7 FF 1037 FFG 54 DDG 992 DDG 73 DDG 95 CG 64 Icebreaker LSD 52 LPD 17 TAO 193 LHD 6 CVN 73 LCAC PC 14 MHC 58 MCM 7 FF 1037 FFG 54 DDG 992 DDG 73 DDG 95 CG 64 Icebreaker LSD 52 LPD 17 TAO 193 LHD 6 CVN 73 0.3073 0.2219 0.3457 0.3819 0.1966 0.2483 0.2516 0.2508 0.2669 0.2587 0.4838 0.2478 0.2666 0.2921 0.2271 0.5328 0.1287 0.1155 0.0704 0.0781 0.0723 0.0530 0.0623 0.0636 0.0628 0.0538 0.1230 0.0368 0.0242 0.0319 0.0180 0.1000 0.0138 0.0297 0.0575 0.0611 0.0566 0.0745 0.1057 0.1049 0.1121 0.1086 0.2032 0.1425 0.1667 0.1461 0.2056 0.3410 0.0058 0.0155 0.0117 0.125 0.0208 0.0159 0.0262 0.0266 0.0264 0.0226 0.0517 0.0212 0.0151 0.0159 0.0163 0.0640 53.08 41.92 47.55 44.68 45.13 45.73 52.60 47.84 48.68 48.92 61.82 60.28 63.92 66.42 59.67 63.75 22.23 21.83 9.68 9.14 16.60 9.76 13.03 12.13 11.46 10.17 15.72 8.96 5.79 7.25 4.74 11.96
Table 8.2: Ship Parametric Data by ESWBS.
ESWBS Group 100 48.65 3.54 0.7867 138 11.15 0.8318 388 13.62 0.8190 533 14.38 0.8988 801 15.10 0.5245 1368 19.21 0.6403 3075 24.00 0.5714 3226 28.46 0.6804 3497 28.98 0.6900 3390 25.03 0.5960 6994 31.64 0.7533 6941 32.22 0.5603 11625 39.41 0.6305 9649 39.21 0.7842 16953 46.65 0.5155 49901 53.45 0.8352 ESWBS Group 200 20 8.93 1.9844 72 7.75 0.5783 70 11.15 0.6705 109 9.97 0.6231 294 11.40 0.3960 292 11.87 0.3957 762 22.70 0.5405 818 18.12 0.4332 823 18.00 0.4286 705 14.78 0.3519 1779 35.59 0.8474 1032 12.01 0.2089 1053 15.92 0.2547 1053 21.67 0.4334 1346 16.33 0.1804 9364 22.40 0.3500
32.01 36.39 43.09 41.18 31.77 35.69 39.31 36.75 37.62 35.47 44.18 42.48 46.87 23.77 41.62 50.70 13.40 18.95 8.77 8.42 11.68 7.62 9.74 9.32 8.85 7.38 11.24 6.32 4.25 2.59 3.30 9.51
8.4. PARAMETRICS
97
Ship
Wt
KG
KG Depth
Wt
(LBD) 100
Wt LB
% of LS
% of FL
DR AF T
LCAC PC 14 MHC 58 MCM 7 FF 1037 FFG 54 DDG 992 DDG 73 DDG 95 CG 64 Icebreaker LSD 52 LPD 17 TAO 193 LHD 6 CVN 73 LCAC PC 14 MHC 58 MCM 7 FF 1037 FFG 54 DDG 992 DDG 73 DDG 95 CG 64 Icebreaker LSD 52 LPD 17 TAO 193 LHD 6 CVN 73 0.0268 0.0302 0.0686 0.0566 0.0200 0.0392 0.0233 0.0308 0.0304 0.0303 0.0240 0.0182 0.0208 0.0163 0.0177 0.0319 0.0126 0.0085 0.0650 0.1075 0.0284 0.0249 0.0291 0.0328 0.0386 0.0367 0.0109 0.0059 0.0101 0.0035 0.0080 0.0092 0.0012 0.0040 0.0114 0.0091 0.0058 0.0118 0.0098 0.0129 0.0128 0.0127 0.0101 0.0105 0.0130 0.0081 0.0160 0.0204 0.0006 0.0011 0.0108 0.0172 0.0082 0.0075 0.0122 0.0137 0.0162 0.0154 0.0046 0.0034 0.0063 0.0018 0.0072 0.0059 4.64 5.71 9.44 6.62 4.59 7.22 4.87 5.87 5.55 5.73 3.06 4.43 4.99 3.70 4.65 3.81 2.80 4.95 8.55 6.10 3.23 5.63 3.64 4.51 4.29 4.15 2.19 3.12 3.66 1.33 3.24 3.03 2.18 1.61 8.95 12.57 6.51 4.58 6.08 6.26 7.04 6.94 1.40 1.43 2.42 0.80 2.10 1.10 1.32 1.40 8.11 11.59 4.58 3.58 4.55 4.81 5.44 5.03 1.00 1.01 1.78 0.29 1.46 0.87
ESWBS Group 300 4 5.09 1.1311 19 13.98 1.0435 77 21.52 1.2940 79 16.67 1.0419 81 19.40 0.6738 216 19.71 0.6570 285 28.10 0.6690 396 28.52 0.6818 399 30.45 0.7250 397 28.38 0.6757 347 58.58 1.3947 510 27.31 0.4750 908 35.53 0.5684 538 51.17 1.0234 1320 47.09 0.5203 2985 44.56 0.6963 ESWBS Group 400 2 7.40 1.6444 5 22.19 1.6557 73 20.05 1.2057 150 21.80 1.3625 116 19.30 0.6704 137 31.24 1.0413 356 25.20 0.6000 422 28.53 0.6820 506 28.74 0.6843 481 34.20 0.8143 158 90.96 2.1658 165 65.26 1.1350 441 58.46 0.9352 116 61.81 1.2362 596 80.13 0.8854 861 83.64 1.3069
98
Ship
Wt
KG
KG Depth
Wt
(LBD) 100
Wt LB
% of LS
% of FL
DR AF T
LCAC PC 14 MHC 58 MCM 7 FF 1037 FFG 54 DDG 992 DDG 73 DDG 95 CG 64 Icebreaker LSD 52 LPD 17 TAO 193 LHD 6 CVN 73 0.0480 0.0854 0.1042 0.1361 0.0612 0.0978 0.0602 0.0776 0.0798 0.0771 0.0958 0.0611 0.0555 0.0609 0.0635 0.0997 0.0022 0.0114 0.0173 0.0218 0.0176 0.0294 0.0253 0.0324 0.0335 0.0324 0.0402 0.0351 0.0347 0.0304 0.0575 0.0638 8.29 16.13 14.34 15.93 14.06 18.02 12.59 14.80 14.56 14.58 12.24 14.87 13.29 13.84 16.69 11.93 LCAC PC 14 MHC 58 MCM 7 FF 1037 FFG 54 DDG 992 DDG 73 DDG 95 CG 64 Icebreaker LSD 52 LPD 17 TAO 193 LHD 6 CVN 73 0.0531 0.0528 0.0677 0.0917 0.0400 0.0619 0.0391 0.0453 0.0501 0.0398 0.0448 0.0376 0.0347 0.0345 0.0418 0.0510 0.0024 0.0071 0.0113 0.0147 0.0115 0.0186 0.0164 0.0190 0.0210 0.0167 0.0188 0.0216 0.0217 0.0173 0.0379 0.0327 9.18 9.97 9.31 10.73 9.19 11.40 8.18 8.64 9.13 7.52 5.72 9.14 8.33 7.85 10.99 6.10
ESWBS Group 500 8 7.57 1.6822 53 11.05 0.8244 117 16.27 0.9784 190 15.05 0.9406 249 16.40 0.5696 539 21.91 0.7303 736 28.40 0.6762 998 27.55 0.6586 1046 27.71 0.6598 1010 30.31 0.7217 1385 41.48 0.9875 1712 39.34 0.6842 2418 46.09 0.7373 2011 46.76 0.9352 4742 55.04 0.6082 9341 62.48 0.9763 ESWBS Group 600 8 7.06 1.5689 33 13.04 0.9729 76 18.60 1.1185 128 20.02 1.2513 163 24.10 0.8371 341 24.13 0.8043 478 32.20 0.7667 583 29.78 0.7119 656 31.37 0.7469 521 32.62 0.7767 648 48.35 1.1512 1053 49.47 0.8603 1515 50.76 0.8120 1141 61.96 1.2392 3123 59.55 0.6580 4778 65.49 1.0233
5.00 14.01 12.99 14.68 9.90 14.06 9.41 11.37 11.25 10.57 8.75 10.48 9.75 4.95 11.64 9.49 5.53 8.65 8.44 9.89 6.47 8.89 6.12 6.64 7.06 5.45 4.09 6.44 6.11 2.81 7.67 4.85
8.4. PARAMETRICS
99
Ship
Wt
KG
KG Depth
Wt
(LBD) 100
Wt LB
% of LS
% of FL
DR AF T
LCAC PC 14 MHC 58 MCM 7 FF 1037 FFG 54 DDG 992 DDG 73 DDG 95 CG 64 Icebreaker LSD 52 LPD 17 TAO 193 LHD 6 CVN 73 0.0023 0.0150 0.0053 0.0028 0.0171 0.0179 0.0126 0.0234 0.0196 0.0324 0.0003 0.0036 0.0052 0.0006 0.0044 0.0112 0.0001 0.0020 0.0009 0.0004 0.0049 0.0054 0.0053 0.0098 0.0082 0.0136 0.0001 0.0021 0.0033 0.0003 0.0040 0.0072 0.40 2.83 0.74 0.32 3.92 3.29 2.63 4.46 3.58 6.13 0.03 0.87 1.25 0.14 1.17 1.34 0.24 2.46 0.67 0.30 2.76 2.57 1.97 3.43 2.76 4.45 0.02 0.61 0.92 0.05 0.81 1.06 LCAC PC 14 MHC 58 MCM 7 FF 1037 FFG 54 DDG 992 DDG 73 DDG 95 CG 64 Icebreaker LSD 52 LPD 17 TAO 193 LHD 6 CVN 73 0.3811 0.0804 0.0753 0.0728 0.1831 0.1528 0.1617 0.1582 0.1612 0.2006 0.3125 0.1677 0.1517 0.7890 0.1651 0.2150 0.0171 0.0108 0.0125 0.0116 0.0527 0.0458 0.0679 0.0662 0.0677 0.0843 0.1313 0.0964 0.0949 0.3945 0.1494 0.1376 65.84 15.19 10.36 8.51 42.04 28.13 33.80 30.17 29.41 37.94 39.93 40.80 36.38 179.38 43.37 25.72 39.70 13.19 9.39 7.85 29.60 21.95 25.26 23.18 22.73 27.51 28.54 28.75 26.67 64.21 30.25 20.46
ESWBS Group 700 1 5.37 1.1933 9 19.35 1.4437 6 21.29 1.2802 4 34.61 2.1631 70 32.80 1.1393 99 32.80 1.0933 154 36.10 0.8595 301 34.62 0.8276 257 36.36 0.8657 425 34.13 0.8126 4 49.53 1.1792 100 49.53 0.8614 228 43.92 0.7026 20 82.27 1.6454 331 42.73 0.4722 1048 40.23 0.6286 Loads 60 8.05 1.7889 50 6.07 0.4530 85 7.78 0.4678 102 10.66 0.6663 746 8.90 0.3091 841 11.25 0.3750 1976 10.00 0.2381 2035 11.85 0.2833 2113 12.87 0.3064 2629 12.70 0.3024 4518 19.23 0.4578 4698 12.27 0.2134 6616 26.22 0.4195 26059 26.56 0.5312 12320 19.50 0.2155 20137 25.57 0.3995
100

3000
CVN 73
q

2500 100
CVN 73
q
2000 Weight (ltons)
80 Weight (hundred ltons)
60
40
DR AF T
1500
LHD 6
q
1000
LPD 17
q
TAO LSD 52 193

q q
500
Icebreaker DDG q 992

q
DDG64 CG 95 DDG 73
q q q
FFG 54
q
FF 1037
q
LCAC PC 14
q q
MCM 7
q
MHC 58
q
20
Icebreaker
q
LHD 6 LSD q LPD 17TAO 193 52

q q q
DDG 95 DDG 73 CG 64 DDG 992 q qq q FF 1037 FFG 54 MCM MHC q 7 58 q

qq
0.02
0.03
0.04
0.05
0.06
0.07
PC 14
q
LCAC
q
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
0.10
0.12
Figure 8.6: Cubic Numbers for ESWBS Group 300.
Figure 8.4: Cubic Numbers for ESWBS Group 200. Note that the y-axis is in hundreds of long tons.
100
CVN 73
q
Full Load Displacement (thousand ltons)
80
60
TAO 193
q
LHD 6
q
40

CVN 73
q
LPD 17
q
20
Icebreaker
q
LSD 52
q
CG 64 DDG DDG 992 DDG 95 73

q qq q
80
FF 1037 LCAC q
q
PC 14
q
FFG 54 MCM 7 q
q
MHC 58
q
60
LHD TAO 193 6

q q
40
LPD 17
q
20
LSD 52
q
Icebreaker
q
CG 64
DDG DDG 992 95 DDG 73 q q q q FFG 54 MHC q MCM 7 58

q q
FF 1037
q
LCAC
q
PC 14
q
10
15
though it is interesting to note the relatively large percentage shown for the frigate.
8.4.5
Group 4 Surveillance
Command
and
Group 400 contains Command and Surveillance equipment including navigation systems, communi-
8.4. PARAMETRICS
101

1000
CVN 73
q

100
CVN 73
q
800
Weight (ltons)
600
LHD 6 DDG 95 CG 64 q
q
80
LPD 17
q
400
200
LSD 52 Icebreaker q TAO 193 q

q
PC 14 LCAC
0 0.00
DR AF T
DDG 73
q
DDG 992
q
60
FFG 54 FF 1037 q
q
MCM 7
q
TAO 193
q
LHD 6
q
MHC 58
q
40
LPD 17
q
20
LSD 52 Icebreaker
q
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
0.10
PC 14 LCAC
q q
CG 64 DDG 73 DDG 992 DDG 95 q q FFG 54 FF q q 1037

q q
MHC 58
q
MCM 7
q
10
12
Weight (hundred ltons)
cations, radars, etc. One would expect that the mission of the ship would dictate the amount of weight for this group, and the plot in Figure 8.8 bears that out. The plot clearly shows the separate groups of the amphibious ships (plus the carrier), and the combatants that are required to have greater surveillance capability. As with Group 200, estimating a Group 400 weight from the parametric data should be based more on the mission of the ship than the size. This pattern is again reected in the percentage of full load shown in Figure 8.9.
100
CVN 73
q
80
60
8.4.6
Group 5 - Auxiliary Systems
LHD 6
q
40
Similar to Group 300, the weights for Auxiliary Systems does not show an apparent pattern except that the frigate shows a greater relative weight per cubic number (see Figure 8.10). The full load percentage shown in Figure 8.11 shows a similar spread of points.
20
LPD 17 q TAO 193 LSD 52 q

q
Icebreaker
q
DDG 992
q
DDG CG 64 DDG 73 95
q q q
LCAC
q
q FF 1037
FFG 54
q
PC 14
q
MHC 58
q
MCM 7
q
0.06
0.08
0.10
0.12
8.4.7
Group 6 - Outt and Furnishings
Group 600 contains Outt and Furnishings including HVAC, distilling plant, fresh water systems, cargo handling systems, etc. Again, there is no immedi-
102

CVN 73
q

CVN 73
q
80
80
60
60
DR AF T
TAO 193
q
LHD 6
q
TAO 193
q
LHD 6
q
40
40
LPD 17
q
LPD 17
q
20
Icebreaker
q
LSD 52
q q
20
Icebreaker
q
LSD 52
q
DDG 992
q
CG 64 DDG 95 DDG 73
qq
CG 64
q
D DDG 73 DG 95 DDG 992

q q q
LCAC
q
FF 1037
q
MHC 58
q
FFG 54 PCq MCM 7 14

q q
LCAC
q
FF 1037
q
FFG 54 MHC 5814q PC

q q
MCM 7
q
10
12
14
10
8.4.8
Group 7 - Armament
50
CVN 73
q
LHD 6
q
30
20
LPD 17
q
TAO 193 LSD 52

q q
10
CG 64 DDG 992
qq q
Icebreaker DDG 95 DDG 73

q q q
FFG 54
q
FF 1037
PC 14 LCAC
q q
MHC 58
q
MCM 7
q
ESWBS Group 700 contains Armament including guns, ammunition, missiles, aircraft related weapons, etc. Like Group 400, it is expected that the combatant ship designs would show greater cubic numbers and greater percentages of full load for this weight group than would the amphibious ships. This is borne out in Figures 8.14 and 8.15. These plots indicate that choosing appropriate weight estimates for this group should be predicated on the mission of the ship rather than the displacement or size.
0.04
0.05
0.06
0.07
0.08
0.09
8.4.9
Variable Loads
ately discernible pattern to the data (see Figure 8.12). Figure 8.13 shows the weight as a percentage of full load displacement.
Figure 8.16 shows the cubic numbers plotted against the weight of the ships variable loads. No signicant pattern or trend is seen, though the aircraft carrier is conspicuous by its low cubic number which is probably more a function of the ships large volume rather than the large total weight of its loads. Figure 8.17 shows the weight of the loads as a percentage of full load. Again, the aircraft carrier shows a relatively low percentage of full load displacement for the loads. Compare this with the point for the
8.4. PARAMETRICS
103
Cubic Numbers for Loads

TAO 193
q
250

CVN 73 CVN 73
1000
150
LHD 6
q
800 Weight (ltons)
600
400
LHD 6
q
200
q
DR AF T
100
LPD 17
q q
CG 64
q
50
LSD 52
Icebreaker
q
DDG 73
q
MCM 58 MHC 14 PC 7
qq q
CG 64 DDG 73 95 DDG 992 q q q54 FFGFF 1037

q q
LCAC
q
LPD 17
q
DDG 95
q
DDG 992
q
LSD 52
FFG 54 FF 1037 q
q
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
TAO 193 IcebreakerMCM 7 MHC 58 LCAC
q q
PC 14
q
qq
0.000
0.005
0.010
0.015
0.020
0.025
0.030
Figure 8.16: Cubic Numbers for Loads.
Percent of Full Load for Loads
100
CVN 73
q
80
60
LHD 6
q
TAO 193
q
40
LPD 17
q
CVN 73
q
20
LSD 52 Icebreaker
q q
MCM 7 58 PC 14 MHC
q q q
DDG 95 992 64 DDG 73 CG DDG q q q FFG 54 q FF 1037

q q
LCAC
q
80
10
20
30
40
50
60
60
TAO 193
LHD 6
q
40
LPD 17
q
20
Icebreaker
q
LSD 52
q
Figure 8.17: Percent of full load for Loads. Note that the y-axis is in thousands of long tons.
DDG 992
q
DDG 95
q
DDG 73
q
CG 64
q
MCM LCAC 7 MHC 58
0 0
qq
FFGFF 1037 54 PC 14 q q
q
TAO 193 where the loads make up a very high percentage of the full load displacement.
8.4.10
Light Ship and Full Load
The compilation of all the ESWBS group weights and cubic numbers can be seen in Figure 8.18 where the light ship weight is plotted against the cubic number.
104
Cubic Numbers for Light Ship

80
CVN 73
q
Percent of Full Load for Lightship

60 Full Load Displacement (thousand ltons) 100
CVN 73
q
Weight (thousand ltons)
80
40
20
DR AF T
LHD 6
q
60
LPD 17 q TAO 193 LSD 52 q

q
Icebreaker
q
TAO 193
q
LHD 6
q
FF 1037
q
CG DDG 95 64 DDG 992 DDG 73 q qFFGq q 54 PC 14 q LCAC

q q
40
MHC 58
q
MCM 7
q
LPD 17
q
20
LSD 52 Icebreaker
qq
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
LCAC
q
CG 64 DDG 73 DDG DDG 992 95 q q q q FFG 54 FF 1037

q q
MCM PC 14 MHC 58 7
q q q
40
50
60
70
80
90
Figure 8.18: Cubic Numbers for light ship. Note that the y-axis is in thousands of long tons.
Figure 8.19: Percent of full load for Light Ship. Note that the y-axis is in thousands of long tons.
Weight (thousand ltons)
As expected, the amphibious grouping is apparent in this plot. Figure 8.19 shows the light ship weights as a percentage of full load. Since light ship and loads make up full load, the plot of light ship is almost a mirror image of the plot of loads, with the aircraft carrier showing a relatively high percentage of weight from light ship. Finally, the cubic numbers for the full load condition is shown in Figure 8.20. Again the amphibious grouping is evident.
Cubic Numbers for Full Load

CVN 73
q
100
80
60
8.4.11
Data Considerations
LHD 6
q
TAO 193
q
40
The preceding sections illustrated one way to inter20 pret parametric data in preparation for using the data to develop early weight estimates for major weight 0 groups. The data used is valid, though more data 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 points would be useful in allowing more rigorous exCubic Number (Wt/(LBD/100) ploratory data analysis of the parametrics. More data would likely show more dened groupings and trends and would allow the weight engineer to make better Figure 8.20: Cubic Numbers for full load. Note that the y-axis is in thousands of long tons. group weight estimates for his ship design. Though the data was limited in scope and number, it illustrated the way the data can be used and how the data needs to be examined before estimates for
LPD 17
q
LSD 52
q
Icebreaker
q
LCAC
q
CG DDG 73 64 DDG 992 DDG 95 q q q q FF 1037 FFG 54 PC q 14 q

q
MHC 58
q
MCM 7
q
8.5. RATIOCINATION the current design can be done. For instance, it is clear that simply assuming that weight for all the groups is in similar proportions to the geometry of the ship for all the ship types would be incorrect. The data shows that for some groups the mission of the ship is far more important to the group weight than is the geometry. It would be poor estimating to ascribe a large weight to Group 200 (based on, say, a CG 47 weight) for a relatively slow cargo ship. Similarly, one wouldnt use the Group 4 weight from an auxiliary tanker to estimate the Group 4 weight for a destroyer or cruiser. So while parametrics is a valuable tool for the weight engineer, care must be taken to use appropriate data and to interpret that data correctly.
105 To apply ratiocination to weight estimating requires access to extensive detailed weight data and corresponding design data on a large and diverse group of recent in-service ships. This information could be compiled on convenient data forms similar to Figure 8.21 on page 106. The weight classication system used is the ESWBS (see Appendix B). In addition to ship weight data, detailed weight and design information on major components is also useful. Analysis of data on this type along with ship weights often allows factors and ratios to be developed for ancillary weights that are always dicult to estimate.
8.5
Ratiocination
Ratiocination is one of the most common weight estimating methods used to estimate the weight of a ship. It assumes that the same principles of distortion used to dene the ships lines in the naval architecture used to create the new ship from a parent ship, can be applied to weight estimating. The method multiplies a parent ship system weight by a scaling factor to create the current ship system weight estimate. The scaling fraction is usually based on a parameter such as ship length, beam, engine rating, etc. Several authors have documented various algorithms used by this method. Reference [13] presented a detailed description of the method in a paper, which has been repeated in the SAWE Weight Engineers Handbook [14]. Both sources give scaling fractions for the ESWBS commonly used on naval surface ships. This method is easy to automate with common tools such as a spreadsheet, and it has been automated in more complex programs. Reference [15] is an example of a computerized process. Although the method is a useful starting point in a ship design process, it does have its limitations. Specically, new technologies or special features that are not common to both the parent and current ship designs are not accurately scaled. The ratiocinationbased weight estimate should be corrected for these attributes.
DR AF T
8.5.1 Application to Weight Groups
Individual
Ratiocination techniques can be applied to weight estimating for individual weight groups in various ways. There are three basic methods of ratiocination, which are described below: Principal Characteristics Method Develop an estimate for a weight group, as a function of the principal characteristics of the ship. For instance, typical ratios include: as a percent of displacement, or a ton a basis of tons per foot of length, depth, beam, tons per cubic foot, tons per shaft horsepower. New Ship to Parent Ship Ratio Method Develop an estimate for a group from a parent ship by ratio. For instance, one may assume the weight hull structure for ship A will vary directly with the parent hp B, in the same ratios as their length, beams, cubic numbers, and displacements. Sum of the Parts Method Develop an estimate for a group or element by separately estimating the weight of major parts or components, then developing the remaining weight in the group or element as a function of the major components or by some other means.
The selection of a particular method will be inuenced by the amount of reference data available. Of-
106 Design and Weight Data General Data Type: Endurance: Trial Speed: Sustained Speed: Compliment: Ship Name, Hull No. Weight Summary Data Group Title 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 -
Wt
VCG LCG TCG

(tons)
Hull Characteristics LOA: LBP: CP : CB : CM : CW L : T: B: D: DWL: Cubic No: Volume of Hull: Volume of Superstructure: Speed to Length ratio:
Displacement and Stability Characteristics
DR AF T
Full Loads: Full Load Condition Inclining Experiment Data Cond. A Displacement KM KG GM GM (corr free surf) LCG TCG Rating Manufacture Rating Manufacture Rating Manufacture
Figure 8.21: Design and Weight Data Sheet.
Hull Structure Propulsion Electric Plant Comm and Control Auxiliary Systems Outtting & Furnishing Armament Ballast Inclining Delta Total Light Ship
Cond. D
Limiting Drafts Full Load Drafts: Limiting KG: Trim: List:
Propulsion Characteristics Full Power: Cruising: Steam Conditions:
Propulsion Plant List of Machinery Machinery No/Ship Electrical Plant List of Machinery Machinery No/Ship Auxiliary Plant List of Machinery Machinery No/Ship
Unit Wt (lbs)
Unit Wt (lbs)
Unit Wt (lbs)
8.5. RATIOCINATION ten, where sucient relevant information is available, various methods can be used to check one another. The necessity for exercising extreme care and judgment in the choice of a parent ship or in the choice of parameters cannot be overly emphasized. In some cases it may be worthwhile to create a parent ship, using detailed weight data from several similar ships. This hypothetical ship can then be used for various rations in developing the weight estimates for a new design. The rations and factors are for surface combatant ships of normal form, and do not apply to many special types.
107 the parent ship. If its use is conned to a narrow range of L, B, and D, and type of ship, this method can yield good results. The method improves if C is plotted to a base of ship length in the form of length-depth contours, rather than as a single value based on a parent ship. 2. The Quadratic Method uses the formula W1 = G L(B + D) (8.2)
8.5.2
Denitions
A parent ship is a ship with characteristics of construction, arrangements, size, and capabilities most nearly like those of the ship being designed. The detailed weight data of this ship forms the basis for developing estimated weights for the new ship. Similar units of measure must be used for the parent and new ship designs. The symbols dened on page 108 and 109 are frequently used in this chapters tables of Ratiocination Equations.
8.5.3
Group 1 - Hull Structure
Ratiocination Methods
The Weight Engineer may use various methods to develop a preliminary estimate for hull structure, or total Group 1. Four methods for ratiocination applied to hull structure are described here. Although each method provides only an approximation, this approximation can be rened and improved, as more complete information becomes available. 1. In the Cubic Number Method, the formula W1 = C LBD 100
is used to approximate the total weight of a Group 1. The dimensions of the cubic number are of volume; C, the cubic number coecient, or mean weight per unit volume is obtained from
DR AF T
(8.1)
to approximate the total weight of Group 1. The advantage of this method is that it refers to a hollow structure. The dimensions of the quadratic number are the area; G, the quadratic number coecient, is the mean weight per unit area. While this method is used, it can be derived from a parent ship or plotted to a base of L(B + D). The beam and depth in the new design and the parent ship are rarely in the same proportion as the lengths. Consequently, considerable error may result if the cubic number is applied directly. In the Modied Cubic Number Method, the weight of total Group 1 for the new design is estimated on a ration of the cube of the lengths of the new design and the parent ship, and a correction is made for dierences in beam, depth and other known design departures. The estimate of beam and depth requires an estimate of weight per foot of beam and per foot of depth. Broadly, this can be determined by assuming that 85 percent of the structural weight is affect by length, 55 percent by breadth, and 30 percent by depth. With these percentages, the parent ship can be used as a basis for estimating weight.
3. For the Percentage of Displacement Method, the total Group 1 in the parent ship can be expressed as a percentage of displacement. This percentage can in turn be used to estimate total Group 1 in the new design. In practice, the actual percentage used is often the mean or averages of percentage derived from a group of similar or parent ship.
108
Symbol AccC AccE AccO AccomT B Bd CapDSTLR CapFO Compliment Cp Cwp D Dp H KW L Ld No1s QN SA SHP SL V VMS W Waux-N Waux-P WELECTN WELECT-P WELEXN WELEX-P WGrpX Wn Wp Wp 1 WPROPN WPROP-P Wp s Wp t
Denition Number of accommodations for Chief Petty Ocers Number of accommodations for Enlist Number of accommodations for Ocers Total number of accommodations = AccO + AccC + AccE Beam, Maximum, Molded The breadth of deck for each specied deck, platform or at. Capacity of the Distillers or fresh water makers Capacity of the Fuel Oil in the full load condition dedicated for this service Compliment or the number of persons onboard in the full load condition Prismatic Coecient of the hull in the full load condition Water Plane Coecient of the waterplane, deck, platform, or at Depth, Maximum Molded to the highest strength deck Diameter of Propeller Mean draft in the full load condition Kilowatts rating of the ship service generators Length between perpendiculars , or LBP The length of deck for each specied deck, platform or at. Number of line shaft bearings Quadratic Number = length times (sum of beam and depth), or L*(B+D) Stores Allowance for the ship Shaft Horse Power required to attain full load speed in calm water Shaft Length or propulsion shafting length, starting at the reduction gears Maximum Velocity of the ship at the full load condition Volume of Machinery Space (gross volume) Weight of total ship, or numerical subscript (e.g. W2) the weight of an additional group Weight of Auxiliary Machinery components in this ESWBS group on the new ship Weight of Auxiliary Machinery components in this ESWBS group on the parent ship Weight of Electric Plant components in this ESWBS group on the new ship Weight of Electric Plant components in this ESWBS group on the parent ship Weight of Command & Control components in this ESWBS group on the new ship Weight of Command & Control components in this ESWBS group on the parent ship Weight of the all the Group X weights less liquids & repair parts, where the X is a Group 1-7 Weight of the new ship design subgroup or element Weight of the parent ship design subgroup or element Weight of line bearings on the parent ship Weight of propulsion machinery components in this ESWBS of the new ship Weight of propulsion machinery components in this ESWBS of the parent ship Weight of strut bearings on the parent ship Weight of stern tube bearings on the parent ship
Table 8.6: Denitions used in Ratiocination
DR AF T
8.5. RATIOCINATION Symbol CN LB LBCwp LBD LD LD2 LD2 Cp LH LHV2 QN SHP0.5 Denition Cubic Number = Length Beam Depth by 100, or LBD/100 Length Beam Length Beam Water Plane Coecient Length Beam Depth Length Depth Length Depth Depth Length Depth Depth Prismatic Coecient Length draft Length Draft Speed Speed Quadratic Number = length (sum of beam and depth), or L (B + D) Square root of the ratio of the shaft horse power. For example = 34,000/42,000
Table 8.7: Denitions used in Ratiocination continued
109
Examples
Method 2: The value of G for the parent SHP 952 is 288,999 = 0.03283. The weight of Group 1 for the The following example illustrates an application of new design can then be determined by: these methods: Problem - Estimate the total weight of Group 1 for a new design as described in the table below. A parent ship is chosen with design characteristics as nearly like the new design as possible, as described in the table below. Variable L B D QN = L(B+D) CN = (LBD/100) Full Load Group 1 Weight New Ship 450.00 ft 47.00 ft 27.00 ft 33,300 5,710 4,600 ????? Parent Ship 407.00 ft 45.00 ft 26.25 ft 28,999 4,808 3,900 952 tons W1 = GL(B + D)
Method 1: The value of C for the parent ship 952 equals 4,808 = 0.198. The weight of Group 1 for the new design can then be determined by: W1 = C LBD 100
W here : C = mean weight per unit volume
DR AF T
= 0.03283 33, 300 = 1, 092 tons = 0.198 5710 = 1, 131 tons
W here : G = mean weight per unit area
Method 3: In the parent ship the following percentage values apply:
Weight varying by length = 952 0.85 = 809 Weight varying by beam = 952 0.55 = 524 Weight varying by depth = 952 0.30 = 286
The weight of Group 1 for the new design can then be determined by making the basic estimate based on the dierence in beam and depth.
110
CHAPTER 8. WEIGHT ESTIMATING gravity of this weight is assumed to be that of the structure. In contract design, these percentages are estimated; in detail weight calculations they can, and must, be veried through calculations and examination of rivet and weld rod consumption records. Similarly, percentage allowances are made for paint and other coatings base on the total hull weight or, sometimes, on displacement. Estimated percentages are used in contract design, but these also can and should be veried during detailed design and construction. Other areas in hull weight estimating where ratios and factors are useful are percentage adjustments to shell plating estimates for butt laps, faying bars, liners, inserts, and cutouts. The amount of this adjustment is generally based on completed weights for similar ships or a detailed calculation of a typical area. Reliable weight per square foot estimates for bulkheads are determined by detailed calculation of typical areas. Foundation weights often are based on a percentage of components of system weights.
Basic estimate: 809
450 407
= 1, 093 tons
Correction for beam: 524 45 (47 45) = +24 tons
Estimated weight for total Group 1 = 1, 126 tons
Method 4: In the parent ship, total Group 1 is 24.4 percent of full load displacement. Total Group 1 for the new ship can then be developed by using the same percentage of the estimated full load displacement in the new design. For the present ship: 952 3, 900
Ratiocination Equations
As more detail is developed, ratiocination can be used to develop estimated weights for many three-digit elements within the hull structure. Of course, the development of estimates for three-digit elements requires that three-digit element totals be available for the parent ship. In using ratiocination for more detailed estimating greater diculty will be experienced in locating parent ship data suciently characteristic of the new design. In Table 8.8 on page 111 are some ratiocination equations that can be used in developing estimates for ESWBS three-digit elements. Other ratios and factors are used in developing detailed estimates for items of hull structures. Most prevalent are the percentages allowances for rivet heads, weld metal, paints, and other coatings. Weld metal in excess of the grooves in the plating and shapes is approximately 1.5 to 2.5 percent of hull weight. Combination riveting and welding is usually about 2 percent of hull weight. The center of
DR AF T
Correction for depth: 286 26.25 (27 26.25) = +9 tons = 0.244 For the new design: 0.244 4600 = 1, 122 tons
8.5.4
Group 2 - Propulsion
Often the estimate of machinery weight must be made when only the general type of machinery is known, and only the approximate power requirements are available. Under these circumstances, it is usually assumed that the machinery weight is a function of the horsepower only. Probably the most widespread method used for estimating total machinery weight as a function of horsepower is to draw a mean line on a plot of machinery weight against shaft horse power for a group of known power plants of similar types. These plots utilize various parameters. Specic weight (pounds per shaft horse power) on an abscissa of log horsepower is convenient, leading to values of reasonable magnitude together with curves of moderate curvature that facilitate extrapolation. If, as sometimes occurs in practice, reliable parent ship data is available, and the new ship characteristics are reasonably close to the parent ship, various ratios can be used to develop total Group 2 weights for the new ship.
8.5. RATIOCINATION ESWBS ESWBS 111 113 114 115 116 117 121 122 123 131-135 136 141-145 149 151-159 161 162 163 164 165 167 168 169 171 172 179 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 198 199 Group Title Group Title Shell Plating Inner Bottom Shell Appendages Stanchions Longitudinal Framing Transverse Framing
111 Ratiocination Equations Equation (i.e. Wn = Wp [ratio of New/Parent]) Wn = Wp [W S + 2 L(D H)] Wn = Wp [L(B + 2D)] Wn = Wp [BL], where L and B of specic deck (s) Wn = Wp [CN ] Wn = Wp [LD] Wn = Wp [W S + 2L(D H)] Wn = Wp [L(B + 2D)] Wn = Wp [0.33 [L(B + D) + (LB + 2D) +LD(2D + B)2 ]] Wn = Wp [LD2] Wn = Wp [LD2Cp] Wn = Wp [CN ] Wn = Wp [LdBdCwp], or use a ratio of the actual area of each deck Wn = Wp [LdBdCwp], or use a ratio of the actual area of each deck Wn = Wp [LdBdCwp], or use a ratio of the actual area of each platform Wn = Wp [LdBd], or use a ratio of the actual area of each at Proportion by deck areas and volumes Wn = Wp [CN ] Proportion by peripheral areas, volumes, or equivalent scantlings of parent ships W W Wn = 2p + [SHP ] 2p To suit requirements Manufacturers estimate or a volumetric proportioning to a parent ship Wn = Wp [LD] Wn = Wp [LD] Proportioned by average areas Based on equivalent scantlings of parent ship See ESWBS 171 See ESWBS 171 Included in structural systems they serve W W Wn = 2p + [SHP ] 2p , or Wn = Wp [W Grp2] Wn = Wp [W Grp3] Wn = Wp [W Grp4] Wn = Wp [W Grp5] Wn = Wp [W Grp6] Wn = Wp [W Grp4], if armament is similar to parent ship or, Estimate based on foundations from other ships To suit conguration of sea chests and shafting, etc. Wn = Wp [W Grp1]
DR AF T
Longitudinal Bulkheads Transverse Bulkheads Trunks & Enclosures Main Deck and Below 01 Deck Platforms Flats Superstructure Castings & Forgings Stacks and Masts Sea Chests Ballistic Plating Sonar Domes Hull Structure Closure Deck Structure Closures Special Purpose Closures Masts & Towers Kingposts Service Platforms Hull Structure Foundations Propulsion Plant Foundations Electric Plant Foundations Command & Surveillance Foundations Auxiliary Systems Foundations Outtting & Furnishing Foundations Armament Free Flood Liquids Hull Repair Materials
Table 8.8: Hull structure ratiocination equations
112 Examples Three methods are illustrated below: Method 1 Group 2 total for the new ship is estimated by increasing or decreasing the weight of the parent ship machinery by the square root of the Shaft Horse Power ratio: Wn = Wp SHPn SHPp (8.3)
CHAPTER 8. WEIGHT ESTIMATING W here : Wn = Group 2 total for the new ship in tons fp = Specic weight from the parent ship for that portion expected to vary directly with horsepower K = A constant based on the parent ship representing that weight expected to remain constant SHPp = Shaft Horsepower, maximum for parent ship
W here : Wn = Group 2 total for the new ship in tons Examples based on each of the three above methods are given below, based on the following propulWp = Group 2 total for the parent ship in tons sion plant values: SHPn = Shaft Horsepower, maximum for new ship SHPp = Shaft Horsepower, maximum for parent Variable New Ship Parent Ship SHP 35000 42500 ship Type of Plant Steam Steam Geared Geared Method 2 Group 2 total for the new ship is Turbine Turbine obtained by multiplying a coecient by the square No. of Shafts 2 2 root of the shaft horsepower divided by 1000. Wn = Wp C SHPp 1000 (8.4) Ratiocination Total Group 2 weights for the parent ship is 950 tons. Group 2 weight for the new ship may be calculated as follows: Method 1
W here : Wn = Group 2 total for the new ship in tons Wp = Group 2 total for the parent ship in tons C = Coecient obtained from the parent ship, SHPp 1000 SHPp = Shaft Horsepower, maximum for parent ship as the mean weight per
Method 3 Group 2 total is obtained by dividing the parent ship weight data between that which is expected to vary directly with shaft horsepower and that which will remain constant or nearly constant. New ship weights and developed based on these values: Wn = fp SHPp + K (8.5)
DR AF T
Wn = Wp Wn = 950 Wn = 862 Method 2 Wn = Wp C Wn = 145 Wn = 858
SHPn SHPp 35, 00 42, 500
SHPn 1000 35, 000 1, 000
8.5. RATIOCINATION Where from the Parent ship: C= 950

42,500 1000
113 Ratiocination Equations = 145 Table 8.10 on page 116 shows the ratiocination equations of some of Group 3 three-digit elements assuming that there is suciently applicable parent ship data and provided that KW rating requirements are know.
Method 3 Wn Wn Wn Wn = fp SHPn + K = 0.0118(35, 000) + 450 = 412 + 450 = 862
DR AF T
8.5.6 Group 4 Surveillance
Ratiocination Methods fp = 500 = 0.0118 42, 500 Ratiocination Equations
Command
and
Where from the Parent ship:
Normally, the three methods will not check as closely as above. These examples are intended only to illustrate the application for each method. Ratiocination Equations
Group 2 subgroups are usually very dicult to estimate unless, as sometimes occurs, reliable parent ship data is available and new ship characteristics are reasonably close to the parent ship. Under these conditions ratiocination is possible and the equations are shown in Table 8.9 on page 115. These estimates should be considered as preliminary and should be replaced as soon as more reliable data becomes available.
Weight estimating for Group 4 presents special problems. Unlike Groups 1, 2, 3, 5, and 6, which are dependent upon the basic design characteristics of the ship, Group 4 (like Group 7) is essentially independent. For combatant ships, these systems represent the payload, or reason for the ships existence. Since the proposed electronics in many cases is completely new and under concurrent development, the weight engineer will be provided with weight estimates for these systems. Caution must be exercised to ensure that the weight provided include equipment such as panels and cabling.
When the systems or components are well dened, and data from the parent ship is suciently applicable, reasonable estimates may be developed by ratiocination. The ratiocination equations that may be used are shown in Table 8.11 on page 117.
8.5.5
Group 3 - Electric Plant
8.5.7
Group 5 - Auxiliary Systems
The ratiocination of a weight estimate for total Group 3 involves an analysis of ships service kilowatt (KW) rating along with weight. An estimate of KW rating cannot be based on horsepower, since the KW rating is greatly inuenced by auxiliary loads and other requirements that are independent of those used to calculate horsepower. Practically the only method available is to base the estimate on the parent ship, and make adjustments for known or unknown variations in auxiliary load requirements.
Group 5 is composed of a large number of dierent systems; most of them can be ratioed provided a sufciently detailed and applicable parent ship is available. In many cases, it may be possible to develop better system estimates by estimating the weights of the main components and then assuming that the remaining system weights will vary in the same ratio as the applicable ratiocination factor. Examples of this
114
approach would be the air conditioning system and ocination. The ratiocination equations that may be the re main and ushing systems. used are shown in Table 8.15 on page 121. Ratiocination Equations Tables 8.12 (page 118) and 8.13 (page 119) indicate the various factors that may be employed. An asterisk * by the ESWBS group number indicates that where possible, make individual estimates for components, i.e., high pressure air, low pressure air, emitters, CO2 portable, HALON, PKP, etc.
8.5.10
Variable Loads
Ratiocination Methods Load items are dependent on the basic ship characteristics and the nature of the ships missions. The basic characteristics dene complement, aircraft, armament, speed, range, and horsepower. The Load items are predominately calculated based on the full load characteristics of the new ship design, rather than using a ratiocination equation. Ratiocination Equations
8.5.8
Group 6 ratiocination factors are almost all functions of ship size or volume, and of compliment. One of the exceptions is painting which may be estimated as a percentage of Group 1 structural weight. Ratiocination Equations
Estimates for three-digit elements can follow the ratiocination equations given in Table 8.14 on page 120.
8.5.9
Weight estimating for Group 7, like Group 4, is not dependent upon the basic design characteristics of the ship, but essentially independent. For combatant ships, these systems represent the mission payload. Since the proposed armament in many cases is usually new and under development, the weight engineer will be provided with weight estimates for these systems. Care must be taken to ensure that the weight provided includes the total system(s) and not a part of the overall system. Ratiocination Equations
When the systems or components are well dened, and data from the parent ship is suciently applicable, reasonable estimates may be developed by rati-
DR AF T
Group 6 - Outt and Furnishings Group 7 - Armament
Load items may be estimated by using the ratiocination equations or the direct calculation equations shown in Table 8.16 on page 122. ESWBS Groups marked with an asterisk * have been extracted from Naval Ship Technical Manual S9086-C6-STM000, Chapter 096 Weights and Stability[16].
8.5. RATIOCINATION
115
ESWBS ESWBS 234 241 243 244
245 251 252 256 259
261 262 264 298 299
DR AF T
Group Title Group Title Propulsion Gas Turbine Reduction Gears Shafting Bearing Propulsor Combustion Air Propulsion Control System Circulating and Cooling SW System Uptakes Fuel Service Main Propulsion Lube System L. O. Fill, Transfer & Purication Operating Fluids Repair Parts
Table 8.9: Propulsion plant ratiocination equations
Ratiocination Equations Equation (i.e. Wn = Wp ratio of PN ew ) arent Wn = Wp SHP To suit selected equipment Wn = Wp [SL SHP ] 1.05 the 5% covers extra equipment Wn = Wp 1 + Wpt + Wps SHP , or Wn = 1.05 ((Wp1 [N o1s ]) + (Wpt + Wps ) [SHP ]) 5% is for misc. Wn = Wp 0.5 Dp2 + SHP 2 Wn = Wp SHP , or Wn = (Wp WP ROP P ) SHP + WP ROP N Wn = Wp SHP Wn = Wp SHP + x AccomT Wn = Wp SHP +, or Wn = (Wp WP ROP P ) SHP + WP ROP N Corrected uptake lengths for Wn = Wp SHP , or Wn = (Wp WP ROP P ) SHP + WP ROP N Wn = Wp SHP , or Wn = (Wp WP ROP P ) SHP + WP ROP N Wn = Wp SHP , or Wn = (Wp WP ROP P ) SHP + WP ROP N Wn = Wp [W Grp2] Wn = Wp [W Grp2]
116
ESWBS ESWBS 311 312 313 314 321 322 323 324 331 332 341 342 343 398 399
DR AF T
Group Title Group Title Ship Service Power Generator Emergency Generators Batteries and Service Facilities Power Conversion Equipment Ship Service Power Cable Emergency Power Cable System Casualty Power Cable System Switch gear and Panels Lighting Distribution Lighting Fixtures SSTG Lube Oil Diesel/Turbine Support Systems Turbine Support Systems Operating Fluids Repair Parts
Table 8.10: Electrical plant ratiocination equations
Ratiocination Equations Equation (i.e. Wn = Wp ratio of PN ew ) arent Wn = Wp [KW ], or Wn = (Wp WELECT P ) [KW ] + WELECT N ] Wn = Wp [KW ], or Wn = (Wp WELECT P ) [KW ] + WELECT N ] Wn = Wp KW L, or to suit installation see ESWBS 311 Wn = Wp [KW L] Wn = Wp [KW L] Wn = Wp [KW L] Wn = Wp [KW ], or to suit installation Wn = Wp [CN AccomT ] Wn = Wp [CN AccomT ] Wn = Wp [KW ] Wn = Wp [KW ] Wn = Wp [KW ] Wn = Wp [KW ], or to suit installation Wn = Wp [W Grp3]
8.5. RATIOCINATION
117
421 422 423 424 426 427 431 432 432 434 435 436 437 441 442 442 445 446 450 460 470 475 480 498 499
DR AF T
Non Electrical & Electronic Navigation Wn = Wn Wn Wn Wn Wn Wn Wn Electrical Navigation Aids Electronic Navigation System , Radio Electronic Navigation System, Acoustic Electrical Navigation System Inertial Navigation System I. C. System Switchboards Telephone System
Wp 2 Wp 2
ESWBS ESWBS 411 412
Group Title Group Title Data Display Group Data Processing
Ratiocination Equations Equation (i.e. Wn = Wp ratio of Wn = Wp CN Wn = Wp CN (1 + CN )
N ew P arent
(1 + CN ) = = Wp CN = Wp CN = Wp CN = Wp CN = Wp CN , or = (Wp WELEXP ) [LB] + WELEXN

Wp 2 Wp 2 Wp 2 Wp 2 Wp 2 Wp 2 Wp 2 Wp 2
Wn = Wn =
(1 + CN ) (1 + CN )
Announcing System
Entertainment and Training System Voice Tubes Alarm, Safety, and Warning System Indicating Order system Radio Systems
Wn = (1 + CN ) Wn = Wp [LD] Wn = Wn = Wn = Wn = (1 + CN ) (1 + CN ) (1 + CN ) (1 + CN )
Underwater Systems
Visual and Audible System TTY and FAC System Security Equipment System Surveillance System (Surface) Surveillance System (Underwater) Countermeasures Degaussing Fire Control system Operating Fluids Repair Parts
Wn = (1 + CN ) Similar to ESWBS 421 Wn = Wp CN To suit installation To suit installation To suit installation Wn = Wp CN , or Wn = Wp [W Grp1] To suit installation To suit sonar installation Wn = Wp [W Grp4]
Table 8.11: Command and Surveillance ratiocination equations
118
516 517 521 522 522 524 526 527 528 529 531 532 533 534 535 536 541 542
DR AF T
Refrigeration System Auxiliary Boilers Firemain and Flushing Sprinkler System Washdown Systems Auxiliary Seawater System Scuppers and Deck Drain FM Actuated Service Plumbing Drainage Drainage and Ballast Distilling Plant Cooling Water Potable Water Wn = Wp Wn = Wp Wn = Wp Auxiliary Steam & Drains (Machinery Space)
(L+AccomT ) 2 (SHP +CN ) 2 (SHP +CN ) 2
ESWBS ESWBS 511 512 512 514
Group Title Group Title Component Heating Systems Ventilation System Machinery Space Ventilation System Air Conditioning System
Ratiocination Equations Equation (i.e. Wn = Wp ratio of PN ew ) arent Wn = Wp [AccomT CN ] Wn = Wp [AccomT CN ] Wn = Wp [V M S] Wn = Wp [AccomT CN ], or Wn = (Wp WauxP ) [AccomT CN ] + WauxN Wn = Wp [AccomT ] Wn = Wp [AccomT CN ] Wn = Wp [CN ], or Wn = (Wp WauxP ) [CN ] + WauxN Wn = Wp [CN ] Wn = Wp [LB] Wn = Wp [CN ] Wn = Wp [LB] Wn = Wp [CN ] Wn = Wp [AccomT LB] Wn = Wp [LB], or Wn = (Wp WauxP ) [LB] + WauxN Wn = Wp [LD + CapDST LR ], or Wn = (Wp WauxP ) [CapDST LR ] + WauxN Wn = Wp [LD], or Wn = (Wp WauxP ) [LD] + WauxN
Auxiliary Steam & Drains (Outside Machy Space) Auxiliary Freshwater Cooling Fuel Oil System
Wn = Wp [LD] Wn = Wp [LD + CapF O ], or
Aviation and General Purpose Fuels
Wn = (Wp WauxP ) (LD+CapF O ) + WauxN 2 Wn = Wp [LD + CapF O ], or Wn = (Wp WauxP )

(LD+CapF O ) 2
+ WauxN
Table 8.12: Auxiliary Systems ratiocination equations
8.5. RATIOCINATION
119
ESWBS ESWBS 545 551 * 552 552 555 * 558 561 562 571 572 581 582 582 585 586 588 592 * 598 599
Table 8.13: Auxiliary Systems ratiocination equations. (Groups marked with an * have been extracted from [16])
DR AF T
Group Title Group Title Tank Heating Compressed Air Systems Compressed Gases O2N2 System Fire Extinguishing Systems Special Piping Steering Rudder Replenishment at-Sea System Ship Stores Anchor Handling and Stowage Mooring and Towing System Boats, Handling & Stowage Elevator and Retracting Gear Aircraft Recovery System Aircraft Handling Service/Stowage Environmental Pollution Control Operating Fluids Repair Parts
Ratiocination Equations Equation (i.e. Wn = Wp ratio of PN ew ) arent Wn = Wp [LB] Wn = Wp [CN ], or Wn = (Wp WauxP ) [CN ] + WauxN To suit installation To suit installation Wn = Wp [LD], or Wn = (Wp WauxP ) [LD] + WauxN To suit installation Wn = Wp LHV 2 Wn = Wp [LH] Wn = Wp [CN ], or To suit installation Wn = Wp [CN ], or To suit installation Wn = Wp [CN ], or To suit installation Wn = Wp [CN ], or To suit installation Number and type of boats To suit installation To suit installation To suit installation Wn = Wp CN AccomT 2 Wn = Wp [W Grp5] Wn = Wp [W Grp5]
120
DR AF T
632 634 635 636 637 638 639 641 642 642 644 645 651 652 652 654 655 656 661 662 662 664 665 671 672 698 699 Cathodic Protection Deck Covering Hull Insulation Hull Damping Sheathing Refrigerated Spaces Radiation Shielding Ocers Mess and Berthing CPO Mess and Berthing Enlisted Mess & Berthing Sanitary Spaces/Fixtures Leisure Spaces Commissary Medical Spaces Dental Spaces Utility Spaces Laundry Spaces Trash Disposal Oces Machinery Control Centers Electronics Control Centers Damage Control Stations Workshops/Labs/Testing Lockers and Special Stowage Storerooms and Issue Rooms Operating Fluids Repair Parts
Table 8.14: Outt and Furnishings ratiocination equations
ESWBS ESWBS 611 612 612 621 622 622 624 625 631
Group Title Group Title Hull Fittings Rails, Stanchions, and Lifelines Rigging and Canvas Non-Structural Bulkheads Floor Plates and Grating Ladders Non-Structural Closures Airports, Windows Paint
Ratiocination Equations Equation (i.e. Wn = Wp ratio of PN ew ) arent Wn = Wp [L] Wn = Wp [L] Wn = Wp [L] Wn = Wp [CN ] Wn = Wp [LB] Wn = Wp [LD] Wn = Wp [CN ] Wn = Wp [LB] Wn = Wp [CN ], or Wn = a % of Group 1 Weight (nominally 2%) Wn = Wp [CN ], or Wn = Wp [W S] Wn = Wp [LB] Wn = Wp [CN ] Wn = (0.5 Wp ) + (0.5 Wp [SHP ]) Wn = Wp [CN ] Wn = Wp [AccomT ] To suit requirements Wn = Wp [AccO ] Wn = Wp [AccC ] Wn = Wp [AccE ] Wn = Wp [AccomT ] Wn = Wp [AccomT ] Wn = Wp [AccomT ] Wn = Wp [AccomT ] Wn = Wp [AccomT ] Wn = (0.5 Wp ) + (0.5 Wp [AccomT ]) Wn = Wp [AccomT ] Wn = (0.5 Wp ) + (0.5 Wp [AccomT ]) Wn = Wp [AccomT CN ] Wn = Wp [AccomT CN ] Wn = Wp [AccomT CN ] Wn = Wp LBD 100 Wn = (0.5 Wp ) + (0.5 Wp [CN ]) Wn = Wp [AccomT CN ] Wn = Wp [CN SA] Wn = Wp [WGrp6 ] Wn = Wp [WGrp6 ]
8.5. RATIOCINATION
121
DR AF T
Table 8.15: Armament ratiocination equations
ESWBS ESWBS 711 712 713 721 722 723 724 725 726 727 728 729 731 732 733 741 742 743 751 752 753 754 755 761 762 763 772 773 782 783 784 792 793 798 729
Group Title Group Title Guns Ammunition Handling Ammunition Stowage Launching Devices (Missiles) Missile, Rocket & Guidance Sys. Missile and Rocket Stowage Missile Hydraulics Missile Gas Missile Compensating Missile Launcher Control Missile Heating, Cooling, Temp. Control Missile Monitoring, Test & Align. Mine Launching Devices Mine Handling Mint Stowage Depth Charge Launching Devices Depth Charge Handling Depth Charge Stowage Torpedoes Torpedo Handling Torpedo Stowage Submarine Torpedo Ejection Torpedo Support, Test & Align. Small Arms & Pyrotechnic Launching Devices Small Arms & Pyro. Handling Small Arms & Pyro. Stowage Cargo Munition Handling Cargo Munition Stowage Aircraft Related Weapons Handling Aircraft Related Weapons Stowage Aircraft Related Weapons Elevators Special Weapons Handling Special Weapons Stowage Operating Fluids Repair Parts
Ratiocination Equations Equation (i.e. Wn = Wp ratio of To suit installation To suit installation To suit installation To suit installation To suit installation To suit installation To suit installation To suit installation To suit installation To suit installation To suit installation To suit installation To suit installation To suit installation To suit installation To suit installation To suit installation To suit installation To suit installation To suit installation To suit installation To suit installation To suit installation To suit installation To suit installation To suit installation To suit installation To suit installation To suit installation To suit installation To suit installation To suit installation To suit installation Wn = Wp [WGrp7 ] Wn = Wp [WGrp7 ]
N ew P arent
122
F22 F26
F31*
F32*
F41 to F45 F46 F51 F52 F55
Table 8.16: Variable loads ratiocination equations. (Groups marked with an * have been extracted from [16])
a Values b Values
DR AF T
See design requirements See design requirements Fuels Lube Oil Sea Water Fresh Water Sanitary Tank Liquid
vary with mission vary with mission
ESWBS ESWBS F11* F12* F13* F15* F21 F22
Group Title Group Title Ships Ocers Ships CPOs Ships Enlisted Personnel Troops (embarked) Ship Ammunition Ordnance Delivery System Ammunition Ordnance Delivery System Ordnance Delivery System Support Equipment Provision and Personnel Stores Dry: Frozen: Chill: Cloth and Small Stores: Ships Store: Laundry: Canned Soda: Medicala : Flammable Liquid Storesb : Total: General Stores
Ratiocination Equations Equation (i.e. Wn = Wp ratio of PN ew ) arent Wn = AccO 400(males), 390(females) lbs Wn = AccC 370(males), 330(females) lbs Wn = AccE 350(males), 310(females) lbs Wn = No. 435 See design requirements See design requirements
Store Equation (lbs / man / day endurance) Wn = Compliment 2.67 lbs./man/day Wn = Compliment 1.32 lbs./man/day Wn = Compliment 2.12 lbs./man/day Wn = Compliment 0.07 lbs./man/day Wn = Compliment 0.80 lbs./man/day Wn = Compliment 0.42 lbs./man/day Wn = Compliment 0.66 lbs./man/day Wn = Compliment 0.02 lbs./man/day Wn = Compliment 0.02 lbs./man/day Wn = Compliment 8.10 lbs./man/day Wn = Compliment 1.06 lbs./man/day endurance, or Wn = Wp [Compliment CN ] See Design Requirements Wn = Wp [SHP ] To suit requirements Wn = Compliment 40 gals/man To suit requirements
8.6. OTHER WEIGHT ESTIMATING METHODS
123 apparent in the ratiocination method. For example a regression equation for hull steel weight might be developed based on the cubic number of set of parent ships. The uncertainty of the polynomial equation to exactly predict the hull steel weight for a specic cubic number can be calculated. The Root-MeanSquare (RMS) sum of these uncertainties is an estimate of the uncertainty of the entire weight estimate. In practical terms, weight groups with the highest uncertainty need a closer look. The method is extremely labor intensive because the weight estimates of the parent ship must all be normalized to same indexing system, and a regression equation is required for each mass property considered.
8.6
Other Weight Estimating Methods
This section includes excepts from: SAWE Recommended Practice Number 14.
8.6.1
Baseline
The Baseline method is another commonly used weight estimating method for new ship designs. Typically, a lead ship of a class or a sister ship built for another shipyard is used as a bench mark on which changes are added. For example, the parent weight estimate may have been made for a sister ship which was an oshore supply vessel while the new design maybe an anchor handling supply vessel that is exactly the same except it has bigger engines and is outtted with anchor handling gear. This method is also known as the Plus and Minus method as described in Reference [17]. The weight engineer will use the latest information available for the parent ship as a baseline. Ideally, the inclining experiment or a light ship survey of the parent ship should be used. If it is not available then the latest weight estimate should be used. The parent ship design history will be compared to the specications and arrangements of the new design to determine the impact of any weight changes. The time applied to the estimate for each change must be determined so that small changes do not use as much eort per pound of change as a large change or one that has a signicant eect on ship stability. The new ship weight estimate is the parent ship weight plus all the changes.
This method multiplies a weight fraction by the deck area of a space to predict the weight of the contents. This method develops an algorithm to describe the The vertical center of gravity is assumed to be eiweight of a system or weight group based on a regres- ther at the center of the space above the deck, 3 sion analysis of multiple parent ship design designs. feet above the molded deck height for contents that The regression analysis can be linear, logarithmic, are accessed by personnel who are standing or at the polynomial, or exponential. The equations derived molded deck height for deck coverings. The longitufrom this method can be used in a weight estimating dinal and transverse centers of gravity are assumed to spreadsheet. be located at the center of the deck area in the plan By using several parents as a baseline, this method form. Along the vertical axis the span may be either allows the estimator to see trends that may not be the full height of the space, 6 feet or zero feet, de-
8.6.2
Statistical
DR AF T
8.6.3 Volumetric Density 8.6.4 Deck Area Fraction
This method multiplies a density fraction by the volume of a space to predict the weight of the contents. The center of gravity of the estimated weight is normally assumed to be at the volumetric center of the space. A more common example is the prediction of the ballast water capacity of a tank. Typically, the molded volume of the tank is calculated rst, and then it is multiplied by a series of density fractions to cover structural deductions and the density of seawater. This same method can be applied to a storeroom, a berthing space, or an engine room. The density fractions can be either derived from previous ship designs, or from a simple calculation, or from government and industry guidelines.
124 pending on the method used to estimate the vertical center of gravity.
to develop the total ship weight. Dierent estimating methods are used for each line item at the lowest level of the work breakdown system, based on the information available at the time. This method is 8.6.5 Top Down Method complimentary to the top down method, in that its This method begins with the total ship weight or de- weakness tends to be the top downs strengths and sign displacement developed from lines plan or from vice versa. The bottom up method is a useful for a limiting displacement study. The total weight and checking the reasonableness of the top down method centers of gravity are allocated to various weight and vice versa. groups according to estimating fractions. The fractions are developed from statistical studies of similar 8.6.7 Midship Extrapolation Method ships. The weight is allocated down the hierarchical tree of the work breakdown system. Next the This is a fraction method that uses the unit weight weight is allocated down to next tier in each weight of the midship section to estimate the steel weight group. In the case of hull structure it would be al- of the weight of the entire hull. An algorithm that located down to the shell, decks, bulkheads, foun- describes the bow, midship, and stern sections of the dation, deck house etc. Finally, when the weight is hulls as fractions of the midship section are multiplied allocated to the lowest practical level, the individual by the respective lengths. The method is similar to weights are checked by using other methods for spe- multiplying the sectional area curve by a weight per cic components. Once the lowest level of weights foot over the entire length. Reference [17] describes has been checked and corrected for reasonableness this method as fundamental method to estimate hull and insertion of specic components, the whole ship structural weight. The method can be applied to any weight is added up. The advantage of a Top Down structural or machinery item that has a varying by approach is that it is system focused. Since it is based similar prismatic shape. on previous ship designs, it will capture a value for all weight groups based on past practices. This method 8.6.8 Percent Complete can give a very quick estimate of a whole ship, without spending time on details that may not be known This method is used to develop a launch weight esto the responsible design engineer at this early design timate or an estimate of the weight to complete at stage. the time of light ship survey. The weight engineer It is very dicult to estimate the weight of specic estimates the amount of the system or change incomponents specied by the owner into the estimate stalled on the ship at a point in time. This fraction in a reliable manner. For example, to do this success- is applied to the complete system to develop the curfully the lowest level of a propulsion system weight es- rent weight. The method describes the fraction of timate must be subdivided between the components the whole weight estimate that has been installed or specied by the owner (i.e. propulsion diesel/turbine) removed. and the remaining system (i.e. shafting, gears, and auxiliaries). The parent weight estimates used for de8.6.9 Synthesis Programs veloping the weight fraction must all be subdivided, Synthesis programs are used to produce Randomand redeveloped. Order-of-Magnitude (ROM), concept, and feasibility studies for most new designs. These are very sophisti8.6.6 Bottom Up Method cated computer programs that integrate all engineerThis method develops an estimate of the weight at ing disciplines to predict ship physical and perforthe lowest level of work breakdown system. These mance characteristics based on mission requirements. individual values are summed up the hierarchical tree Typically these are proprietary programs that rely on
DR AF T
8.7. WEIGHT MOMENT OF INERTIA/GYRADIUS existing databanks (which include weight) for each ship type to produce the initial concept. A detail description of these programs is beyond the scope and intent of this book but they work basically on the synthesis concept. The synthesis is made up of several modules that develop the initial concept design: hull geometry, hull subdivision, hull structure, appendages, resistance, propeller, machinery, weights, area and volume, etc. Specically, with the input of a few primary design requirements and manning and payloads, a preliminary inboard prole can be created and an initial size dened. The software gets convergence on the hull geometry via several methods then it proceeds to the hull subdivision module, structure and down the line with each design module until convergence has been obtaining for the design. The weight module produces an initial weight based on a specic weight classication along with VCG and LCG estimations.
125
8.6.10
Factoring Methods
Basic Weight Estimating Equation
The weight estimating equation is simply a unit weight multiplied by the number of units plus an uncertainty. The trick to weight estimating is determining the unit weight and the number of units in the nal ship design before the system engineers have completed the design. There are several basic methods to dene the unit weight of which three are described below. The number of units is dependent on what is used for a unit weight. The uncertainty of the weight estimate is based on the estimating method, and the accuracy of the system denition at the time of the estimate.
As discussed in reference [10], the weight moment of inertia of a ship is calculated about the longitudinal x-axis for roll, transverse y-axis for pitch, and vertical z-axis for yaw. The three rotational axes for motions are shown in Figure 8.22. While the inertia used in these calculations is referred to as the weight moment of inertia (expressed in units of weight times foot squared), it is normally expressed in terms of mass moment of Unit Weights inertia. However, since the weight estimate contains The unit weight methods use a constant weight for the weight of the item rather than the mass, the use a single item or portion of an item. Typically one of weight moment of inertia is appropriate in lieu of thinks of a unit weight of an outtting item such as mass moment of inertia. Ultimately, the value being a chair and then just counts the number of chairs determined in the analysis is the gyradius which does to determine their weight. An alternative might be not have units containing mass or weight. If the calto determine unit weights for all the furniture, joiner culation is done consistently using weight, then the bulkheads, and auxiliary machinery required for each proper gyradius will result. Reference [18] documents the methodology used in calculating and projecting passenger onboard a passenger ship.
DR AF T
Fractions Algorithm
Figure 8.22: Three rotational axes for motions.
The fraction methods use a ratio between a proposed and known system.
The algorithm methods use equations based on one or more variables to describe the weight of the ship, system, or component.
8.7
Weight Moment of Inertia/Gyradius
126 weight moment of inertia/gyradius values. It also contains a comparative analysis of calculated weight moment of inertia values among the U. S. Naval ships, as well as the results of a sensitivity analysis on their relationship.
CHAPTER 8. WEIGHT ESTIMATING Yaw Inertia: Izz =

n 2 wn (x2 = yn ) + n n
iozn
(8.8)
New sentence and formula
Roll Inertia: Ixx =
Pitch Inertia: Iyy =

n
DR AF T
2 2 wn (yn = zn ) +
= Itz + Ioz The total weight moment of inertia (I) for a ship is the sum of the item weight moments of inertia and Where: the transference weight moments of inertia. The inwn = weight of the nth element ertias of each item must rst be calculated and then xn = longitudinal distance of the nth element summed to give the total ship inertia. The item weight moment of inertia (Io ), is calculated relative from the ships overall CG to the items CG to the center of gravity of the item about its own axes, along the x-axis oriented in the same direction as the ships axes. The yn = transverse distance of the nth element transference weight moment of inertia (It ), is dened from the ships overall CG to the items CG as the weight of the item times the square of the distance from the items center of gravity to the ships along the y-axis center of gravity. The weight moment of inertia for a zn = vertical distance of the nth element surface ship is determined relative to its own center from the ships overall CG to the items CG of gravity in a specied loading condition, normally along the z-axis full load. For submarines, the weight moment of inertia is calculated relative to the submarines center ioxn = weight moment of inertia of the nth eleof gravity in either a specied submerged or surfaced ment about an axis parallel to the x-axis and loading condition. passing through the CG of the nth element ioyn = weight moment of inertia of the nth element about an axis parallel to the y-axis and 8.7.1 Weight Moment of Inertia passing through the CG of the nth element iozn = weight moment of inertia of the nth eleThe weight moment of inertia consists of the summation of the transference inertia (It ) and item inertia ment about an axis parallel to the z-axis and (Io ). The formulas for each inertia are shown below. passing through the CG of the nth element For further details with regard to estimating weight moment of inertia/gyradius values about the three (8.6) rotational axes, see Reference [9].
ioxn
= Itx + Iox
8.7.2
Gyradius
2 wn (x2 = zn ) + n n
ioyn
= Ity + Ioy
The gyradius (K) is calculated about the three rotational axes: roll, pitch and yaw. Mathematically, K = I/ by denition. Where (8.7) I is the weight moment of inertia about a particular axis and is the total displacement (weight) of the ship.
8.7. WEIGHT MOMENT OF INERTIA/GYRADIUS
127 Surface Ships Roll %B Pitch %L Yaw %L
8.7.3
Gyradius Estimated Values
DR AF T
43.3 43.6 29.1 39.9 7.2 39.2 30.5 27.7 23.9 28.3 3.3 25.8 4.0 Roll %B 37.4 36.4 36.7 34.7 34.9 2.5 Pitch %L 22.9 24.0 24.3 25.7 26.3 LSV N (surf.) SSN 756 N (surf.) SSBN 737 N (surf.) SSN 756 N (sub.) SSBN 737 N (sub.) Mean, Submarines Tolerance() Rule Thumb 36.0 1.2 24.6 1.4 of 40.0% 25.0%
In early stages of a ship design the weight estimates lacks sucient detail to estimate or project gyradii values. Therefore, estimating the gyradii values using the rules of thumb method is an acceptable approach. Reference [18] documents the methodology used in estimating and projecting gyradii values. Table 8.17 is provided as guidance in the selection of the appropriate gyradii values for surface ships and submarines. These values correlate with the rule of thumb method, but reect the ship types and type of hull form. Also, the values are expressed in terms of a tolerance () based on a one standard deviation of the ship data studied.
Conventional Hull Forms DDG 51 ARS 52 FFG 60 CG 62 MCM 1 LHD 2 CVN 73 LPD 17 Mean Tolerance() Unconventional Hull Forms TAGOS 19 TAGOS 23 LCAC 24 Mean Tolerance() Mean, All Surface Ships Tolerance() Submarines
38.9 36.5 36.2 40.4 38.1 42.0 40.9 40.5 38.9 2.1
25.2 25.1 24.4 25.3 24.3 25.6 23.2 23.8 24.7 0.8
25.1 24.9 24.3 25.2 24.4 25.6 23.4 23.8 24.7 0.7
32.8 29.4 27.5 30.7 2.7 26.5 3.3 Yaw %L 22.9 23.9 24.2 25.7 26.3 24.6 1.4 25.0%
Table 8.17: Estimated Gyradius Values for Surface Ships and Submarines.
128
DR AF T
Chapter 9
Weight Calculation
by Alan Titcomb et al
tion units to support erection of the completed vessel. The purpose of this determination is to ensure that the physical limitations of shipyard equipment like 9.1 Background and Purpose cranes, transporters, and various rigging apparatus are not exceeded beyond acceptable limits and that At the very core of mass properties engineering is the padeyes are installed in the proper location for safe determination of weights and centers of gravity for lifting of the unit. It is the intent of this chapter a ship from the engineering products that dene it. to highlight the major steps and process consideraThe process by which this determination is conducted tions involved in the calculation of weights and cenvaries according to the specic design and engineering ters during ship design and construction according products which are used to describe the various parts to the design and engineering products on which the and systems of the vessel. These products range from calculation is based. system, or block, diagrams that are employed early in the design process to paper detail drawings, traditionally the most common means of describing the 9.2 Estimation of Weight and vessel to be constructed. Gradually, detail drawings CG from Diagrams are giving way to the latest computer-based technology, the 3-D product model, which minimizes the isby Leonard Mitchell sue of paper drawings. The weight analyst must be able to use whatever design and engineering prodSystem and block diagrams are an important form ucts are available as the basis for a weight and center of engineering documentation prepared during the determination. development of piping, machinery, and electrical sysIn addition to determining the weights and centers tems prior to detail design. Such diagrams, develof design products, it is important to determine the oped in advance of detail drawings or product models, same information for the many changes, which can identify major system components and their proximbe expected to occur after a design, and construction ity to one another and provide some indication of contract is signed. The contribution of these changes their shipboard location. For any ship that is sensican be signicant to a ships overall mass proper- tive to weight and/or moments, the determination of ties and the accounting of responsibilities - owner vs. weight and moments cannot wait until detail design. shipbuilderfor the impact of such changes can be Consideration of mass properties should be an inteimportant to the overall execution of the contract. gral part of system design development and therefore Additionally, there is a need for a weight analyst to estimates of weight and moments must be made from determine weights and centers of individual construc- block and system diagrams. 129
DR AF T
130 There are typically a number of information sources that can and should be utilized in the determination of weight for a system diagram. These include the ships specication, drawings from previous ship designs, vendor information, standard drawings, and existing ship drawings such as a General Arrangement even if only in a preliminary status. The Ships Spec identies system requirements. Vendor information, standard drawings, and drawings from pre-existing ship designs can provide details on system components. Existing ship drawings can provide deck heights, frame spacing, location information and other important data. The general process for developing weight estimates from system or block diagrams is as follows: 1. Read the Ship Spec carefully to gain a thorough familiarity as it pertains to the drawings or system at hand. 2. Study the diagram, any standard drawings referenced by the diagram, and ship general arrangement to become familiar with the nature of the system, its major components, and their shipboard locations.
CHAPTER 9. WEIGHT CALCULATION 6. Find unit weights for all items and distances for piping runs. Pipe lengths are often estimated on a straight line basis from space to space and from component to component. For commercial ships, piping outside of the engine room and pumps rooms typically runs in a straight or nearly straight line. For more complex ships a margin factor should be added in Step 8 below. Weight per unit length for each pipe size and material are determined from the appropriate vendor catalog or Mil Spec. 7. Develop weight fractions or use pre-existing fractions as applicable. For small items of large quantities, the weight can be expressed as a percentage of the piping weight. For example, the total tting weight of a system normally runs between 25 and 50% of the estimated pipe weight. Good weight fractions can be developed using previous ship designs and their weight reports. For ttings, the weight fraction is determined by dividing the tting weight by the total weight of the piping. 8. Add margins and tolerances as necessary. A margin should be added to all length estimates to account for the fact that pipes are often run around other components and structure. Unless the weight engineer has better guidance based on experience, the following margins can be used:
Add 20% for pipe runs under 100 feet. Add 15% for pipe runs between 100 and 500 feet. Add 10% for pipe runs over 500 feet.
4. Identify the Work Breakdown Structure to be employed. ESWBS [7]is commonly used but others may be used as well, depending on the project. (A full listing of ESWBS can be found in Appendix B.) 5. Break the system components into major groupings. For example, a piping system may be broken down into groups such as pipe, ttings (tees, elbows, anges, pipe hangers), equipment components (pumps, lters, etc.), foundations, instrumentation, insulation and loads (system uids). The pipe category should be broken down by material and size.
DR
3. Contact the functional design owners of the system to obtain any more details that may have become available since the issue of the system diagram. A good line of communication with the cognizant design owner of the system is vital to a good estimate.
AF
If structure is a part of the system, then a small percentage may be added for mill tolerance to account for the dimensional variation in mill products that can occur. Most mill tolerances run 1 to 3% of the calculated weight of structural components. A small mill tolerance can also be added to pipe if considered necessary. 9. Determine weights and centers. Centers of gravity of each component should be estimated as
9.2. ESTIMATION OF WEIGHT AND CG FROM DIAGRAMS the weight of the component is estimated. Centers can be determined from the general arrangement and the system diagram. When the exact location of an item is not available, the center can be assumed to be the center of the compartment until further detail is available. For individual components, the approximate geometric center of the component is adequate. Only for the largest components are actual centers necessary and such centers are normally provided on vendor drawings. 10. Compute the weight of uid that is contained in the system under normal operating conditions. The system design owner is the best source for this information. Remember that system uids go into separate groups than the piping and other system components. The SAWE Handbook [14] is a good source of uid weights. 11. Document results including:
131
(a) Description of item(s) being estimated
(b) Weight classications into which each item falls (c) Date worked (d) Name of person generating the estimate
(e) Information contacts including the system owner (f) Drawing numbers and their corresponding revision upon which estimate is based (g) Assumptions (h) Any other information that impacted the weight estimate.
Upon completion of the estimate, it is prudent to check for possible duplications, check the centers of gravity to ensure that all items fall in the area being analyzed, check to ensure that a reasonable percent of uid has been included, and ensure that items are in the correct classication group. Caution should be exercised when using vendor weights. It is important to understand what is and is not included in the weight provided.
The same basic approach can be used for ventilation, electrical, machinery, and structure as well as piping. Machinery is just about identical except that Major Equipment Lists that are part of the ships contract can provide useful information for identifying the size, capacity, vendor and model that can enable weights to be found in vendor catalogs. Structure is somewhat unique in that it comprises such a large proportion of the ships weight, typically 50% to 65%. Most initial weight estimates are developed by ratioing from the structural weight of a similar ship, or parent ship. See Reference [13]. Be sure that a parent ship with similar requirements is selected for this exercise as unique requirements like shock, live loads, and blast loads have a signicant impact on scantlings and structural weight. A midship section, shell scantlings, and deck scantlings are generally the rst structural products to become available to the weight engineer. Note that design information at this stage never shows all secondary structure such as chocks, inserts, doubler plates, hole cuts, hole cut compensation, and other items which aect and normally increase structural weight. Adding as much as 5% to the weight determined from these early drawings and sketches is necessary to account for this missing structure. Generally the weights for foundations, backing structure, appendages, hatches, stanchions, masts, and seachests are developed by ratioing from a parent ship and remain that way until well into contract design or even detail design. Until the design progresses from simple ratioed estimates to a more detailed estimates based on preliminary structural design, factors need to be established to account for the weight of mill tolerance, welding materials and casing oversizing. Mill tolerance generally ranges from one half percent to as high as 4% depending on the particular producer and the method used to specify material thickness. Some mills oer precision rolled steel with no mill tolerance. The exact mill tolerance should be based on an analysis of the steel received in the past from the mill in question. Welding allowance generally runs between 1 and 2% of the weight of all plates and structural shapes while casting overages can be 7% of the calculated casting weight. If the casting is partially machined then the casting allowance should
DR AF T
132 be proportioned on the total surface area. For example, if half of the casting surface is machined the casting allowance should be reduced to 3.5%. An allowance should also be added for paint to all structure. A paint allowance of 1% of the total steel weight is commonly used unless more accurate details are available. Electrical drawings are treated similarly to piping drawings in that cable runs should be scaled on a direct line basis between equipment. To this length allowances for indirect cable runs and hook-up requirements should be added. Some common rules of thumb include:
Add 25% to scaled lengths on naval surface ships to account for indirect runs. Add 10 feet for each vertical run that crosses a deck level
CHAPTER 9. WEIGHT CALCULATION an estimate of the total distribution system. Flanges typically account for 15% of the duct weight. Hanger weights should be based on the distance from one to the other. For example for naval surface ships 10 inches or less in diameter (or equivalent rectangular duct) hangers are commonly 6 feet apart. For ducts greater than 10 inches, 8 foot spacing is typical. Insulation must also be factored into a ventilation estimate and another allowance should be added to accommodate seams and irregularities. For duct with 1 inch insulation the duct surface area should be increased by 5% while 10% is recommended for 1.5 inch insulation. Mill tolerance should be added for steel ducts but non-steel ducts and CRES do not need this allowance.
Add 20 feet for cut-ins and hook-up to switchboards
Add 10 feet for cut-ins and hook-ups to power panels and indicating panels Add 5 feet for cut-ins and hook-ups to each cable box or other equipment not addressed above
Cable weights are routinely found in vendor information.
Ventilation diagrams are also similar to the general approach outlined for piping diagrams. Ducts should be estimated on a straight line basis with 20% added to runs under 100 feet, 15% added to runs from 100 to 500 feet, and 10% added to runs over 500 feet. to account for indirect ducting. Duct sizes may not be developed by the system early in design; however, the system designer can provide approximate sizes so that surface areas can be calculated. From this data, weight per unit length can be determined. Early diagrams may only show major supply and return ducts to a given space. Communication with the system designer should yield enough information to permit
DR
Add 25 to 30% to the cable weight to account for hangers and other miscellaneous installation material.
AF
9.3
by Donnie Hodges
The determination of weights and moments from traditional hardcopy drawings is still prevalent in the marine industry today[13]. The most common approach is to assign drawings to a weight analyst for weight determination after they have been issued. While these drawings may experience revisions after they are issued, they are typically complete and accurate to the detail level. These are the drawings used by the waterfront trades to construct the vessel. They usually are prepared by functional engineering departments in the traditional disciplines of piping, structure, machinery, electrical, ventilation, and outtting. With the exception of weighing the item or system, the calculation of weight from detail drawings represents the highest level of delity possible in the determination of weight for a ship. See Figure 9.1. The general process for determining weights and moments from drawings is as follows: 1. Review the drawing for which a weight and center of gravity will be determined. Attention should be paid to reference lines, general notes, symbols that help with interpretation of
Calculation of Weight and CG from Drawings
9.3. CALCULATION OF WEIGHT AND CG FROM DRAWINGS

HIGH
- Weight determined by weighing
133
ties the major equipment and quantities addressed by the drawing. Review the list thoroughly as it will be an important aid to setting up a worksheet. 4. Prepare an input sheet that will serve as the basis of documentation of this drawing. The input sheet may be handwritten, but an MS Excel spreadsheet is commonly the preferred approach. The sheet should typically include the drawing name and number, the revision letter of the drawing, the name of the person working the drawing, the date of work, the weight, the units, the quantity, a work breakdown category, the TCG, LCG, and the VCG. Other information such as whether the weight of an item is estimated, calculated, or weighed, or obtained from a vendor may also be added each in a separate column. An example of a simple input sheet format is shown in Figure 9.2. 5. Review the drawing and its bill of materials and determine what groups the worksheet will have. For each group, determine an appropriate ESWBS category into which the item falls. 6. Determine weights for each item or component. Sources for this information consist of vendor information, parts catalogs, past ship data, ship drawings, ship specications, standard drawings, and weight handbooks. 7. Determine the centers of gravity for each item. This includes vertical, longitudinal, and transverse centers. For example, to determine the vertical center of gravity, you will need to know the height of the deck upon which an item is located and the height of the deck above. As shown in Figure 9.3, the drawing detail will then call out how far an item is from a reference line or to overhead or how far above the deck the item is. For longitudinal center of gravity, determine which frame numbers the item lies between and then scale the exact location using the appropriate scale. For transverse centers, determine the distance of an item from the centerline or the nearest buttock line.
- Weight calculated from detail design information
Fidelity
- Weight estimated from diagrams
- Ratioed weight estimates
LOW
Figure 9.1: Levels of weight delity.
the drawing, and other drawings that serve as references to the drawing at hand. Particular attention should be directed to the scale of the drawing because it may be necessary to scale directly from the drawing for some distances or dimensions. Useful Elements of a Drawing for the Weight Analyst are:

2. Determine the shipboard location addressed by the drawing in terms of frame numbers, decks, and distances o centerline port or starboard. These boundaries will be used to determine the vertical, transverse, and longitudinal centers of gravity in a later step 3. Locate and review the equipment list, material list, or bill of materials for the drawing. It iden-
DR
General Notes Drawing symbols Welding details Applicable shock grades References Equipment or Material List or Bill of Materials Scale
AF
134
Sample Input Sheet
Name Date started Date completed Total hours ESWBS Item # Description Dwg # Drawing Title:
CHAPTER 9. WEIGHT CALCULATION
Rev WF 1 WF 2WF 3 Weight Unit Qty
Tot Wt
VCG
LCG
F/A TCG
P/S V Mom
L Mom
T Mom
Notes
8. The nal product of the drawing calculation is a completed input sheet with a summed total weight and center of gravity that can now be entered into the ships weight database. Lessons to be learned from successful drawing calculation processes include the following:
A drawing log is a useful management tool. It contains a list of drawings to be worked and can be used to determine who was assigned to work which drawing, when the drawing was assigned, hours spent on it, and who checked the drawing.
Preparation of the drawing to be worked will greatly increase the speed and eciency of drawing calculations. Locate and highlight the centerline and all buttock lines. Writing the longitudinal distance of each frame above it will facilitate quick location of items. Locate and highlight like equipment symbols to make it easier to identify later in the drawing calculation. All centers of gravity and weights should be completed prior to entry into the worksheet. Check the CG of equipment to ensure that it falls within the bounded area of concern.
DR AF T
Figure 9.2: Sample input sheet for weights from drawings.
Many weight analysts nd that a manual work sheet with all the details of the drawing is benecial prior to entry into an electronic input sheet. Document work clearly and consistently so that it can be used or modied by someone else later if necessary.
9.4
Calculation of Weight and CG from Product Models
by Paul Brown
The most advanced form of design documentation is the three dimensional CAD (computeraided design) model often referred to as a product model. Gradually, ship design progressed from two dimensional mechanical drawings to describe the design of the ship to two dimensional CAD. Now the use of 3D product models pioneered by the aerospace and automotive industries is commonplace for both naval and commercial ship design. The state-of-the-art product model can be used to represent all design features including major geometry such as the hull, decks, bulkheads, and compart-
9.4. CALCULATION OF WEIGHT AND CG FROM PRODUCT MODELS
135
Centerline of Ship
ments; structure, both primary and secondary; machinery and components such as generators, pumps, switchboxes and generators; outtting such as piping, cable, and ducting; and furnishings such as berths and even an individual chair. Not only do product models do everything that a traditional 2-D drawing can, but they oer advanced features that can be used by the mass properties community to save time, increase accuracy, and narrow the gap between functional design disciplines and mass properties personnel.
to it. The weight analyst must use the same guidelines as discussed in Section 9.2 when determining the weight and CG from these models. The second phase is the Arrangement Phase. This phase (or revision) of the 3-D model has a higher level of delity of the data. It is in this phase that the system or structure is placed within the co-ordinates of the ship and is used to see what fouls, or interferences, there are with other 3-D design features such as anges, or other systems using the same space as their piping runs, etc. The use of a 3-D product model allows the weight The third phase is the Detail Phase. This phase analyst an opportunity to determine a system or has the highest level of delity and is used to create structural weight earlier in the design process than the construction drawings. At this phase the modeler the traditional method of waiting for a construction adds the nal parts of data such as backing structure, paper drawing to be issued. There are typically three hanger arrangement, mounting materials, bolts, nuts, development phases of a 3-D model: Concept Phase, etc. Arrangement Phase, and Detail Phase. The use of a 3-D model in the design process reThe Concept Phase is the equivalent of the tradi- quires the weight analyst to become active in the use tional system or block diagram. There is very little of this tool at the very beginning of model developinformation that has a high delity level of condence ment. In order for accurate weights to be obtained
DR AF T
Figure 9.3: Sample drawing detail showing how centers of gravity can be determined.
40'' from CL
Buttock line 10' from CL
136
from the 3-D model, a weight catalog table must be cess employed can determine what information is established. At the concept phase the weight in this added to the product model and when and make catalog can be that of an estimate if there are is no aca signicant dierence in how the weight analyst curate vendor data available. However, as the design uses the tool to extract mass properties data. matures, the weight analyst must become involved in The designers who use the 3-D product model to the verication of the data in the 3-D model weight develop the design of the ship must be well aware tables. These standard densities must be locked down that the product of their eorts will be used to and only modied with the approval of the weight determine weights and centers. In many cases, analyst. The weight analyst must also be involved in designers will place a high priority on ensuring the development of the programming of the reporter that the geometry and conguration is correct functions. The program must contain all the elements but neglect the importance of the aspects of the or attributes necessary for weight extraction. Some, product model used by the weight analyst. Exbut not all of these attributes, are dry weight, wet amples of problems that have occurred include weight, CG of components, material codes, ESWBS the modeling of pipes as solids and the modnumber, part number, model number, cost class and eling of windows in the same material as the design zone or construction area. The model can also surrounding structure. Problems such as these be used to obtain surface areas, distances between can make a signicant dierence in the accuracy points, and component weights. The information inof the weight and cause additional work for the cluded in a product model varies from one shipyard weight analyst. to the next and from one software system to another. One common misconception regarding product The weight analyst must be fully aware of what models is they eliminate the need for traditional atis not in the product model and any point in the tention to mass properties. While experience has design so he can make appropriate adjustments. shown that product modeling can be a valuable reFor example, paint, welding, small diameter pipsource to mass properties personnel, it is not a reing and tubing, small cables, hangers, and venplacement for the weight analyst. More accurately, dor weights. the product model represents yet another tool that the weight analyst has at his disposal to accurately and eciently determine the weight and centers for 9.5 Calculation of Weight and a given portion of the ship. CG for Change Orders After the data has been extracted from the 3-D model, the weight analyst prepares an input sheet as by Tamara Garrett discussed in Section 9.3. Change order is a term given to any formal modSome of the lessons learned by shipyards that have experience with product models include the follow- ication to a ships contractual conguration, specications, or requirements. Consideration of change ing: orders is a major element of most ship construction Training is needed for the weight analyst in the contracts. In the case of military vessels, change use of the specic 3-D product model software orders can number in the thousands spread over a employed used in the design of the vessel. lengthy design and construction period, while com While specic software systems may be used by mercials ship projects typically involve signicantly several shipyards or designers, the design pro- fewer changes over a shorter period. The calculation cess may vary signicantly from one shipyard to of weight and moment impacts for either type of ship another. The consideration of weight extraction is an important element in establishing and maintainshould be an important element in the devel- ing an accurate accounting of the ships overall mass opment of the design process. The design pro- properties.
DR
AF
9.5. CALCULATION OF WEIGHT AND CG FOR CHANGE ORDERS There are four main types of change order that a weight engineer should be concerned with: 1. Those that change location of a shipboard item 2. Those that describe a design or conguration modication 3. Those that involve a material change 4. Those changes that transfer responsibility from the owner to or from the shipbuilder. The rst three of these have a weight and/or moment impact to the ship that must be included in weight reports for the ship, while the last one is important to maintaining accountability for weight with respect to contract requirements and margin allocation. Other change orders are editorial or administrative in nature and do not have any weight impact. These are not of any interest to the weight engineer. In some shipyards, all change orders are reviewed for weight impact while in others; the changes are screened and sent for weight review only if there is a need. There are three main steps in the change order process as it pertains to the weight engineer: 1. Review the technical content of the change order and estimate or calculate the weight and moment impact caused by the change. 2. Document the results of the weight and moment determination in a comprehensive, easily understood summary.
137
The overall approach to processing change orders for weight and moment impacts is as follows: 1. The owner or Government issues change order to the shipyard for review and evaluation.
DR
3. Track the change order. This means logging the change order particulars and ling of the results for easy access during and after the initial processing. Filing systems can be based on hardcopies or electronic copies and often involve a database designed for the specic purpose. Tracking and ling of the change orders is important because in many yards, change orders can be superseded, cancelled, modied or placed on hold at any time. Also, for a ight of ships, a given change order may only be applicable to specic ships.
AF
3. Weight and moment impact is determined based on the technical scope of work and the results entered into the ships weight database and any change order database that is being used.. 4. At some point the change is either accepted (sometimes termed adjudicated) or rejected by the company. 5. The change is ultimately incorporated into drawings or other design products. 6. If or when the revised design products, which contain the change, are ultimately calculated for total weight and moments, the change order weight is deleted from the weight database and the drawing weight is added to the database. The change order database will generally remain unchanged since it represents the adjudicated value of the change orders impact and may be used to calculate margin for contractual purposes.
Some valuable lessons learned from successful change order programs include the following:
Use a standard form to distribute weight and moment data to interested parties. If a change order is superseded, the revision should be treated as if it were a new change to eliminate confusion with the parent change order. Use a set of standard notations in the ships weight database when a change order is entered. Notations should allow all weight aected by a
2. A technical package or scope of work is developed which describes the change in detail is prepared and sent to the weight engineering. Normal design products do not reect the change at this point.
138 specic change order to be quickly identied. Another notation needs to be developed to indicate nal acceptance and approval (adjudication) of a change order by the owner and shipbuilder.
Track the Government or owner-furnished material within change orders. Margin is often tracked by determining the change in owner furnished material and the change in change order weight. Ensure that all traces of cancelled change orders are deleted from the ships weight database and the change order database as applicable.
9.6
by Paul Brown
Frequently, mass properties information is needed by the waterfront trades to support the fabrication and erection of a vessel. The primary purpose of this information is to give the trades sucient data with which to identify the appropriate equipment to safely and eciently move a given portion of the ship from one place to another. The portion of the ship can range from a single piece of equipment to a at of many equipment components or from a structural sub-assembly or assembly to an entire erection unit completely outtted. The shipyard equipment used to move the item includes forklifts, portable cranes, shop cranes, transporters, and large track cranes as well as the associated dynamometers, spreader beams, lift hooks, shackles, etc. The various trades that operate this equipment need to know the total weight of a given lift and frequently the center of gravity as well. This information will allow them
DR AF T
Calculation of Weight and CG to Support Construction
to select the most appropriate lifting equipment and enables the installation of lifting pads in the correct location and in the proper orientation for safe and ecient lifting, transporting, and turning. Typically, the rst requests for mass properties data will come from the construction planners who are responsible Communication with technical design owner of for planning construction eorts followed some time the aected system or shipboard component is later by the shop foremen. The need for mass properimportant as is communication with any individual assigned responsibility for tracking the system or item weight.
Figure 9.4: Sub-assembly Lift.
ties information to support construction diers from that described in other sections of this chapter. In the other cases, the objective is to determine the weight of the ship upon delivery to the customer.
9.6. CALCULATION OF WEIGHT AND CG TO SUPPORT CONSTRUCTION
139
However, production support requires the weight of 3. Calculate the center of gravity of the unit in its specic portions of the ship at a given point in time ready-for-lift condition. in the construction schedule. At the time of the lift, 4. Provide the total weight and CG for the lift in an assembly may be lacking the installation of some question to the construction trades to allow seequipment components or secondary structure which lection of lifting equipment and installation of means that a lift weight can vary signicantly from lifting pads. the weight indicated in the weight database for the ship. Delays in schedules can mean that an assem5. Inspect the unit just prior to lift to identify any bly or unit can sit longer in a particular shop and, deviations in the structure or outtting. as a result, may be more completely outtted than 6. Adjust the weight estimate and CG as required expected. This means more weight and possibly a to suit additions or deletions that were included change in the center of gravity. in Step 5. and resubmit to the construction The key to production support is to enter the trades. erection unit for each and every item in the ships database. This requires that all weight analysts de- Some valuable lessons learned by weight analysts retermine the specic unit, or geographically bounded sponsible for production support include the followarea that an item falls in, from a plan usually called ing: the section erection diagram. This enables the sorting The results of weight estimates performed in of the database by a specic unit so that all possible support of production should be kept well ormaterial and equipment in that unit can be easily ganized and documented to allow for further identied. use. As construction progresses and subassemThe role of the weight analyst in production supblies are joined into assemblies and assemblies port can be reduced to the following basic steps: are joined to form units, the combined weight and CG must be tracked and reported. 1. Estimate the weight of the structure of the It may prove advantageous to have a weight anunit. This information can be retrieved from the alyst in the shipyards Fab Shop to allow for weight database if the unit has already been calrst-hand monitoring of fabrication and outtculated. Otherwise the analyst must estimate or ting progress and greater communication with calculate the structural weight of the unit using relevant construction personnel. techniques described in sections 9.3 and 9.4 from either drawings or a product model. A margin Caution should be exercised when lift weights should be added to accommodate for mill tolerfor a previous hull are rolled over for appliance and welding variations. A 1% margin on all cation in a new hull. Although the design may structure is typically sucient. be substantially similar, erection breaks, crane capacities, construction strategies, or outtting 2. Estimate the outtting planned to be accomschedules may have changed. Any of these can plished prior to lifting based on construction signicantly impact the weight of a given lift. plans, review of work packages, or communica For critical lifts (lifts that are at, or very close tion with the construction trades. This weight should also include any scaolding, dunnage, or to, maximum capacities), it is advisable to walk miscellaneous items that will be in place during the unit prior to lifting to ensure that all the lift. A margin should be added to the outstructure and outtting has been accounted for in the weight and CG provided to the trades. tting weight to allow for deviations in weight Such rst-hand inspection can prevent problems due to estimating or additional outtting in the form of growth work. A margin of 3-5% should downstream when it comes time to perform the lift. suce for this purpose.
DR
AF
140
The weight analyst assigned to provide production support must maintain consistent and clear communication with design and the construction trades. In order to determine the lift pad size and location, a weight and CG budget should be developed that allow the weight of the unit to be maximized while still staying within lift capacity restrictions of the crane. If the assembly or unit to be lifted will sit outside exposed to the weather, the collection of rainwater can signicantly add to the weight of the lift and should be taken into consideration, especially for critical lifts. For cold climates, snow and ice can be a consideration.
DR AF T
9.7.
EXAMPLE PROBLEMS
141
9.7
9.7.1
Example Problems
Example 1. Eect of Added Weight
This example has been completely revised. 8-24-06 Tellet
This example shows how to calculate the eect of adding a permanent weight to a ship, including changes to the ships draft, trim, and stability. Problem:
A ship alteration is to be installed on a ship with the initial conditions and hydrostatic properties shown in the tables below. 1. Determine the general eect of the weight on the ships displacement, draft, trim, and stability.
Given:
The added weight is 6.27 tons (14044.8 pounds) at a height of 46.15 feet above the keel, 65.78 feet fwd of midships, and on centerline. No compartment volumes or boundaries are changed with this alteration. The longitudinal reference is midships, with aft positive. The transverse reference is centerline, with Port positive. Initial Description Condition A Condition D Condition D Loads Mean Draft KMt Free Surface Correction GM Length btwn Perps Length btwn Draft Marks Length fwd mark to mid Design trim Ship Displ 3700 4080 Conditions Weight KG 3146.07 20.76 4023.79 18.75 877.72 11.55 15.93 ft 22.22 ft 0.39 ft 3.07 ft 408 ft 397 ft 198.50 ft 0.00 ft
DR
Draft 15 16 Process:
1. This is a ship alteration which means that it is a permanent change to the ship. Therefore the weight and moments need to be added to (Condition A) to determine a new Condition A.
AF
LCG 14.78 6.42 -23.54 Hydrostatic Properties LCB LCF TPI KM 2.50 23.70 32.20 22.35 4.55 24.10 33.00 22.22 MTI 765 792
2. Determine if the ship still meets stability requirements.
T
TCG 0.06 0.02 -0.11
142
2. The original loads are added to the new Condition A to arrive at a new Condition D. 3. Curves of Form drawing is used to determine the hydrostatic properties for the new displacement. 4. Stability, trim, and drafts are calculated for the new condition.
Visualization:
Before beginning the calculations, it is important to visualize the problem so that you start out with an idea of the impact to the ship. This helps reduce calculation errors (like sign mistakes) during the process and helps with the nal sanity check of the answers. For this example, weight is added forward in the ship so we should expect to see the mean draft increase and forward trim increase. The weight is higher than the KG of the ship so we would expect the ships KG to increase and the GM decrease. Since the weight change is on centerline, we should not expect a large change in list. Calculating the new Condition A:
Calculating the new Condition A is simply a matter of adding the weights and moments of the alteration to the old Condition A. The easiest way to calculate these changes is to use a spreadsheet-like table 1 : a b Weight 3146.07 6.27 3152.34 c KG 20.76 46.15 20.81 d V-Mom 65322 289 65611 e LCG 14.78 -65.78 14.62 f L-Mom 46503 -412 46091 g TCG 0.06 0.00 0.06 h T-Mom 182 0 182
The moments were found by multiplying the weight times the center of gravity. For instance (using the row numbers and column letters), the vertical moment of Condition A can be calculated by b2 c2 = d2. Conversely, if you are given the moments, the center of gravity can be found by division: f 2/b2 = e2. For the new Condition A, the weights and moments are summed down(e.g., d2+d3 = d4) and then divided by the new Condition A displacement to nd the centers of gravity (e.g., d4/b4 = c4). Centers of gravity cannot be directly added or subtracted. Calculating the new Condition D:
Now that we have our new Condition A, we can calculate the new Condition D. This is done by adding the old loads to the new Condition A:
1 The spreadsheet line numbers and column letters are included here so the calculation formulas can be shown in terms of the spreadsheet
DR AF T
1 2 3 4 Condition A Alteration New Condition A
Table 9.1: Calculation of New Condition A
5. The new KG is plotted on the KG limit curve to determine if stability is still satisfactory.
9.7.
EXAMPLE PROBLEMS a 1 2 3 4 New Condition A Loads New Condition D b Weight 3152.34 877.72 4030.06 c KG 20.81 11.55 18.80 d V-Mom 65611 10140 75751 e LCG 14.62 -23.54 6.31 f L-Mom 46091 -20662 25429 g TCG 0.06 -0.11 0.02 h T-Mom 182 -100 82
143
Table 9.2: Calculation of New Condition D
Calculating Hydrostatics The hydrostatic properties provided to us are for the 15 and 16 foot drafts which correspond to displacements of 3700 and 4080 tons. Since our new Condition D displacement is between these values, we will need to interpolate. Since this is all we are given, we can assume that a linear interpolation is okay. In real life, the actual curves of form drawing should be consulted to ensure that the curves of each property are well behaved and dont have any sharp angles or discontinuities that would make using a linear interpolation invalid. For the new mean draft:
x = (16 15) 330.06 380 = 0.87 ft = New mean draft = 15 + x = 15.87 ft For the new Longitudinal Center of Buoyancy (LCB):
(4030.06 3700) (4080 3700)
x = (4.55 2.50) = 2.05 0.87 = 1.78 ft New LCB = 2.50 + x = 4.28 ft
(15.87 15) (16 15)
The rest of the interpolation calculations for the other values is left to the student. The table below shows the interpolated values for each hydrostatic property:
DR A
144
CHAPTER 9. WEIGHT CALCULATION Ship Hydrostatic Properties Displ LCB LCF TPI KM 3700 2.50 23.70 32.20 22.35 4030.06 4.28 24.05 32.90 22.24 4080 4.55 24.10 33.00 22.22
Draft 15 15.87 16
MTI 765 788 792
Calculating GM, Trim, and Drafts
Now that we have the hydrostatic properties from the interpolated curves of form data, we can calculate the new GM, trim, and drafts for Condition D. For GM:
For Trim, the trimming lever and the draft at the LCF must rst be calculated2 , then the trim between perpendiculars is translated to the trim between draft marks:
2 In this example, the design trim is 0, so the draft at the LCF=mean draft. The calculation is provided for completeness sake.
DR AF T
GM = KMt KG F SM = 22.24 18.80 0.39 = 3.05 ft Trimming lever = LCG LCB = 6.31 4.28 = 2.03 aft Forward Mark to LCF = 198.50 + LCF = 198.50 + 24.05 = 222.55 Draft at LCF = mean draft + (LCF design trim) LBP (24.05 0.0) = 15.87 + 408 = 15.87 ft
9.7.
EXAMPLE PROBLEMS Trim between Perps = design trim + displ trimming lever 12 M T I 4030.06 2.03 =0+ 12 788 8181.02 = 9456 = 0.87 ft length btwn marks length btwn perps
145
Trim between Marks = trim btwn perps = 0.87 397 408 = 0.85 ft
For Drafts:
Draft at fwd marks = draft at LCF
Draft at aft marks = trim btwn marks + draft at fwd marks = 0.85 + 15.39 = 16.24 ft
Stability Evaluation
Now that we know the new baseline for our ship, we can assess its stability against established criteria and limits. This process will depend on the limits used for this particular ship design and on the governing authoritys procedures and criteria. For U.S. Navy ships, a KG limit curve is developed during design and is maintained throughout the life of the ship (see Figure ??). This curve sets the limits for KG and displacement growth and is based on one or more criteria such as intact stability, damage stability, high speed turns, etc. Generally intact or damage stability are the governing criteria; sometimes the curve is a composite of both. The limit for displacement can be based on reserve buoyancy, subdivision, strength, etc. It is important to know that if the ship alteration we added had aected compartment or tank boundaries or characteristics, a full stability analysis might have to be done to revise the limits and the KG limit curve accordingly. Since we were told this is not the case here, we can simply compare our new KG to the existing KG limit curve. For our example ship, the following KG limit curve is provided:
DR A
(fwd mark to LCF trim btwn marks) length btwn marks 222.55 0.85 = 15.87 397 = 15.39 ft
146
19.5
Our example ship with a displacement of 4030.06 tons and a KG of 18.80 ft is plotted as a black circle. The open circle is the original condition, before the alteration. You can see that the point is just below the KG limit curve and therefore the stability is satisfactory. If the point had fallen above the KG limit curve, some kind of corrective action (like adding ballast) would have to be done. That calculation is covered in Example 9.7.2.
DR AF T
Allowable KG (ft) 19.0
q q
18.5
Displacement limit
18.0
4100
3200
3400
3600
3800
4000
4200
Full Load Displacement (T)
9.7.
EXAMPLE PROBLEMS
147
9.7.2
Example 2. Ballast Determination

This example is new. 8-30-06 Tellet
This example shows how to determine the amount and location of lead ballast for a ship over its KG limit. Problem: A ship alteration has raised the KG of the ship where it now exceeds the KG limit curve. 1. Determine if and how much ballast is required to bring the KG down below the KG limit curve. 2. Determine if the available areas for lead are sucient for the needed amount of ballast. 3. Calculate the nal ship baseline condition. Given:
Two areas are available for lead ballast. The rst one will hold 4 tons at a height of 7.34 ft, an LCG of 27.12 ft forward, and on centerline. The second one will hold 10 tons at a height of 5.42 ft, and LCG of 12.87 ft aft, and 4.53 ft to port. The longitudinal reference is midships, with aft positive. The transverse reference is centerline, with Port positive. Initial Description Condition A Condition D Condition D Loads Mean Draft KMt Free Surface Correction GM Length btwn Perps Length btwn Draft Marks Length fwd mark to mid Design trim Ship Displ 3700 4080 Conditions Weight KG 3152.34 20.89 4030.06 18.86 877.72 11.55 15.93 ft 22.22 ft 0.39 ft 2.97 ft 408 ft 397 ft 198.50 ft 0.00 ft
DR
Draft 15 16
Process:
1. The initial condition is plotted on the KG limit curve. 2. Lead ballast amounts are added to the Condition A and a new Condition D is calculated. 3. When a satisfactory lead ballast solution is found, the nal new Condition A and Condition D are calculated.
AF
LCG 14.62 6.31 -23.54 Hydrostatic Properties LCB LCF TPI KM 2.50 23.70 32.20 22.35 4.55 24.10 33.00 22.22 MTI 765 792
T
TCG 0.06 0.02 -0.11
148
4. Curves of Form drawing is used to determine the hydrostatic properties for the new displacement3 . 5. Stability, trim, and drafts are calculated for the new condition4 . Visualization:
KG Limit Curve:
The plot below shows the current location of the ship as plotted against the KG limit curve. There is some room to add displacement (between the current location and the displacement limit line) so if we add lead ballast low in the ship it should bring the point down. It should be noted that the KG limit curve moves down with increased displacement (for this example).
First Iteration
Picking the amount and location of lead ballast requires considering more than just the weight and centers of the lead. One must also consider the diculty and cost of one location over another, and the impact to
3 See 4 See
DR AF T
19.5 Allowable KG (ft) 19.0
q
Before beginning the calculations, it is important to visualize the problem so that you start out with an idea of the impact to the ship. This helps reduce calculation errors (like sign mistakes) during the process and helps with the nal sanity check of the answers. For this example, lead ballast weight is added to the ship to reduce the KG. This weight will aect drafts and trim, and may aect list.
18.5
Displacement limit
18.0
4100
3200
3400
3600
3800
4000
4200
Example 9.7.1 for details Example 9.7.1 for details
9.7.
EXAMPLE PROBLEMS
149
other work that may be going on in the ship at the same time. Fully optimizing lead ballast installation must consider these and other factors. For this example, the smaller lead location is easier to get to but holds less and has a higher KG than the other location. Still, for our rst iteration lets use that bin and see if it will work. a 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 b Weight 3152.34 4.00 0 3156.34 877.72 4034.06 c KG 20.81 7.34 5.42 20.87 11.55 18.84 d V-Mom 65600 29 0 65882 10140 76019 e LCG 14.62 -27.12 12.87 14.57 -23.54 6.28 f L-Mom 46087 -108 0 45979 -20662 25317 g TCG 0.06 0.00 4.53 0.06 -0.11 0.02 h T-Mom 189 0 0 189 -100 93
Condition A Lead Ballast 1 Lead Ballast 2 New Condition A Condition D Loads New Condition D
Here we are using the same spreadsheet set-up as described in detail in Example 9.7.1. 5 Plotting this condition shows that this lead is insucient to adequately improve the KG of the ship (lled in circle just above the KG limit curve).
5 Moments are calculated by weight times center: b2 c2 = d2; centers by moment divided by weight: f 2/b2 = e2; weights and moments are summed down (e.g., d2 + d3 + d4 = d5) and new center found by dividing moments by the total weight (e.g., d5/b5 = c5)
DR AF T
q q
18.5
Displacement limit
18.0
4100
3200
3400
3600
3800
4000
4200
150 Second Iteration
Since we want to limit the time and expense of adding lead ballast, we try to limit the number of locations that we need to install the lead. So for our second iteration, lets choose only the aft location and see if that is sucient. Using the same spreadsheet as in the rst iteration, we zero out the rst location and ll the second:
Plotting this condition shows that this lead is sucient to improve the KG of the ship (lled in circle just on the KG limit curve). However, this will not leave any growth capability in the ship and it is likely that more lead ballast will be required in the very near future. It appears that more lead ballast should be put on board now to avoid time and cost in the future.
DR AF T
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Condition A Lead Ballast 1 Lead Ballast 2 New Condition A Condition D Loads New Condition D
q q
b Weight 3152.34 0.00 10.00 3162.34 877.72 4040.06
c KG 20.81 7.34 5.42 20.84 11.55 18.82
d V-Mom 65600 0 54 65907 10140 76044
e LCG 14.62 -27.12 12.87 14.61 -23.54 6.33
f L-Mom 46087 0 129 46216 -20662 25554
g TCG 0.06 0.00 4.53 0.07 -0.11 0.03
h T-Mom 189 0 45 234 -100 138
18.5
Displacement limit
18.0
4100
3200
3400
3600
3800
4000
4200
9.7.
EXAMPLE PROBLEMS
151
Final Iteration Here we ll both lead locations with lead and plot the results. a 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Condition A Lead Ballast 1 Lead Ballast 2 New Condition A Condition D Loads New Condition D b Weight 3152.34 4.00 10.00 3166.34 877.72 4044.06 c KG 20.89 7.34 5.42 20.82 11.55 18.81 d V-Mom 65852 29 54 65936 10140 76074 e LCG 14.62 -27.12 12.87 14.56 -23.54 6.29 f L-Mom 46087 -108 129 46107 -20662 25446 g TCG 0.06 0.00 4.53 0.07 -0.11 0.03 h T-Mom 189 0 45 234 -100 138
The solution still doesnt provide a lot of growth, but it is the best we can do for the given locations for lead ballast6 . New Baseline
With the addition of the lead ballast, a new weight and stability baseline must be calculated. The GM, drafts, trim, and list must be calculated for the new Condition D from our nal iteration. This process is not shown here for this example since it is shown in detail in Example 9.7.1.
6 It should be noted that other methods can be used such as linear optimization using spreadsheet tools such as Solver or Goal Seeker in Excel, or calculating the amount of weight and moment shift rst, then solving for the lead ballast solution. The spreadsheet iteration method is probably the easiest and fastest for simpler problems and that is what is presented here.
DR AF T
q q
18.5
Displacement limit
18.0
4100
3200
3400
3600
3800
4000
4200
152
DR AF T
Chapter 10
Weighing
by George Cebra
10.1
Background and Purpose
It is imperative that a Shipbuilder fullls its obligation to deliver a ship within the limits of the naval architectural contractual requirements that have been invoked upon the Shipbuilder. The desired naval architectural limits are dependent upon the Ships mass properties, which may be a combination of estimates or calculations of ship construction drawings and actual weight determination. Therefore, the condence level and accuracy of the estimates and calculations of the mass properties that comprise the ship is essential. Actual weight determination is the weighed weight of a component derived from accurate scale weighing by the use of calibrated scales or other weighing devices. Actual weighed weights are considered the highest delity level of condence and weight maturity data for the Weight Report. SAWE Recommended Practice 12 [4] suggests that the actual weight of all components and equipment greater than 500 pounds, both Contractor and Governmentfurnished, shall be determined through accurate scale weighing along with estimation or calculation of centers of gravity. This requirement for large ships, such as aircraft carriers and amphibious ships could be impractical and costly. Each ship presents its own unique weight control quality challenges and it is the subject matter of this chapter to address the processes involved with developing a feasible weighing plan that will provide the greatest quality benet
DR
AF
10.2
153
to the weight database without interfering with the ships schedule or increasing costs unnecessarily.
A weighed, actual or scale weight is dened as the shipboard weight of any material or equipment/component item determined by the use of a calibrated scale or other weighing devices. The weighed weight should reect the weight of an item in the condition as it will be upon installation in the ship. Care should be taken to note whether the item is in dry condition (contains no operating uids) or wet condition (contains any operating uids needed for normal operation). Dry condition is the preferred state of a weighed weight and should be assumed unless otherwise noted. For components in a wet condition a detail accounting of uids (amount, type, and location in the item) should be provided. Other conditions for weighed weights are as follows:
The weighed weight must be adjusted to reect deductions for the weight of any skid, pallet, packaging material or dunnage, temporary support, or other extraneous additions included in the weight determined. The weight for those items may be estimated, calculated or determined by weighing. Weighing is the preferred method.
Denition of a Weighed Weight
154
CHAPTER 10. WEIGHING
Any items or portions that would also nor- 10.3 Elements of an Eective mally comprise the completed item/unit weighed Weighing Program that were not included in the weighed weight should be identied and listed separately. The actual weight should comprise at least 75% of One must rst assess the contractual requirements. If there is already a requirement to weigh certain comthe shipboard weight of the item in question. ponents, then the task is to assess how best to fulll the contract requirement. If it is a broad requirement or invoking SAWE Recommended Practice 12[4] to Any other additional items included in the weigh every component over 500 pounds, then dierweighed weight that may be part of another ent approaches should be identied and the impacts assembly should be identied and documented. recognized. Care must be exercised to describe exactly what Several alternative approaches are identied with was weighed. some feasibility considerations in the following. Whichever approach, one must access which approach has the highest probability of satisfying con For multiple quantities of the item to be weighed, tractual obligations, presents the largest improvethe weighed weight should reect the averaged ments to the accuracy of the Weight Report, and result of weighing a statistically signicant quan- provides little or no risk to the current ship constructity of the items in accordance with American tion schedule. Also, a combination of the dierent approaches can be a solution. National Standard ANSI/ASQC Z1.4-1993. Weight all Components Over 500 Pounds This approach would be in accordance with [4] and would A weighed weight may be determined by the ship- most likely fulll most all other obligations. This apyard directly or furnished by the supplier of the item proach would provide greatest enhancement to the in response to a clause invoked by the purchase agree- quality of the data for the Weight Report. However, this approach would require signicant cooperation ment. from various disciplines, from Waterfront Facilities, The weighing equipment/instrumentation shall be Machine Shops, Warehousing, Production Planners operated in accordance with manufacturers recom- to Engineering Design Departments and a high level mendations or company standards regarding range of support from the Department responsible for the and calibration. If there is any doubt as to the accu- weighing. This requirement would be high in cost and racy of the equipment to be employed in the deter- could cause signicant impact to production schedmination of weighed weights, the equipment should ules dependent upon when the items get weighed. not be used until recalibration is performed. The calWeigh All Owner or Government Furnished Maibration date for the scale and range is to be recorded. terial This approach would fulll a portion of [4] Weighing equipment/instruments shall be calibrated and still provide quality data for the Weight Report. on a yearly basis. This approach would still require signicant amount When a weighed weight meets this denition of cooperation from various disciplines, from Waterit qualies for inclusion in ship weight reports as front Facilities, Warehousing, Production Planners a weighed weight and qualies toward the sat- to Engineering Design Departments. In many cases isfaction of Navy requirements for the weighing of however, GFM could be weighed at an o-site facilshipboard components in excess of 500 pounds as ity which would be favorable as opposed to weighing described by SAWE Recommended Practice 12 [4], at ship installation. GFM is often stored in a central Weight Control Technical Requirements for Surface location until delivered to the ship. It would be desirShips[4]. able to coordinate weighing eorts with the Facility.
DR AF T
10.4. VENDOR WEIGHTS Also, many of the Electrical and Electronic components are set up and tested at a facility, such as a Land Based Test Facility prior to ship installation. These items could be weighed at the time they are ready to be shipped to the ship for installation with no impact to ship schedule or added cost. Weigh Items That Are Changes From Previous Hull Many design changes occur from hull to hull for the same class of ship. This approach would involve weighing the major components that changed from the previous hull. This approach would probably satisfy most requirement obligations and provide increased quality of data for the Weight Report. This approach would still require support from various disciplines and could have some impact to ship schedule. Best method to pursue would be for the vendors to supply the weight data. Weigh Selective Items Based on Ship Location With this approach, one would consider weighing major components that are installed at a vertical center high above the Baseline that would aect the KG and trim of the ship. One would also consider weighing major components that are installed signicantly outboard in the ship which would aect the list of the ship. This approach would satisfy some requirement obligations and provide some increase quality of data for the Weight Report that would have high moment impact. This approach would still require some support from various disciplines and could have some impact to ship schedule. Weigh Components Based on Longevity of Last Weighing This approach would how long ago an item was weighed for a prior hull. This approach could be very similar to impact as the rst approach mentioned, especially if components were never weighed. Weigh Items of Complexity This approach one would constitute a list of items that have complex geometry that make weight calculations dicult to be accurate. Such items would be rudders, struts, yokes, masts and castings of complexity. This approach would still require some support from various disciplines and could involve some impact to ship schedule. Some of these items could possibly be weighed when being transported from perhaps the Machine Shop to the ship.
155 For a new ship of a new design, a plan should be developed to perhaps weigh a good percentage of large items that are new to that design and implement a combination of the dierent approaches discussed above. Also, the shipbuilder should try to get the support from its vendors as much as possible. In all cases, one should generate a list of candidate items to weigh which should also include pertinent data of the component such a part number and drawing number, and make appropriate distribution. Status should be kept as to when items may be weighed, which items have been weighed, comments that may aect the weighing.
DR AF T
10.4 Vendor Weights
To minimize the amount of actual weight determination at the shipbuilding site, the Shipbuilder should require actual weighed weight data from the Vendors supplying the components to the Shipbuilder. This can be done with clauses written into acquisition documents such as Purchase Orders. An example of a note that could be incorporated into a Purchase Order is as follows: The Supplier Component Weight Form shall be lled out and submitted with Weighed weight data and an estimate of the Center of Gravity provided for items weighing 500 Lbs or more in accordance with the instructions on the form. [see Figure 10.5 on page 159 and Figure 10.6 on page 160] For individual items delivered in quantity, weigh 2 items for delivered quantities of 2 to 8; weigh 3 items for delivered quantities of 9 to 15; weigh 5 items for quantities of 16 and above. Weight and Moment Control is critical to this Shipbuilder meeting its Naval Architectural Contractual Requirements for List, Trim, Service Life Allowance and Performance. Therefore, it is imperative that this Shipbuilder receive accurate weight data from its Suppliers.
156 A Weighed weight is dened as weight data resulting from the use of industrial weighing systems or scales. This data is required as a means of validating the weight of shipboard installed components. The completed Supplier Component Weight Form, signed, dated, shall be returned prior to shipment of the material.
CHAPTER 10. WEIGHING 10 pounds. The lower the graduation, the more accurate the result will be. Some examples of equipment that should be considered follow. Crane Scales and Tension Link Dynamometers
Reports should be generated listing the purchase orders, or the acquisition documents that invoked the note or requirement on at least a quarterly basis. A status should be kept of incoming forms from the suppliers satisfying the requirement. In some cases, a Quality Assurance Procedure could be written, or one already in existence modied, which would invoke Quality Assurance of Vendor Compliance. A caution should be made not to use Label Plate Data for the weighed weight information as an easy way out of obtaining the true weighed weight data. It has been historically found that label plate data can be signicantly o. In a lot of cases, it was found that the dry weighed weight when weighed at the shipyard facility was heavier than the wet weight that was printed on the label plate.
10.5
For a shipbuilder to derive the actual weighed weights of the wide variety of components and materials that comprise a ship, this requires an array of equipment. Ideally, the shipbuilder should possess the ability to weigh anything from a few pounds for items such as electronic components, up to a couple hundred thousand pounds for large components such as large castings and weldments or even motor generator sets. The shipbuilder should be capable of using the correct range of weighing equipment for the component to be weighed. The weight of the item to be weighed should be 25% to no more than 75% the range of the scale that is used. Also, the equipment used should have the lowest graduations possible. For instance, a 50,000 pound scale that has graduations of 50 pounds is not as accurate as one that has graduations of only
DR AF T
Weighing Equipment
Figure 10.1: Tension Link Dynamometer.
Dynamometers like the one shown in Figure 10.1 are probably the most commonly used pieces of weighing equipment. They come in wide range of capacities from 5000 pounds up to 300,000 pounds. Most useful are the 10,000 pound, 25,000 pound and 50,000 pound capacities to start with. Those ranges would be capable of weighing most variety of items. The larger capacity dynamometers are more costly and heavy to haul around. The number of items that the larger capacity dynamometers would be used for would probably much less than the lower capacity dynamometers. The larger dynamometers are nice to have when one is able to increase the inventory of weighing equipment. The dynamometers are used with a crane and can be inserted whenever the object
10.5. WEIGHING EQUIPMENT is going to be lifted for whatever reason. Most useful and convenient to use are the wireless type with remote readout. Models can be purchased that have an accuracy of 0.1%. The dynamometers can be purchased with leading industry Crosby-Laughlin hooks and shackles. Waterproof Carrying Cases
157 be used as a regular platform scale. It has a capacity of 5,000 pounds with one pound increments which is capable of weighing a variety of items. It also has an accuracy of 0.1%. Retrots are also available that convert larger pallet trucks up to a range of 10,000 pounds. Platform Scales
Dynamometers can be purchased with waterproof carrying cases. The cases facilitate the ease of carrying the dynamometers and the remote readouts. They also help protect the equipment when not in use. Pallet Weight Truck
Platform scales come in a wide variety of sizes and range capacities from table top, to oor scales or portable (see Figures 10.3 and 10.4). Most comFigure 10.2: Pallet Weight Truck. monly used are the 1,000 pound and 5,000 pound capacity oor scales. These scales are generally loThe pallet weight truck similar to the one shown cated in Shipping/Receiving areas where items can in Figure 10.2 is a great piece of equipment to have be weighed just prior to being prepared for shipping. that enables the weighing process to be much easier, Also, portable, battery operated platform scales are convenient and versatile by providing multi purpose very useful and can be transported to dierent facilmobile weighing. It has the weighing system built ities. A small platform scale is nice to have if one directly into a standard pallet truck. This enables wants to just weigh small items that can be easily the user to go where the components are. It can also hand carried.
DR AF T
Figure 10.3: Platform Scale.
158
Vehicle
A dedicated vehicle such as a van or box truck is necessary for a successful weighing program. A means of transportation is necessary to transport the weighing equipment and personnel to the dierent sites throughout the shipyard where the job may be performed. Also, it can provide as a means for storage for the weighing equipment. The vehicle would also be needed to go to dierent facilities that may be outside the shipyard. The vehicle can be equipped with means for facilitating getting the equipment in and out of the vehicle such as light weight folding ramps, hoists and pulleys.
10.6
The weighing equipment should be calibrated on a yearly basis to ensure the accuracy of the equipment and proper working order. The calibration should be performed by an authorized Metrology Lab that may be an on site facility at the shipyard. The calibration may also be outsourced to an authorized company that performs calibrations. The calibration should be done in compliance with National Type Evaluation Program in compliance with NIST Handbook 44[19]. If the equipment is not kept up to date with proper calibration, then eort expended for weighing is defeated.
DR AF T
Figure 10.4: Portable Scale.
Equipment Calibration
10.6. EQUIPMENT CALIBRATION

SUPPLIER COMPONENT WEIGHT FORM A. Supplier Information: Supplier Name: Manufacturer (If different from Supplier): Model No. (If applicable):
159
Purchase Order No. and Item No.: Description:
Shipbuilder Part No.: Hull No.:
B. Weight and CoG Informatio n: Dry Weight (Lbs.)
Weighed Component/Item
C. CoG Sketch:
D. Weighing Equipment Information: Weighing Equipment
Make: Type: Range: Calibration Date: Date Weighed:
DR AF T
Supplier Drawing No(s): Shipbuider Drawing Number(s): Components less than 500 lbs. Weight of Operating Fluids Calculated or Estimated Center of Gravity Dry CoG Y Dry CoG X Dry CoG Z Side View Top View Y Z X = CoG Name: Date: Phone:
Components are within 2% of the Unit Weight listed under the Purchase Order Item
Remarks
E. Approval Signature: The technical information furnished on this form is considered to accurately and completely describe the item(s)
Figure 10.5: Example of a Supplier Component Weight Form
160
Notes for Completion of Supplier Component Weight Reporting Form:
Each individual or separate item supplied should be reflected on this form. Additional sheets may be added as necessary to provide the information requested. A. Supplier Information: 1. Enter name of your company for Supplier Name. 2. Provide the name of the original manufacturer, if you are acting as an agent for a product produced by another firm. If you are both the supplier and the manufacturer, this box may be left blank. 3. Provide the mo del number of the supplied item(s) if applicable. 4. Provide the Purchase Order No. and Item No. under which you are providing this component. 5. Provide a brief description of the item(s) being supplied to the Shipbuilder . 6. Provide the Shipbuilder Part Number of the item(s), if known. Otherwise, leave blank. 7. Provide the Vendor -Supplied Drawing Number, which describes the item(s) supplied. 8. Enter Hull Number if known, otherwise, leave blank. 9. Enter Shipbuilder Drawing Number if known, otherwise, leave blank. 10. If the item is less than 500 lbs. check the block accordingly; Sections B through D do not apply; however, signature is required in Section E and submit the form. 11. If weight appearing in the Unit Weight field of this purchase order item is still accurate with in 2%, then check the block accordingly; Sections B through D do not apply; however, signature is required in Section E and submit the form.
B. Weight and CoG Information: 12. Enter name of Weighed Component/Item. 13. Provide the unit dry weight (e.g. no operatin g fluids of any kind) of each item. This weight should not include any packaging, dunnage, or temporary additions. The weight reported should be the dry weight of the item, as it will be installed on the ship. 14. Enter the weight of any operating fluids re quired for a normal operating ship condition. 15. Provide the calculated or estimated center of gravity (CoG) for each item. A. Dry CoG X measured from a reference point on the rear of the equipment B. Dry CoG Y measured from a reference point on the bottom of th e equipment C. Dry CoG Z measured from a reference point on the centerline of the equipment Note: Input into these columns should be in feet and decimal feet.
DR AF T
measure weight.
16. Provide an estimated location of the Center of Gravity of the component in an operating conditio by a very rough sketch in the space provided. If already provided on a vendor drawing, then just attach the vendor drawing; a sketch would not be required.
D. Weighing Equipment Information: 17. Provide the information on the weighing equipment used to
E. Approval Signature: Provide signature/name signifying that the data provided to us for our use in weight estimating accurately and completely describes the item furnished to the best of your capability.
Reports should be generated listing the purchase orders, or the acquisition documents that invoked the note or requirement on at least a Quarterly basis. A status should be kept of incoming forms from the suppliers satisfying the requirement. In some cases, a Quality Assurance Procedure could be written, or one already in existence modified, which would invoke Quality Assurance of Vendor Compliance. A caution should be made not to use Label Plate Data for the weighed weight information as an easy way out of obtaining the true weighed weight data. It has been historically found that Label Plate data can be significantly off. In a lot of cases, it was 6
Figure 10.6: Notes for Completion of Supplier Component Weight Reporting Form
Chapter 11
Vendor Weight Control

by Alan Titcomb
11.1
Purpose and General Requirements
A ship is a composite of material fabricated by the shipbuilder such as the shell, decks, bulkheads, etc.; components built by the shipyard such as piping systems and foundations; and components procured from outside vendors such as pumps, generators, cable, and combat system electronic components. While the shipyard is responsible for fabricating the structure of the vessel, it is also responsible for integrating and installing the products of 1. To identify the most accurate weight of a given numerous suppliers into the completed ship that will supplied item at any given point during ship deperform its intended mission. The equipment, masign and construction terial, and system components that are provided by 2. To track mass properties trends of vendor consuppliers are as much a factor in the mass properties tributions so that adverse impacts to the ship characteristics of the ship as they are in its operation. can be forecast in time to permit corrective or For some ships, like an aircraft carrier or large cruise compensatory action. ship, the number of individual suppliers exceeds 1,000 and constitutes nearly a third of the ships light ship 3. To establish proactive measures that ensure the weight. For smaller vessels, the number of individweight of supplier-furnished equipment and maual suppliers is less, but their proportional impact on terials receives the appropriate level of priority the vessels mass properties may be as great or even and attention necessary to result in a ship with surpass that of larger ships. acceptable naval architectural characteristics. The rst two classes mentioned above fall within the control of the shipyard and can usually be There are several general requirements that any apweighed, calculated or estimated with reasonable ac- proach to vendor weight control must meet to ensure curacy. The last class of items, those supplied by that reasonable levels of acceptance are met for both outside vendors, are more dicult to measure or cal- the designer/builder and the vendor. They are:
DR
AF
161
culate and frequently receive the least attention from the shipyards weight engineers. The purpose of vendor weight control is to eectively determine the impact of the material, components, and equipment supplied by the vendor community. This chapter focuses on the role that suppliers or vendors play in the marine industry practices that best satisfy the requirements for a sound, comprehensive weight control program and is based largely on Reference [6]. The terms vendor and supplier are considered completely interchangeable and both may be used throughout this chapter. The objectives of vendor weight control are threefold:
162 It must be aordable to implement by ship designer/builder with respect to the increased accuracy and risk reduction benets that result. It must eectively ow down to the vendor the requirements that are placed on the designer/builder by the owner
CHAPTER 11. VENDOR WEIGHT CONTROL Material Supply Chain that is prevalent in the shipbuilding industry today. This supply chain as well as brief summary of the role of each participant is presented in Figure 11.2 on page 163.
Determination and consideration of the mass The majority of shipboard equipment and mateproperties requirements for the ship by design rial is procured by the designer/builder directly from phase its suppliers. Primary suppliers are those who supply Identication of weight control measures for each directly to the builder. Secondary suppliers are those who supply small components or material to primary level of weight criticality suppliers for incorporation into larger components to Insertion of appropriate weight control require- be installed on the ship by the builder. This chapter ments into applicable procurement documents. will focus on primary suppliers; however, the same approach described here may be owed down to the Consideration of the relationships between the secondary supplier by the primary supplier, as approvarious parties in the ship equipment and ma- priate. terial supply chain as part of a comprehensive weight control program. Figure 11.1 (page 163), depicts these attributes of Subcontractors represent a unique type of supplier a successful vendor control program. responsible for the design, integration, and delivery of large, complex, multi-component systems for the ship. Subcontractors may be under contract to the 11.2 Ship Equipment and Ma- Owner or government or contract directly with the shipyard. The subcontractor is becoming more comterial Supply Chain mon in both military and commercial ship programs The basis for the approach to vendor weight control and requires a unique application of vendor weight described in this chapter is the Ship Equipment and control.
DR AF T
The entities that gure prominently in this chain It must be capable of placing the proper mass are the ship designer, the ship builder, the owner (or properties attention on each item depending on government for military ships), secondary and priits contribution to ship overall characteristics. mary suppliers, and unique entity called a subcontractor. Depending on the situation, the designer and It must result in minimal or no increase in the builder may be two separate organizations or they cost of manufacture for the vendor may be two divisions of the same organization. In It must result in accurate mass properties data some cases, the owner may be responsible for procuring certain equipment directly from the vendor comin a timely manner munity for shipment to the builder for installation Although vendor control programs may vary from on the ship. Such equipment which bypasses the one company to another, all eective programs share purchasing function of the designer/builder is called several common attributes: Owner-furnished Equipment. For military ships, the same situation is common, but the equipment is A classication of shipboard items based on the termed Government-Furnished Equipment (GFE). criticality of their mass properties compared to the ships mass properties
11.2. SHIP EQUIPMENT AND MATERIAL SUPPLY CHAIN
163
Vendor Weight Control Process

Determine Mass Properties Requirements for the ship and the design phase Insert appropriate weight control requirements into applicable purchasing documents
Determine Weight Criticality
Secondary Suppliers
Secondary Suppliers
Design and production of sub-components or commodities
DR AF T
Invoke appropriate weight requirements on OFE or GFE Track supplier for compliance and update weight database
Identify Weight Control Measures for each level of Weight Criticality
Figure 11.1: Vendor weight control process.
Owner or Government
Suppliers
Designer
Builder
Subcontractors
Primary Suppliers
Owner and Subcontractors
Designer
Builder
Final Product
Design and manufacture of ship equipment and materials
Design, integration, and/or procurement of long lead items or complex systems
Selection, arrangement, and integration of ship material and equipment to meet owner requirements
Erection, fabrication, installation, and assembly of ship equipment and material to suit design
Final delivery of ship to owner for entry into service
Figure 11.2: Ship Equipment and Material Supply Chain.
164
CHAPTER 11. VENDOR WEIGHT CONTROL
11.3
Mass Properties Requirements
11.4
One of the main goals of any type weight control program is to be aordable to the shipyard that will implement it. In order to ensure aordability, it is desirable to focus the greatest measure of weight control on the items with the greatest impact to the ship. The weight criticality of any given item or system procured from the vendor community is a function of three main factors: 1. The sensitivity to weight and/or moment changes of the specic ship on which the equipment will be installed.
2. The weight and moment attributable to the equipment, a function of its total weight and its shipboard location. 3. The maturity of the equipment.
DR AF T
Weight Criticality
One of the most important rst steps in initiating a vendor weight control program is to determine the mass properties requirements invoked on the ship by the owner. Identication early is advisable so that any unique or dicult requirements can be owed down to the vendor community as appropriate. These requirements provide a good indication of the priority of certain mass properties to the owner and may also include liquidated damages (nancial penalties) or opportunities for the shipyard to earn performance bonuses as well. For example, an extra long ton of weight in light ship for an oil tanker represents a long ton of cargo that cannot be transported. Therefore, a penalty for exceeding a given weight and/or a performance bonus for exceeding a given deadweight may be part of the requirements. Sources of the various requirements include the construction contract, weight control plan, ship specications, Contract Data Requirements Lists, operational requirements document, and a design contract.
Weight criticality is essentially a subjective means of determining the importance of weight control in a predictable, consistent, and repeatable manner. Ships vary widely in their Sensitivity to weight and moment impacts of individual equipment or systems. Some are highly sensitive demonstrating significant and undesirable response in terms of ship motions, stability, trim, list, draft, maneuvering, survivability, speed, or service life allowance. For example a large oil tanker would have a very low KG and would be relatively unaected by the addition of an 800 pound piece of equipment anywhere on the ship. Other ships, however, are highly sensitive to weight and moment impact. A small high speed craft such as yacht or oshore crew boat, for example, could suer degradation in speed, stability, or experience adverse list or trim if the same 800 pound piece of equipment were added onboard. Moment is a function of the weight of the item and its location onboard the ship in terms of its vertical distance above the baseline of the ship, its transverse distance from the centerline of the ship, or its fore and after location relative to the longitudinal center of gravity of the ship. Reference [14] provides a good overview of the various naval architectural parameters of a ship and how they are aected by weight and moment changes due to the addition of a piece of equipment. Basically, a relatively small weight added to the ship can have a pronounced eect if its location is at a position that is a long distance from the ships center of gravity. The last determinant of Weight Criticality is the Weight Maturity of the item in question. If an item is an o-the-shelf item that is sold in quantity to the marine industry, its weight is likely well established, subject to only minimal manufacturing variability, and well documented in supplier literature or in the weight reports of previous ships. Such items represent very little uncertainty with regard to weight and moment impact. However, a new piece of equipment that is custom designed and manufactured for a given ship or a stock item that has been modied signicantly represents much greater uncertainty to the mass properties engineer or analyst. The item that represents the greatest uncertainty should be subjected to the greatest degree of weight control.
11.5. IDENTIFICATION OF APPROPRIATE WEIGHT CONTROL MEASURES
165
High
High
High
High MEDIUM CRITICALITY HIGH CRITICALITY
Ship Sensitivity Scale
Medium
Medium
Medium
Medium
Low
DR AF T
LOW CRITICALITY MEDIUM CRITICALITY
LOW CRITICALITY
MEDIUM CRITICALITY
Low
Low
Low
Low
Medium
High
Low
Medium
High
Moment Scale
Moment Scale
Figure 11.3: Weight Criticality Quad Chart
Figure 11.4: Example of Weight Criticality Determination
These three factors together determine whether the weight criticality of a given item is high, medium, or low. As these factors vary widely from one circumstance to the next, it must be ascertained on a case-by-case basis. However, Figure 11.3 can be used as a quick generic guide to establishing criticality. Regardless of the measurement tool, the decision of what constitutes a High, Medium, or Low criticality should be consistent and repeatable, and should take into account the contractual requirements which govern the design and the sensitivity of the design, the expected weight and moment, and maturity of the weight and location data upon which the moment estimate is based. On the Ship Sensitivity scale, low refers to a ship that is relatively insensitive to weight and moment changes, in other words a ship on which weight is not a signicant concern. The other extreme, high, refers to a ship that is highly sensitive to weight and moment changes. For US Navy ships, this would mean they fall in Stability Status 2, 3, or 4 per Reference [20]. The Weight Maturity scales starts with low, othe-shelf items which are common in the marine industry and whose weight is known and well documented. The upper end of the spectrum refers to items that are new, probably custom designed for each shipboard application, and whose weight entails signicant uncertainty.
The Moment scale goes from low, an arbitrary level which is considered to have minor or negligible impact to the ship, to high, a level of moment which causes noticeable change in naval architectural properties. For each of these scales, select a point that best characterizes the particular system or ship. Connect the points on the three scales. The quadrant in which the centroid of the resulting triangle falls determines the Criticality of the item. If the centroid falls on a boundary between two Weight Criticality levels, the higher level should be used. Figure 11.4 demonstrates the use of Weight Criticality Quad Chart.
11.5
Identication of Appropriate Weight Control Measures
The next step in establishing a vendor weight control program is to identify necessary weight control measures to institute for each level of weight criticality. These measures should consist of what reasonable actions are needed to control the risk involved for the item. They should be broken down by design and construction phasetypically, concept design, preliminary/contract design, detail design, and constructionto suit the progressive renement and availability of mass property data that naturally oc-
Weight Maturity Scale
Ship Sensitivity Scale
MEDIUM CRITICALITY
HIGH CRITICALITY
Weight Maturity Scale
166 curs over the course of ship development. Typically, the weight information available early in a design is rough and becomes progressively more detailed and dened throughout the remainder of the design and construction spectrum. During concept design, contact with vendors is usually limited to potential vendors of major equipment. Typically, an NTE (not-to-exceed) weight is requested from suppliers of equipment in the high criticality category. An NTE is an estimate by the supplier of the maximum installed weight of the item in question including any and all margins for manufacturing tolerances. The NTE should have an analytical or parametric basis that reects the vendors experience with the same or similar items. This weight is used by the designer/builder to set an upper limit for use in early stage design activities. For low or medium criticality items, minimal or no information from the vendor is required. The preliminary/contract design phase is when the main conguration and arrangement of the ship is determined and the major equipment is dened and documented in a form that becomes the eventual basis for a design and construction contract. A preliminary design weight estimate is usually developed by the designer/builder during this phase and purchase orders for long lead time items, major ship components, and materials are developed for placement. As in the previous phase, the designer/builder continues to determine the weight criticality for supplied items, especially those in the high and medium categories. For high criticality items, a weight range is requested from the vendor. In establishing a minimum/maximum weight range the supplier should establish a weight budget based on historical data, their past experience with a given item, and their knowledge of the weight added by various manufacturing steps and then factor in the weight variables such as manufacturing tolerances. A weight control plan identifying how the supplier will control these factors and stay within the minimum/maximum weight range may also be requested by the designer/builder. This plan requires the vendor to describe how the weight of an item will be monitored during its manufacture to fall within the specied weight range. It will identify how often the weight will be assessed, by
CHAPTER 11. VENDOR WEIGHT CONTROL what means the weight will be measured, and what steps will be taken if an adverse trend is noted. It may also require a resume or background information on the person or persons responsible for overseeing the weight of manufactured item to establish his qualication for such a role. At this point, the designer/builder may also impose penalties for exceeding weight limits or nancial incentives for minimizing weight. Weight updates will be required at regular intervals specied by the designer/builder to support the preparation of weight reports for submittal to the owner. During detail design and construction, each item over 500 pounds. should be weighed to establish the actual weight or conrm the published weight of their product. This requirement includes all levels of weight criticality. The weight should be measured using standard industrial practice and equipment prior to its shipping to the shipyard. The actual or weighed weight reects the measured weight of an item in the condition as it will be installed in the ship in either a dry condition (contains no operating uids) or a wet condition (contains any operating uids needed for normal operation). For medium criticality items, the weighing requirement is invoked in the purchase order for all items over 500 pounds and an updated weight estimate is requested during manufacture to the development of periodic weight reports by the builder. Typically, the mass properties supplied will start as an estimate during the concept phase, progress to a calculated detail design, and result in an actual weight just prior to shipping. During this phase the builder may also exercise the right to conduct a weight audit to verify that nal weight will not exceed the range specied during preliminary design. An active weighing program is an eective way of verifying the weight of vendor-supplied components and ensuring that NTE requirements are being met. For high weight criticality items, the weighing requirement is invoked and penalties may be assessed for weight excess or weight insuciency if the delivered weight fails to fall in the previously agreed-to range. The builder will usually reserve the right to conduct a weight audit to verify that reported weight is accurate. A weight audit is a detailed, bottom-
DR AF T
11.7. SPECIAL APPLICATIONS OF VENDOR WEIGHT CONTROL up review and evaluation of engineering documentation and manufactured components completed to date including all weight estimates and calculations. The builder may also reserve the right to witness the weighing of an item in question. Through out detail design and construction, the vendor should be requested to report mass properties data on a regular basis to the builder. The purchase order for an item will specify the frequency of weight reporting required of the vendor. Figure 11.5 on page 168 summarizes recommended vendor weight control responsibilities for each design phase by its weight criticality over the three phases of ship design.
167
11.6
Implementation of Vendor Weight Control
Now that the ships mass properties requirements have been evaluated, weight criticality has been established, and the necessary weight control measures have been identied the program moves into the implementation phase. Actual implementation of the vendor weight control program is dependent on making the requirements identied in Figure 11.5 a part of the procurement documentation between the designer/builder and the individual supplier. Procurement documentation includes but is not limited to Requests for Proposals issued to vendors during the concept or preliminary/contract phase, Requests for Bid issued during the concept or preliminary/contract phases, and Purchase Orders or Purchase Agreements issued during the detail design and construction phase. Exact titles of such documents may vary from one shipbuilder to another but these and any related documents form the contractual framework in which equipment is procured for the ship. Examples of contractual language which can be used to implement a vendor weight control program can be found in Reference [6] and modied to suit the particulars of a given application. Similar clauses can be used by primary suppliers to ow requirements to secondary suppliers. Standard forms for the reporting of actual weights by vendors can
DR AF T
11.7
also help ensure the consistency of data received from vendors. Again, example forms may be found in Reference [6]. Once such contractual requirements are in place, compliance should be assessed by the purchasing department of the organization or by the technical owner of the purchase order. Lack of compliance by suppliers should be corrected whenever possible as well as considered a factor in future procurements by the shipyard as appropriate.
Special Applications of Vendor Weight Control
Traditionally, the shipbuilder-supplier relationship was the only one that needed to be taken into consideration in the establishment of a vendor weight control program. This relationship placed the shipbuilder in a position to eectively enact all elements of an overall weight control program. However, today there are several variations identied in Figure 11.2 (page 163) that bypass the purchasing function of the designer/builder but which should not be neglected in a comprehensive weight control program. These unique contractual relationships pose special challenges to eective weight control as does the situation in which a class of multiple hulls is the subject of vendor weight control. Low weight, high quantity and bulk materials also deserve special consideration. Subcontractors While the majority of suppliers for a ship are individual companies that supply a limited number of components for the ship, there are instances in which the responsibility for large, complex, multi-component systems is placed with a single supplier who functions in a system integrator capacity. Acting much like a general contractor, this type of supplier is responsible for providing the builder weight and moment data for large quantities of shipboard equipment and material. Subcontractors such as this are becoming common in the oshore and naval ship construction segments of the marine industry. Weight control as described in this chapter can be applied to a subcontractor just it is a single supplier during the dierent ship phases. The entire aggre-
168
Weight Criticality
Low
Medium
High
DR AF T
Ship Design Phase
Concept Design Activities No need for mass properties information from the Supplier Preliminary / Contract Design Activities No need for mass properties information from the Supplier Supplier provides NTE weight to the Designer/Builder if requested. Supplier provides minimum/ maximum weight range to the Builder. Supplier provides weight updates to Builder. Supplier provides NTE weight to the Designer/Builder. Designer/Builder makes weight a selection criterion for award. Supplier provides minimum/maximum weight range to Builder. Supplier develops Weight Control Plan for submittal to Builder. Supplier provides periodic weight updates to Builder.
Figure 11.5: Vendor Weight Control Activities Summary
Detail Design and Construction Activities Supplier required to weigh all items over 500 lbs and report to the Builder Supplier submits periodic weight updates to builder. Supplier to weigh items over 500 lbs. prior to shipment and report to Builder. Supplier submits periodic weight updates to builder. Builder reserves right to conduct weight audit. Supplier weighs item prior to shipment and submits to Builder. Builder may perform inyard verication of delivered weight.
11.8. COST OF WEIGHT CONTROL gate of components supplied by the subcontractor can treated as a single, net impact similar to that of a single component. Due to the volume of mass properties data that may be submitted by a subcontractor, it advisable for the shipbuilder to establish standard format for weight reporting that is consistent in style, convention, and format with the builders practice. Such a format can minimize the time, diculty, and overall cost of integrating subcontractor data into the builders weight accounting system. An example format can be found in Reference [6]. Owner or GovernmentFurnished Equipment (GFE) For some ships, the owner, or in the case of ships built for the Navy, the government is responsible for providing equipment. Although this equipment is not procured directly by the builder, its impact to the total may be signicant and should not be neglected in a comprehensive weight control program. There are two ways to approach Owner or Government-Furnished Equipment. First, the owner or government can include requirements in their purchase agreements similar to that previously described for shipyard purchase orders. The data (NTE weight estimates, actual weights, etc.) is received by the owner or government and then forwarded to the builder for inclusion in the weight database for the ship. The second approach is to treat the owner or government as a subcontractor responsible for reporting the mass properties of the items procured directly as a single, net impact. If the non-builder-furnished equipment for a ship comprises a signicant portion of the light ship weight, cooperation between the owner or government is imperative to exercising consistent, eective weight control for the ship. Vendor Weight Control for Multiple Ships of a Class In theory, vendor weight control need only be imposed on the rst ship of a class because, be definition, sister-ships should be identical copies. However, in reality, many ships classes are in a continuous state of transition that causes signicant dierence from one hull to the next. This situation is particularly true in naval ship construction. In these cases, vendor weight control can be imposed on the areas of change only. This means treating all legacy items as
169 low weight criticality and treating changes as medium or high criticality. The changes are then integrated with the remainder of the ship that is unchanged to result in an accurate weight database. Low Weight/High Quantity Items Typically, weight control is focused on the individual items of greatest weight. Reference [4] recommends the weighing of all items over 500 pounds. However, on large ships there may be numerous items less than 500 pounds. that exist in large quantities and whose total impact may be signicant. For example an item like a chair or television monitor may be found in quantities of 4000 or more on aircraft carriers or large cruise ships. Such items should not be neglected in a comprehensive weight control program. It is relatively easy to obtain an actual weight on a low weight item. In many cases, the manufacturer may have an accurate weight based on a statistical accounting of his production over long periods of time. Other examples of low weight/ high quantity items are re extinguishers, berths, computer monitors, and plumbing xtures. Bulk Materials Bulk materials, or commodities, are sometime overlooked with respect to weight control. Bulk materials include commodities such as steel plates, steel shapes, cable, insulation, pipe, paint, and fasteners. The total of all commodities constitutes a signicant portion of the ships weight, often in excess of 50% of light ship weight. For bulk materials, the total weight of all identical material should be used to determine criticality. All weight control requirements that are applicable to equipment can be applied to commodities as well.
DR AF T
11.8
Cost of Weight Control
The cost and schedule impact of vendor weight control is important to the shipbuilder. Many purchasing departments are concerned about the implementation of vendor weight control measures such as weight estimates and weighing increasing the cost of procurement. However, in practice most companies who have implemented vendor weight control report that cost increases are minor or negligible. This may be because many vendors also sell to other industries which
170 require some type of weight control or because the weight of their products is already well tracked as an indicator of quality control. Any minor increase in cost due to vendor weight control is justied by the benets which result such as improved weight estimates.
DR AF T
Chapter 12
Weight Improvement Programs
DR
AF
171
by Alan Titcomb
ers, the margin is insucient. Unplanned growth, a poor weight control plan, or inadequate execution of a weight control plan due to the lack of funding 12.1 Background and Purpose or management support may also be behind the need for a weight improvement program. Chapter ?? describes weight control as all the acThe purpose of a weight improvement program is tions needed to ensure that a ships weight and mo- to provide sucient weight and/or moment so that ments meet naval architectural limits. However, the ships condition in question is brought back within some ships experience problems during design or con- acceptable limits such that the normal weight construction that jeopardize meeting the weight and mo- trol process as identied in the Weight Control Plan ments that are needed to meet the naval architectural for that hull is sucient to control the weight and characteristics such as speed, list, trim, strength, sta- moment thereafter. Weight Improvement Programs bility, or draft. This situation creates a need for cor- are reactionary by nature, unlike most other elements rective or compensatory action that will bring a ship of the Weight Control Plan which are anticipatory back within limits. This chapter focuses on an ele- and whose function is to avoid problems, not react ment of the Weight Control Plan called the Weight to them. Provision for a Weight Improvement ProImprovement Program. The subject of this chap- gram is similar to having an insurance policy. Under ter is often referred to as a Weight Reduction Pro- normal circumstances it is not needed, but when the gram because in the majority of cases the objective unexpected happens it is considered a good investis to remove weight from the ship. However, the ment. broader term of weight improvement is used in this Every eort should be taken to avoid the need for chapter because the program described can be approa Weight Improvement Program. To avoid the need priately applied to correct KG, list, or trim as well for a Weight Improvement Program, a sound initial as reducing displacement. In these cases, the addiweight estimate and ample margins are key. The inition or redistribution of weight may be the objective. tial weight estimate should be based on honest, reaA Weight Improvement Program can be dened as sonable data and the margin established should reall the corrective or compensatory actions reect the historical growth in ships of the same or quired to ensure a ship will meet its weight similar type as well as the weight growth history at and moment requirements after a signicant the specic shipyard. adverse trend is identied . The causes for a ship exceeding its weight and moment requirements can vary widely. In some cases, Best Ways to Avoid a Costly Weight Improvethe original weight estimate is to blame. In oth- ment Program:
172
CHAPTER 12. WEIGHT IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS have been ordered, no steel has been fabricated, and erection has not occurred. The cost to enact a change is minimal. However, if the Weight Control Plan fails Reasonable, realistic margins based on past his- to recognize an adverse trend until detail design or tory with the ship type and/or size and specic construction, the consequences can be extremely exexperience of build yard pensive. Purchase orders with vendors have already Good comprehensive Weight Control Plan with been signed and manufacture of the procured item has begun, steel fabrication and pre-outtting may adequate management consensus be well underway at the shipyard and the erection of Conscientious and adequately funded implemen- units has begun. The cost and schedule impact of tation of Weight Control Plan by both mass rip-out, remanufacture, or the modication of signed purchase orders can be extremely high. properties and design personnel The objective of this chapter is to present a disciTimely reporting and analysis of mass properties plined, logical process to implement when the normal data weight control functions indicate that a ship is outEective interaction with vendors and system side of acceptable mass property limits. suppliers and good vendor weight reporting
Realistic, sound estimate of ship weight and moments
When a Weight Control Plan does not prevent the need for weight improvement, it should identify or highlight an adverse trend as early as possible. One important rule to remember is: The earlier a weight improvement program can be initiated, the less expensive it will be. Figure 12.1 shows this general relationship between the cost of weight improvement and the stage of design and construction when introduced.
DR AF T
12.2 Detecting Trend
Concept Design Prel\Contract Design Detail Design Fabrication Erection Incline Delivery
an
Adverse
Figure 12.1: Relationship between the cost of Weight Improvement and when it is implemented.
During concept design or preliminary/contract design, only limited amounts of equipment and material
An adverse trend is the most likely signal that a Weight Improvement Program needs to be considered. An adverse trend occurs when a mass property parameter such as weight, trim, list, or KG exceeds the projected value for that ship parameters plus margins established for expected growth. Tracking weight and margin consumption over time as shown in Figure 12.2 below clearly indicates when a parameter is out of bounds. A single point exceeding limits may not necessarily indicate a problem but two or more points in the same direction indicate the need for attention. There are several proven methods by which an adverse trend can be detected. The rst involves tracking critical mass property parameters such as displacement, KG, list, and trim over time. Basically, this involves plotting the critical parameters on a graph which also indicates the base estimate, or Accepted Weight Estimate (AWE), values. It may also be advisable to track the portion of the ship that is the responsibility of the owner or government as well to aid in determining responsibility for adverse trends. Each time a new weight report is issued, a new point is added to the curve. If a parameter ex-
Relative Cost
Low
Medium
High
12.2. DETECTING AN ADVERSE TREND

Notional Margin Depletion Benchmark
100
173
Potential Weight Improvement Program Margin

Percent of Total Margin Available 80
Weight
Weight Estimate
Margin
60
Concept Design
DR AF T
40
Potential Weight Improvement Program
20
Prel\Contract Design
Detail Design and Construction
Ship Inclining
20
40
60
80
100
Percent of Ship Design Complete
Time
Figure 12.2: Tracking weight and margin consumption over time.
Figure 12.3: Margin depletion tracking.
ceeds the AWE limits it is clearly visible and an investigation should be initiated to determine the cause. If the trend continues or worsens, then a Weight Improvement Program is justied. Another method of detecting an adverse trend is to track margin depletion. To establish a baseline estimate, or AWE, a design and build margin was established added to the weight estimate. The design margin accounts for expected growth in weight due to design development while the build margin accounts for construction tolerances, dierences between the design and the actual ship, and the margin of error of the inclining experiment. This method plots the margin consumed as a function of the percentage of the ship which has been calculated. When the level of margin depletion falls below the margin depletion Figure 12.4: Tracking weight of specic systems. curve depicted in Figure 12.3, the cause should be determined and a Weight Improvement Program iniThe rst reaction to an adverse trend should be a tiated if warranted. series of questions: The last proven way of detecting an adverse design 1. What caused the adverse trend? trend and its cause is to track the weight of individual systems. The most common approach is to track 2. Can it be corrected with a minimum of cost and by ESWBS group or other work breakdown strucschedule impact? ture category. Another possible way to track weight is by the person, department, or team that has de3. Does the situation require action or is it a temposign responsibility. Figure 12.4 depicts an example rary situation that will return to balance during of tracking the weight of a specic system over the the normal course of design and construction?
course of design and construction. Figure 12.4 provides an example of tracking by a specic system that is comprised of six individual ESWBS groups.
174
CHAPTER 12. WEIGHT IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS The decision as to which approach is best is usually determined by whether the problem is one that must be accepted and accommodated by the vessel. If the problem must be accepted, then a compensatory approach is dictated. If a corrective solution is advisable, then the specic item in question becomes the sole focus of the weight improvement eort. An example of a compensatory solution is a key ship component such as a main propulsion unit weighing 50% more that estimated originally. Since the specic equipment component of a given rating is identied on the Main Equipment List which is part of the contract, the overweight situation must be accepted. Therefore, the best course of action will be to compensate by adding or reducing weight elsewhere. An example of a corrective solution is a port side sponson on an aircraft carrier that is projected to weigh 50% over the original estimate included in the Accepted Weight Estimate. This situation is causing an unacceptable list to port that exceeds the limits in the ships specications. The corrective solution is to nd a way to reduce the weight of the sponson with a minimum of eort by redesign or material changes early in concept design to reduce the projected list problem. This step is intended to dene the boundary of possible solutions to be identied in later steps.
If the adverse trend is caused by an easily identied, easily corrected problem or if it is only a temporary problem then weight improvement is likely not warranted. If not, then two options exist: 1. Take action to get the ship back into balance in the form of a Weight Improvement Program, or 2. Suer degradation in ship performance and risk not meeting contractual requirements.
12.3
When the weight or moment limits of a ship are exceeded, the best recourse is to follow a disciplined, objective approach to rectifying the situation and returning the ship to compliance with its contractual obligations. The process should be devoid of any pet projects. Candidate solutions should earn their way on to the ship by satisfying all criteria successfully without detriment to other ship parameters. The following 10-step approach is recommended.
DR
1. Determine the Root Cause The rst step to take once a Weight Improvement Program is warranted is to determine the root cause behind the adverse trend. This cause may be a single item or multiple items that may or may not be related. The best way to identify the cause is to compare the latest weight estimate with the base estimate. In the case of military vessels, the base estimate is called the Accepted Weight Estimate. Signicant net changes usually highlight the problem area. Further investigation will determine the cause behind the net change(s).
2. Determine Solution Boundaries Once the cause of the problem is determined, the next step is to determine whether a corrective solution is the best course of action or a compensatory solution is advisable. A corrective solution focuses solely on the cause of the problem while a compensatory solution focuses on actions that compensate for the problem(s) elsewhere on the ship.
AF
Weight Improvement Process
3. Develop Primary Objectives Once the specic problem has been identied and the boundaries or limitations of the potential solution have been identied, it is time to quantify the specic primary objective(s) which must be achieved by the Weight Improvement Program. The objective must be as specic as possible and should dene exactly how much weight and/or moment by direction (fore/aft or port/stbd) is required. For example, 8500 foot-tons of port moment or enough weight reduction above the ships KG to reduce the KG by 6 inches. Denition of the objective will become critical to the analysis and selection of potential solutions later in the process. The objective should be the net total change in mass properties that will return the ship to an
12.3. WEIGHT IMPROVEMENT PROCESS acceptable condition that is within the reasonable sphere of normal weight control practices. 4. Identify Candidate Solutions The next step is to conduct a comprehensive survey to identify potential solutions. Potential sources of solutions include the design and engineering departments of the shipyard, waterfront construction personnel like production planners, the ship owner, the vendor community, other shipyards, and other industries who may share common design objectives and problems with the shipbuilding industry. In order to obtain the desired data on solutions it is advisable to use a uniform data collection sheet. This will ensure consistent and relevant data is collected from all sources. It suggested that both a minimum and maximum estimate of the resultant weight be requested. An example of a data collection form is shown in Figure 12.5 on page 176. This form was used to collect potential solutions from over 1000 different vendors for a large military ship. To solicit potential solutions within a shipyard, some Weight Improvement Programs employ some type of incentives or other form of recognition. Examples of successful measures have ranged from coee cups with the ships logo, formal letters of appreciation from management, or recognition in a company newsletter to savings bonds or hotel vouchers. In many cases, the form of reward or recognition escalates in value in accordance with the amount of weight change of the suggestion. Such reward or recognition programs have proven to be a small investment compared to the value of the weight change realized. 5. Evaluate Solution Candidates The purpose of this step is to review the data collected for each candidate and validate to be sure it is accurate and consistent with other candidate data. Because many respondents will fail to provide all the data elements required, it may be necessary to add location, system, or other data. This step also provides the opportunity to eliminate any candidates that are clearly beyond the scope of the task at hand or just not technically feasi-
175 ble. Those that are clearly not feasible should be eliminated but any that are questionable should still remain for further evaluation. An example of a suggestion that is outside the bounds of the task might be a suggestion that a new steel alloy be developed that is stronger than present materials but is thinner. Such an R&D eort is clearly beyond the cost and schedule boundaries of the project. However, a suggestion to use titanium is considered feasible because the material is in widespread use, it has known properties, and no R&D is required. It may also be advisable to have the cost of each candidate idea estimated by a single person to eliminate the wide variation that can result from each respondent developing their own estimate.
DR
AF
6. Measure Solutions Against Objectives Whenever a Weight Improvement Program is proposed, there are usually a number of objectives that must be met. Rarely, is the objective to save weight alone. Far more likely, the solution will have cost constraints, vertical moment constraints so that KG is not negatively impacted, or transverse or longitudinal moments to minimize negative impacts to trim or list, and schedule impact limitations. There may also be other considerations such producibility or ship operational constraints like manning, or even life-cycle cost. These secondary objectives are in addition to the primary objective identied in Step 3. In addition to technical objectives there may also be program-specic requirements as well. The task at hand is to select the optimal solution(s) from a number of dierent design alternatives that are proposed. To do this a selection process that is systematic, formalized, and accountable is needed. Some ship programs may have a formal tradeo study process that can effectively assess solutions. If not, one proven way to approach such a problem is to use tools like an Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) and Quality Function Deployment (QFD). The combination of AHP and QFD is a powerful and eective decision-making tool that will help set priorities and quantify both qualitative and qualita-
176
CHAPTER 12. WEIGHT IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS
Weight Reduction Submittal Form

Name: Company: Div./Dept: Phone: E-mail address: Description of Weight Reduction Idea:
Primary System Aected:
Secondary System(s) Aected:
Expected Weight Reduction (1LT = 2240 pounds):
Basis of Weight Reduction Estimate: (e.g. estimated, calculated, weighed weight): Has this idea been previously implemented on ships for the US Navy? Elsewhere in the marine industry? Other industries? Please describe.
How will this idea aect acquisition cost?
How will this idea aect lifecycle cost?
Please add additional sheets if necessary to convey your suggestion. Feel free to attach drawings, sketches, etc. as appropriate. Please send completed forms to the address below by mail or fax. If you would like to respond by e-mail, you may request an electronic version of this form. Thank you for your input.
DR
AF
Figure 12.5: Weight Reduction Submittal Form
12.3. WEIGHT IMPROVEMENT PROCESS tive considerations by reducing complex, multivariable decisions to a series of one-on-one comparisons. Reference [21] provides a good summary of this method as applied to the improvement of weight for a marine application. First a team of several knowledgeable persons is assembled. The team can be composed of design personnel, mass properties personnel, or a variety of stakeholders who will need to be involved in the nal weight improvement decision. Using example criteria from this reference of: Weight, KG, Manufacturing Cost, Construction Schedule, Engineering Manhours, and Seakeeping Performance, the criteria are arranged into a matrix consisting of both rows and columns. Working row by row, the team should determine whether the row is more important than the column and if so, how much more important. This comparison is quantied using the scale in Table 12.1 on page 178. If group consensus cannot be reached a geometric mean dened as follows can be used: Geometric Mean = n x1 x2 . . . xn Eect on Criterion Most Favorable More Favorable Favorable None Unfavorable More Unfavorable Most Unfavorable Value +9 +3 +1 -1 -3 -9
177
AF
(12.1) Weight Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E Alternative F +9 -1 -1 +3 +1
solutions forming the left axis. In this case, alternatives A through F are candidate ideas identied in Step 4. The relationships indicate how well each alternative scores against each selection criteria and summarizes the total value of the alternative towards the achievement of the goal. See Figure 12.7 on page 177. Seakeeping Performance +3 -1 +9
T
+9 +3 +3 +3 +9 Manufacturing Cost KG -1 -3 +3
Table 12.2: Values for selection matrix.
The rows of the resulting matrix are normalized and these normalized ratios are summed by row as shown in Figure 12.6 (page 178. In this example, the results reect the teams view that the most important selection criterion is Construction Schedule. This conclusion makes sense because the pursuit of any option that would delay delivery of the ship is highly undesirable.
DR
In this equation, x refers to the score from an individual member of the group and n is the number of members in the group.
+3 +9
Construction Schedule -1 +1 +9
+1 +9 +1 +9 -9 -3
Alternative G +3 -9 -1 +9 +3 The next step is to develop a list of alternative solution candidates that best satisfy the priorAlternative H +9 +3 +1 +9 +1 itized list of selection criteria. A selection matrix is used for this purpose. A selection matrix Figure 12.7: Weight improvement alternative selection is simply a matrix with one or more prioritized matrix. list forming its top axis and a list of candidate
Engineering Manhours
178
Criterion If row entry is If row entry is If row entry is If row entry is If row entry is EQUALLY MODERATELY STRONGLY VERY STRONGLY EXTREMELY as important as column entry
Value 1 3 5 7 9
more important than column entry more important than column entry more important than column entry
Table 12.1: Weight improvement decision scale.
Engineering Manhours
Seakeeping Performance
AF
Construction Schedule
T
1/3
more important than column entry
DR
Weight 1 KG 3 Manufacturing Cost 1 Construction Schedule 3 Engineering Manhours
1/5
1/3
KG
1 3 1 3
1/3
5 7 3 7 1 5 28.0
3 3
1/3
0.84 1.76 0.56 1.92 0.20 0.73 6.00
Normalized Sums
Manufacturing Cost
Weight
14% 29% 9% 32% 3% 12% 100%
1
1/3
1/3
1
1/7 1/5
5
1/5
1/7
Seakeeping Performance
1/3
1/3
3 11.3
1 12.5
Totals
8.5
3.1
3.0
Figure 12.6: Selection criterion rating.
Priority Percentage
12.3. WEIGHT IMPROVEMENT PROCESS Now add the priority percentages from Figure 12.6 (page 178 to the bottom row of the matrix. Working across each alternative, multiply each positive score by the related percentage at the bottom of the matrix to produce a weighted score. This will be the weighted positive column. Now repeat for the negative values and make a new weighted negative column. Finally, add the weighted positive and negative columns to produce a net value for each alternative solution candidate. This value indicates the rank and rating of each alternative candidate on a common scale. See Figure 12.8 on page 180. This process is not the only one that will determine best solutions but it is one that is objective, transparent, and fairly simply to apply to a given adverse trend. 7. Select the Best Candidates The results indicate that Alternatives A, B, and H, in that order, are the highest ranking candidates that will meet the objectives. If a weight savings is ultimate objective identied in Step 3, then Alternatives A, B, H, F, C, etc. should be pursued in that order until the desired weight saving is achieved. This process does not guarantee that each selection criteria is fullled. It ranks all candidate solution by how well they satisfy the criteria relative to one another. 8. Implement Now that the candidates have been scored and the best solutions have been selected, it is time for implementation. This means going through the normal design and engineering process to initiate a change that will ultimately impact the ship.
179 le all candidate solutions for potential use in the future. The weight improvement candidates identied can serve as candidates for a future weight improvement process on another ship.
9. Measure Once implementation is underway, it is important to assess whether the solution has satised the objective identied in Step 3. This means weighing or calculating the weight and moments of the instituted candidate solutions and entering the data into the ships database to see if the adverse trend has been corrected.
10. Document and File The last step in this process is to document the results of the process and
DR AF T
1. Identify the Root Cause of the Problem 2. Dene Solution Boundaries 3. Develop Concise Objectives 4. Identify Candidate Solutions 5. Evaluate Solution Candidates
The preceding 10 steps describe a logical, systematic approach to weight improvement. Although deviations from this process can be made to suit unique circumstances, the core process is applicable to the majority of cases normally encountered in ship design. Figure 12.9 on page 179 provides a summary of the weight improvement process.
6. Measure Solutions Against Objectives
7. Select Best Candidates
8. Implement
9. Measure
10. Document and File
Figure 12.9: Summary of weight improvement process.
180
DR AF T
Engineering Manhours Manufacturing Cost Seakeeping Performance Construction Schedule Weighed Positive Weight Alternative A Alternative B +9 -1 -1 +9 +3 +3 KG -1 +3 +1 4.9 4.4 +9 +9 +3 Alternative C +9 +1 1.7 1.6 Alternative D Alternative E Alternative F +3 +1 +3 -1 +9 -9 -3 -1 +1 +9 -1 +9 1.6 -3 +3 -9 3.2 Alternative G Alternative H +3 +9 +3 0.8 +9 +3 +1 +9 +1 2.6 Priority Percentage 14% 29% 9% 32% 3% 12%
Figure 12.8: Alternative selection matrix with priority percentages.
Weighed Negative
-0.1 -0.1 -0.1 -0.4 -0.3
4.8 4.3 1.6 1.2 1.3 2.2 -0.3 2.6
-1.0 -1.2 0.0
Value
12.4. COMMON WEIGHT IMPROVEMENT STRATEGIES
181
12.4
Common Weight Improvement Strategies
Redesigned Structure
Relocation
Manufacturing Tolerance Control
Figure 12.10: Weight Improvement Strategy Alternatives.
Redesign Often major structural assemblies can be redesigned to result in greater optimization of weight. For example, if initiated early enough in a ship program, an entire superstructure can be redesigned to optimize weight without sacrice. Equipment foundations are another example of where redesign can be employed to reduce weight. Material Substitution Steel is the most common shipbuilding material in use today. However, there are many proven alternatives to steel that result in
DR AF T
Material Substitution Lightweight Bulk Material
Weight improvement usually boils down the modifying the weight or location of something that is already scheduled to be installed on the ship. Although there have been numerous Weight Improvement Programs conducted by a variety of shipyards for a numerous ships, there is a large degree of commonality among the candidates that are assessed and ultimately implemented to correct an adverse trend. The specic details may vary from one program to another, but the general approach is often remarkably similar. Following are some of the most common strategies for improving weight as depicted in Figure 12.10 on page 181.
WEIGHT IMPROVEMENT
Lightweight Outtting and Furnishings
Lighter Weight Equipment and Systems
Advanced Lightweight Technology
Ballast
lighter scantlings and much lower weight. Aluminum is a common steel substitute that results in considerable weight savings and good resistance to corrosion. The use of high strength steel such as HY (high yield) or HTS (high tensile strength) steels provides greater strength per weight than normal steel, albeit it at higher cost. Composites, or non-metallic materials, oer considerable potential for weight reduction and improved maintenance as well. Lightweight Bulk Material Alternatives Many shipyards have found considerable weight reduction through the use of lighter weight re, thermal, or acoustic insulation; lightweight deck coverings; lightweight cable or other reduced weight bulk material alternatives. If standard materials have not yet been ordered or installed, such alternatives may oer signicant weight savings at minimal impact to procurement, design, or construction schedules. Manufacturing Tolerance Control In many cases, there is a certain amount of added material that is present on ordered material because of the manufacturing process and the ability the control the accuracy of its products. The additional material, or mill tolerance, may account for several percent of the materials weight. However, for a slightly greater cost, steel manufacturers can rene their rolling process to yield a more precise product with little or no mill tolerance. New Lighter Weight Technology Numerous new technologies have developed over the years that offer signicant weight savings for the marine industry. Examples include honeycomb or sandwich materials that can be employed for non-structural bulkheads and other applications. Such advanced technology oers the same or better strength and re resistance as standard materials but at much lower weight. Often such materials are developed for the aerospace or automotive industries in which the value of a pound is greater than in the marine industry. Lighter Weight Equipment and Systems It is important to involve the vendor community in any search for ways to improve weight. Often the supplier will identify lighter weight alternatives which may be substituted for originally specied item at minimal impact to the operational characteristics or capacity. In the case of military vessels, a commercial prod-
182
CHAPTER 12. WEIGHT IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS tics and Astronautics (AIAA) which focus on single weight-conscious industries.
uct from the same supplier may meet specications at lower weight. In other cases, the vendor might point out that a single, larger capacity pump or generator could replace two smaller units resulting in worthwhile savings. Lightweight cable, ber optics, or lightweight motors may be possible alternatives for the vendors or manufacturers. Relocation Often a KG, trim, or list problem can be improved by the relocation of weight. Moving heavier systems or components lower in the ship and lighter weight systems higher can improve KG. Moving systems transversely or longitudinally can improve trim or list. The redesignation or relocation of tanks for ballast water, fuel oil, or potable water may also yield the desired improvement with a minimum of cost. Lighter Weight Outtting and Furnishings On the surface, it may not seem worthwhile to save weight in a relatively small item like a chair, desk, berth, or computer, but if the quantity is large enough it may be worthwhile to consider. For example, the substitution of thinner, lightweight television sets or computer monitors for bulkier and heavier traditional components can add up to many tons on a cruise ship, aircraft carrier, or other vessel with high manning levels. Ballast If the adverse trend experienced by a ship is not solely due to total weight then liquid or solid ballast may oer the desired improvement. There are many commercially forms of permanent and semi-permanent solid ballast in the form of concrete-like materials, lead, or other metals. Liquid ballast is as simple of leading seawater into unused tanks or voids may also oer a low cost weight improvement solution. This section is not intended to provide a detailed list of weight improvement alternatives. Rather, it is hoped that these general approaches will serve to give mass properties or design professionals ideas or strategies to pursue relative to the specic situation at hand. One good way to nd lightweight solution candidates is to attend professional society functions of organizations such as the SAWE which brings together representatives and vendors of many varied industries or the Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) or American Institute of Aeronau-
12.5
DR AF T
Examples of Weight Improvement Programs
Numerous Weight Improvement Programs have been instituted in the marine industry as well as others such as the aerospace and automotive industries. Most have been internal company eorts whose details have not been well publicized. However, there are two Weight Improvement Programs that have been well documented in technical papers used as references for the following summaries. The cruisers that were the subject of these example programs are considered particularly sensitive to weight and stability problems, a consequence of their hull form and mission requirements. The necessary tradeos between speed and transverse stability result in ships with very tight limitations. Therefore, the impact of unaccounted weight growth on these vessels is more critical than for other ships in the US Navy. The rst of these programs occurred during the mid-1970s when a decision was made to incorporate the Aegis weapon system into the DD 963 destroyer hull for the CG 47 Ticonderoga Class Aegis cruiser. The causes of a problem for this ship included use of the DD 963 ASR as a baseline, reduction of normal margins based on maturity of the hullform and the weapon system, and low emphasis on active weight control by the builder. A weight reduction program was initiated by the Navy in 1979. The shipbuilder, Ingalls Shipbuilding of Pascagoula, Mississippi, submitted a list of over 70 weight reduction items including: reduced generator capacity and use of commercial busses for power distribution, use of a dry remain system, redesign of engine and generator uptakes, utilization of lightweight honeycomb bulkheads and false decks, replacement of deck tile with a poured resign deck coating, and many material substitutions of aluminum for steel. All developmental items and major characteristic changes were not pursued leaving only items that could be accomplished during construction. In January 1980,
12.5. EXAMPLES OF WEIGHT IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS weight reduction candidates under consideration totaled 83 tons. However, at the conclusion of the weight improvement eort in August 1980, 11 items totaling 47 tons were accepted with the majority being detail design changes. Although the program was successful in reducing weight for the ship, ship weight continued to grow. A February 1981 onsite evaluation of weight reporting and control by the Navy identied growth in propulsion, auxiliary, outtting and furnishing and armament groups. The ship ultimately exceeded its Accepted Weight Estimate by more than 400 LT according to a ship inclining at delivery in December, 1982. The second weight reduction eort occurred on the CG 49 follow ship to the Ticonderoga. This ship, considered a modied repeat of CG 47 was also awarded to Ingalls. Due to prior problems, the US Navy provided an incentive weight and KG target and required the builder to pursue active weight reduction program throughout design and construction. Lessons learned from CG 47 oered improvement in both design and construction for CG 49. During design many Engineering Change Proposals were accepted that reduced weight. These included: use of thinner HY 80 steel deck plating for existing HTS on the 01 level, redesign of main mast and fore mast, relocation of Aegis weapons cooling system, replacement of MIL C-915 cable by advanced lightweight, low smoke cable, replacement of HTS bulwarks by aluminum, replacement of heavy duty vent duct hangers with lighter type, and reduction in the length of the anchor chain. In 1982, the Navy initiated the Take O Tons Sensibly, or TOTS, Program for the ship in an eort to reduce weight even further. The goal of this program was to reduce weight and KG without compromising or reducing combat capability or reducing margins for growth. Initial eorts results in savings due to optimization of major ship structure and substitution of HY-80 for HTS applications. Eventually, the emphasis shifted to KG reduction. This redirected eort resulted in the following changes: redesigned foundations for non-major equipment, redesign of Aegis deckhouse, modication of gas turbine air intake modules, modication of exterior plating
183
DR AF T
CG-47 Class Weight Reduction
10500
Actual w/TOTS Predicted w/o TOTS
exposed to blast over pressure, reduction of plating thickness on hangar deck, relocation of major combat system components and redesign of an auxiliary machine room, the relocation of shore power station, and the elimination of one of three switchboards. Many electrical system candidates were rejected. The TOTS Program resulted in 108 candidates being studied and 22 weight reduction items being selected. These changes were the subject of 17 major engineering change proposals. At its conclusion, the TOTS Program resulted in a reduction of 690 LT in weight and a 0.14 ft KG reduction. Figure 12.11 shows the result of the TOTS program.
10100
Full Load Displacement (tons)
10000
9500
9589
9410
9195
9000
8910
8500
CG-47 CDWE
CG-47 AWE
CG-47 FWR
CG-52 FWR
9/77
5/79
12/82
10/86
Detail Design and Construction Phase
Figure 12.11: CG-47 Class Weight Reduction during Detail Design and Construction Phases.
The eort undertaken to correct weight and stability issues on the CG-47 class demonstrates that a concerted weight improvement and control program can indeed prove eective. Numerous design changes, ship construction monitoring by weight control personnel, training of personnel in weight awareness, incentive programs, and the weighing of equipment and construction materials regained valuable margin that have lasted through the vessels life. The DDG-51 program followed on the footsteps of the CG-47 Program with continued emphasis on weight control. This eort by the Navy and Bath Iron Works included the establishment of weight budgets, the implementation of weight avoidance mea-
184
CHAPTER 12. WEIGHT IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS lem and returning the ship to compliance. However, every comprehensive Weight Control Plan should include a provision for a Weight Improvement Program should the need arise. The program should be based on a logical, objective method that takes full advantage of the lessons learned by others when faced with a similar circumstance. Below is a summary of the most important lessons learned by others that may prove helpful in designing and implementing an eective, cost-eective Weight Improvement Program should the need arise.
DDG-51 Design Weight Reduction

7100
7008
Light Ship Displacement (tons)
6900
6671
PDWE BL
Re-PDWE
Pre CDWE CDWE BL
5/82
5/83
Preliminary and Detail Design Phase
Figure 12.12: DDG-51 Class Weight Reduction during Design Phases.
DR
Summary Learned and
Although the Aegis cruiser program demonstrated that corrective actions can be successful, it also showed that considerable priority, time, and manpower are required for success. Weight management as a priority from the earliest stages of design continuing through the ships life is considered the most cost-eective approach to pursue.
12.6
Weight Improvement Programs do not fall under the category of exact science. Each one is unique in many aspects such as the magnitude of the problem, the experience and resources of the shipyard involved, the amount of time and money available to conduct a recovery program, the contractual requirements and specications involved, and even the individual mass properties personnel tasked with rectifying the prob-
AF
6624 6592 6599 CDWE
6500
6600
6700
6800
8/83
6/84
Lessons
sures during design, improved design tools which oer weight calculation capabilities and a link that allows comparison of drawing status in the weight database with issued plan status, a vigorous weighing program for CFE and GFE and closer and more timely cooperation between the builder and the Navy. Reference [22] describes these follow-on eorts in more detail. (See Figure 12.12.)
7000
1. Every eort should be taken to avoid a Weight Improvement Program. 2. Institute a Weight Improvement Program as fast as possible one the need is identied. The opportunities for economical weight improvement decrease rapidly as the design and construction progresses. 3. New weight reduction ideas are rare! Look to other ship programs, other shipyards, and other industries (especially those that are more weight conscious like aerospace and automotive) for ideas. 4. Dont assume that a holy grail, or magic bullet, exists. While all Weight Improvement Programs want to nd the perfect solution (one idea that costs nothing, can be implemented immediately, and has no impact on design or construction), experience has proven that they dont exist. 5. Dont be overoptimistic about the weight impact of a given candidate in attempt to reach success faster. Over-optimistic weight estimates usually dont measure up! 6. Pursue as many feasible weight improvement candidates as possible. Experience has shown that 1/3 or fewer of feasible candidates see implementation! 7. Use an objective decision-making tool in conjunction with clear primary and secondary objectives to select the best candidates for imple-
12.6. SUMMARY AND LESSONS LEARNED mentation. Avoid seat-of-the-pants decisionmaking! 8. Dont underestimate the value of management support to the success of a weight improvement program. The right level of management support is critical to nding the most ecient solution! (See Reference [23]) 9. Dont neglect the signicant role that equipment and material vendors and owner can play in a Weight Improvement Program. 10. Low cost incentive programs can help generate weight improvement candidate proposals from waterfront and design personnel!
185
11. The most cost eective team to implement a Weight Improvement Program consists of both mass properties and design personnel.
DR AF T
186
DR AF T
Chapter 13
Ship Weight Measurement

by Dominick Cimino
considerations of stability, reserve buoyancy, immersion, trim, and in determining compliance with the requirements of the weight control program, after the 13.1 Purpose ship is completed. An inclining experiment is the only satisfactory method of accurately determining The validation of the ships weight (displacement) the location of the vertical center of gravity of a ship. and centers of gravity are accomplished by either an The information calculated or recorded in connecinclining experiment or a deadweight survey. An in- tion with an inclining experiment is as follows: clining experiment results in the determination of the 1. Displacement in light condition. ships weight and centers, while a deadweight survey will determine everything that an inclining experi2. Location of the center of gravity of the ship in ment does with the exception of verifying the vertilight condition. cal center of gravity (ships KG). The ships KG is a critical indicator of the ships stability and for that 3. Data relative to weight and location of items of reason conducting an inclining experiment is usually variable load. required. However, a deadweight survey is a less exFor submarines, in addition to an inclining experpensive way to verify the ships displacement (weight) and is an acceptable way to monitor the ships weight iment, a trim dive is conducted to determine the growth over time, and is generally performed on com- proper weight and location of the lead ballast. The mercial ships where the ships stability is less sensi- information obtained is the weight and the longitudinal location of this weight required to be added to tive. When conducting an Inclining Experiment or the light ship to cause the submarine to submerge Deadweight Survey, ASTM F1321 [24] is the accepted with neutral buoyancy and zero trim. From this, the industry standard that is used. In fact, both the U.S. weight and location of lead ballast that will permit Navy and U.S. Coast Guard reference this standard the ship to submerge under any probable condition in almost all contracts as the procedure to be followed of loading and in water of any density, is determined. See Chapter 16 for more submarine specic informawhen performing experiments or surveys. tion. At times it is desirable to determine only displacement (weight) and the longitudinal and transverse 13.2 General Requirements centers of gravity. For this a deadweight survey is An inclining experiment provides the basic data con- conducted. The procedures for a deadweight detercerning weight and centers of gravity for use in all mination are the same as for an inclining experiment 187
DR AF T
188 except that inclining weights are not used and no observations and calculations are made for vertical locations of inventory items, KG, GM, and free surface. Inclining experiment forms are used for recording observed data and calculating displacements, longitudinal and transverse centers of gravity. An inclining experiment consists of moving one or more large weights across the ship and measuring the angle of list produced (Figure 13.1 on page 189). This angle of list usually does not need to exceed 2 . As indicated in paragraph 13.7.2, an inclination of 1.5 to 3 is generally satisfactory.
CHAPTER 13. SHIP WEIGHT MEASUREMENT which the ship was inclined. This is known as the As-Inclined Condition. The ship may have been in any condition of loading at the time of inclining, not necessarily an operating condition. Therefore, in order to convert the data thus obtained to practical use, the KG must be found for operating conditions. These conditions include an extreme light ship, a fully loaded ship, and one or two intermediate conditions. The results of the experiment are furnished to each ship as a Booklet of Inclining Experiment Data (see paragraph 13.6.2). This booklet contains data on displacement, KG, and over-all stability for the operating conditions.
13.3
Edited 9-0106 Tellet
The instantaneous metacentric height (the GM from one weight movement) is derived from the formula:
Ships under construction are usually inclined as required by the Ship Specications. In general, all new U.S. Navy ships required a delivery inclining experiment (and in many cases a post-PSA experiment). An inclining is required for all new commercial ships except sister ships in which case a deadweight survey wd GM = (13.1) is required. W tan For ships in-service, inclining experiments are performed as considered necessary to maintain current where: data representative of the ship or class of ships. In w = inclining weight (tons) general, inclining experiments are required for ind = distance weight moved athwartships (feet) service ships that have undergone major modications. W = displacement of ship including weight w (tons) tan = tangent of angle of list = a/l 13.5 Data Requirements
DR AF T
Calculating Inclining Ex13.4 periment Data Requirements
New sentence 8-21-06 Tellet wrt Fox
Edited 9-0106 Tellet
Each new ship must be furnished data regarding its stability. For surface Navy ships, the standard source of stability information is the Trim and Stability Data. For commercial ships, the stability information is in the Trim and Stability Booklet. For submarines, the standard source of stability information is the booklet of Stability and Equilibrium Data (Part 2 of the inclining experiment report) described herein. The KG obtained from the inclining experiment If applicable data are not available, data for an is that for the ship in the condition of loading in earlier ship of the class may be issued and signi-
The inclining experiment measures GM accurately and precisely by using multiple weight movements and multiple tangent readings for each of those movements. See Example 13.13.1 starting on page 207 for calculation details. After nding the GM as-inclined, and since the ships draft is known, KM can be found from the displacement and other curves drawing. Then from Figure 13.1: (13.2) KG = KM GM
13.6. REPORTS
189
Pendulum G G1
Figure 13.1: Diagram of an inclining weight movement and how the tangent is calculated. This shows an inclining weight, w, being moved athwartship a distance, d. This creates a list angle, . The pendulum swings the same wd angle and the tangent of the angle is: tan() = a/l. The GM can be calculated by: GM = W tan where W is the displacement of the ship.
DR
Reports
cant dierences between the ships noted. If no reasonably applicable data are available, steps should be taken to obtain them (such as expediting preparation of data for inclining experiments which have already been performed). In special instances a plot of estimated righting arms for various conditions of loading will suce if nothing better can be provided.
13.6
In general, the following reports are required for U.S. Navy ships and submarines, but not for commercial vessels.
AF
a B1
13.6.1
Usually within a week of the inclining experiment or trim dive experiment, a preliminary report of the results should be submitted for review. In addition, the inclining or trim dive activity shall furnish an opinion as to the reliability of the experiment. Items to be included in the report are: 1. For As-Inclined Condition:
Displacement Location of the center of gravity Metacentric height Free surface correction Period of roll
T
WL1 WL
Preliminary Report
190
Trim
CHAPTER 13. SHIP WEIGHT MEASUREMENT
with installed armament and boats rather than ul Brief statement of weight to complete, timate allowances, if the preliminary report will be expedited by this procedure. The preliminary report weight to deduct, and weight to relocate. shall be submitted on the appropriate forms designated in Section 13.9. 2. For Condition A (Light ship):
The booklet is prepared by the inclining activity. In the case of ships which are built or converted at a private shipyard, the booklet is prepared by the contractor. The booklet consists of two parts. Inclining Experiment Report (Part 1) contains the observations and calculations leading to the determination of the displacement and location of the center of gravity of the ship in the light condition. Stability Data (Part 2) 3. For submarines (in addition to applicable data for surface ships and Stability and Equilibrium Data (Part 2) for submarines contain data relative to the above): characteristics of the ship in the operating conditions. The reference lines used for longitudinal, vertical, Weight and longitudinal center of gravity of and transverse centers in the booklet shall be the load to submerge. Condition N Surface and Condition N- same as those used on the displacement and other Submerged including vertical and longitu- curves drawing. Additional information, other than specically redinal centers of gravity for each condition. quested in this chapter, which is necessary to inter GM and BG for appropriate conditions pret the inclining and stability data should be in Equilibrium polygon and equilibrium Con- cluded in the appropriate part of the booklet. ditions
Statement of armament, boats, locked water ballast, solid ballast, water in non-free ooding sonar dome and salvage gear included in Condition A. For ballast and water in sonar dome, include material and center of gravity if available (normal liquids in anti-roll tank shall be treated as a load item and not part of Condition A).
4. Displacement and other curves drawing 5. Photographs
The purpose in providing an early preliminary report is to permit evaluation of the ships stability and reserve buoyancy as soon as practicable. The preliminary report may indicate the necessity for action to improve the ship, a change in policy on weight control or additional inclining experiments. It is not necessary that the data in the preliminary report be checked in detail, but a broad check should be made to ensure that the gures reported are sufciently accurate to form the basis for any necessary action. It will be satisfactory to report Condition A
DR AF T
Location of the center of gravity Metacentric height
Displacement
13.6.2
Reports, Booklet of Inclining Experiment Data
13.7
Inclining Preparation cedure
Experiment and Pro-
Inclining experiments will interfere with production work and with operations aboard ship. Since the safety of the ship or a class of ships depends upon reliable stability data, this interference must be accepted. The eort of inclining may be wasted when unknown or unsatisfactory conditions exist. Undetected errors may jeopardize the safety of the ship. No production work or other testing shall be done during the inclining experiment.
13.7. INCLINING EXPERIMENT PREPARATION AND PROCEDURE Cooperation of the crew is essential in order to obtain favorable conditions for the experiment. Arrangements should be made with the ships Captain, well in advance, to have the ship in the best possible condition in regard to trim, list, and disposition of liquid. In preparation for and during the experiment, the ships Captain should assist by preventing transfer or discharge of liquids, securing swinging weights such as boats or booms, pumping down bilges, and reducing ships personnel aboard to a minimum. Although the inclining activity is responsible for the accuracy of all observations, the ships force when requested can assist materially by furnishing information regarding quantity and location of all loads and repair parts and providing access as required. It is essential that the ship have positive metacentric height when inclined, taking into account the correction for free surface and the eect of inclining weights. If stability is in question, ship may be sallied per Section 13.3 to estimate GM .
191
2. Moment of inertia of free surface must not change appreciably during the inclination.
DR AF T
13.7.2 Ship Conditions
1 One
eliminate air pockets, an air escape must be available at the highest point of the tank. It may be possible to heel the ship so that the air escape will be at the highest point while the tank is lling. If a tank is nearly full or nearly empty, the eect of the free surface cannot be determined since the moment of inertia of the surface will change rapidly as the liquid touches the top or as the bottom is uncovered. This condition must be avoided. Accordingly, liquid in all tanks having a signicant free surface correction should be adjusted so that the tanks are completely full, completely empty, or lled to a level at which the moment of inertia will be constant throughout the angle of inclination. Trim should be considered in determining whether or not the liquid will touch the top or uncover the bottom of the tank. In view of the diculty encountered in completely lling or completely draining tanks, it is recommended that tanks be generally between 20 and 80 percent full, provided that this will not produce negative metacentric height during the experiment. 13.7.1 Free Surface Bilges should be pumped down to the bottom of Correction for free surface existing when the ship is the suctions. Bilge water below this level is considinclined may be an extremely important factor. ered as part of the light ship displacement. No correcAny error in determining the free surface correction tion is made for the free surface eect of bilge water is reected directly as an equal error in the height of in determining the vertical center of gravity of the the center of gravity of the ship. ship if this level is obtained. To calculate the free surface correction the followSucient details of tank dimensions shall be ining conditions must be met: cluded to permit examination of the free surface calculations. 1. Actual moment of inertia of free surface must be known. The ship should be nearly upright at the time of inclining. A list of less than one degree is desirable1 . While not essential, it is desirable that trim be such that the displacement and other curves drawing can be readily used. These conditions will simplify calculations in several respects. If trim is sucient to change form characteristics from the displacement and other curves drawing, it will be necessary to calculate displacement, position of metacenter, and longitudinal center of buoyancy corresponding to actual
half of a degree for commercial ships
Favorable conditions obtained before the experiment will do much toward establishing an accurate free surface correction and simplifying the calculations. If a tank can be completely lled or completely emptied, the correction is eliminated. A tank cannot be assumed completely emptied unless it is denitely known that the liquid below the suction has been removed. A tank cannot be assumed completely full unless the sounding is above the highest point of the tank and it is known that no air pockets exist. To
192 draft and trim. Excessive trim will also make it necessary to correct observed tank capacities and vertical centers of tanks and make it dicult to obtain a determinate free surface at time of inclining. Insofar as possible, forces other than the inclining weights should not inuence inclination of the ship. Eect of gangways, oats, fenders, appendages, swinging weights, submerged obstacles, and shifting of personnel or liquids aboard shall be eliminated. A check of water depth shall be made for the entire ships length to ensure that a sucient depth of clear water exists below the ship bottom. If possible, the experiment should be performed when the tide is slack. Eect of wind, pier, mooring lines, cable, and hose should be reduced to a minimum. Lines and essential cable and hose should be well slacked when readings are taken. Weights to Complete and Deduct
CHAPTER 13. SHIP WEIGHT MEASUREMENT ing the experiment. Attention should be given to the possibility of leaking valves. Personnel aboard during the experiment should be in the same position each time the inclination is measured. Swinging weights such as boats and booms should be secured. Keel Survey
DR AF T
Inclining Weights
Weight to complete and deduct at the time of the Inclining Experiment should be accounted for. The ship should be as nearly complete as possible at time of inclining in order to reduce the weight to complete. The weight to deduct, and the possibility of error, can be substantially reduced by removing foreign items to the greatest possible extent. Weights and centers of gravity of staging and yard equipment are particularly dicult to estimate. On-board repair parts and equipment should be stowed and secured in their proper locations. Water and oil in machinery should be brought to the working level, if possible. Any dierence from normal conditions must be entered as a weight to complete or a weight to deduct including any signicant vertical moment caused by changes in free surface. The number of personnel aboard during the experiment should be reduced to a minimum. This applies to both ship and yard personnel. The possibility of liquid owing from one tank to another or being pumped overboard should be eliminated. All valves in oil and water systems adjacent to the tanks and all sluice valves should remain closed dur-
If possible, the keel should be surveyed in drydock and an arbitrary baseline for determining the corrections to draft readings for calculative purposes established. This arbitrary baseline is a straight line if the keel is substantially straight with local irregularities or a fair curve if the ship has a permanent hog or sag. The intent is to establish a baseline such that the displacement, as determined from draft readings corrected to this baseline, will be as accurate as possible. A keel survey is not normal practice for a commercial ship. Corrections to draft mark readings found by this method correct only for errors in placement of the marks and for local irregularities of the keel. The eect of permanent hog or sag is taken care of in the As Inclined calculations. If corrections to draft readings for calculative purposes have already been entered on the docking drawing, these gures may be used and the procedure above will not be necessary.
Generally, solid, non-porous inclining weights should be used. Weights should be selected which will produce an angle of heel sucient to insure accurate results. Inclinations should not be carried beyond the angle at which the statical stability curve departs from the tangent at zero degrees. An inclination of 1.5 to 3 is generally satisfactory. An arrangement by which the weights are rolled across the deck is preferable to lifting the weights and setting them down in another position. Self-propelled equipment is eective on aircraft carriers. The deck must be protected from damage from the weights, by performing structural analysis if required.
13.8. CONDUCTING THE INCLINING EXPERIMENT The weight and CG of each of the inclining weights should be accurately determined and recorded. Missile tube doors may be used as inclining weights on SSBN submarines. Photographs
193
DR AF T
13.8
13.8.1 Inventory
Arrangements should be made to obtain photographs of the ship at the time of inclining. The intent is to record the important topside installations and the reading of the draft marks. These photographs should be forwarded with the preliminary report. Angle Measurement Photographs of the draft readings should be taken Provisions should be made for measuring angles of with zero inclining moment. Photographs are generinclination independently at three stations. Measure- ally not required for commercial ships, but are still ments may be made by pendulums or other devices recommended to provide a method of verifying draft that will, in the opinion of the inclining activity, en- marks, freeboard measurements, and ship condition. sure accurate results. If pendulums are used, they should be free to swing throughout the range of inclinations and should be placed so that the length can be accurately and safely measured. Pendulum vibrations should be damped by suitable means, such as a bucket of dense liquid (oil or soap) in which the bob is immersed. Rigid horizontal transverse battens should be provided at the lower ends of the pendulums for recording deections. The length of each pendulum, from the point of suspension to the batten, should be recorded and ideally each pendulum should be a dierent length. Draft Readings
Provisions should be made for reading the draft amidships at the time the ship is inclined to permit a correction for hog or sag and list determination. If midship draft marks are not installed, a datum point should be established on each side at or near amidships above the anticipated waterline. When the datum points mentioned above have been established, a single permanent draft mark should be tted on each side of the ship approximately amidships for future use. This mark is an Arabic numeral, 6 inches high, similar to the draft marks required by the Ship Specications. This mark should indicate the draft above the bottom of the keel, and its location should be indicated on the docking drawing. For commercial ships, draft mark readings are used as a check only (the U.S. Coast Guard does not accept draft mark readings alone). Generally the ships draft is determined by taking freeboard measurements at a number of locations.
Figure 13.2: Typical midship draft mark photograph taken during an inclining experiment. (In this case, the marks are metric)
Conducting the Inclining Experiment
An accurate inventory is conducted to determine the weight to complete, weight to deduct, and weight to relocate. Reference should be made to the denition of Condition A and an inventory taken to determine the weight and coordinates of the center of gravity of all items included in Condition A which are not aboard at the time of inclining and of all items aboard
194 which are not part of the Condition A weight. Any variation of the depth of bilge water from the level of the bottom of the suction should be recorded and accounted for as required by Section 13.9.10. 1. In preparing the list or weight to complete, the various shops, planning sections, and the ships force should be consulted in order to determine the scope of the work remaining to be done and the weight still to go aboard. The eect of authorized allowance list changes should be included. 2. The weight to deduct is determined by a thorough survey of the ship by the inclining activity. Each tank should be sounded before and after the experiment unless there is denite assurance that no change in loading has occurred. It is advisable to check the overall length and general positioning of sounding tubes versus information given in tank capacity tables and curves. If for any reason signicant dierences are noted, further inspections should be made to dene the level of the liquid in the tank.
CHAPTER 13. SHIP WEIGHT MEASUREMENT and longitudinal position of the center of gravity of items of boats, armament, storage batteries on submarines, liquid and solid ballast, water in non-free ooding sonar, salvage gear, and other similar large items which are included in Condition A should be recorded. Ships records should be consulted for information on solid ballast and the ballast examined to ensure that the records are complete and reasonably accurate. Identication and location by frame and level may be used for armament if weights and centers are not readily available.
4. If any weights which are part of Condition A are aboard but not in their proper location, their weight and the location of their center of gravity should be recorded, together with the position Figure 13.3: Typical draft mark drawing showing the loof their center of gravity in their nal location. cation of midship draft marks (in this case, the marks are Such items are labeled weights to relocate. metric) 5. In addition to changes necessary to bring the ship to Condition A, the weight and the vertical
DR
Draft readings should be taken on all available draft marks at the time the ship is inclined. It is essential that the drafts forward, aft, and amidships (where amidships draft marks are installed) be determined. Where both calculative and navigational draft marks are tted, the navigational draft marks should be used as an approximate check on the readings taken 3. Voids and coerdams should be investigated. on the calculative marks. Consideration should be given to the possibility of small quantities of oil below the zero sounding and to the possibility of air pockets as discussed in connection with free surface in Section 13.9.10. The actual specic gravity of liquids aboard should be determined. The weight and center of gravity of items of oil and water in machinery that dier from the normal operating condition should be recorded. Solid weights to deduct include ammunition, provisions, stores, personnel, yard equipment, cargo, aircraft, aircraft stores, yellow gear, inclining gear, and dunnage.
AF
13.8.2
T
Draft Readings
13.8. CONDUCTING THE INCLINING EXPERIMENT
195
1. In taking the midship drafts, readings port and weight movement to port and again after the extreme starboard should be taken simultaneously. weight movement to starboard. 2. Use of a glass tube with a small hole in the bottom or a similar device is recommended in order to damp out wave action. Draft readings should be taken to the nearest one-quarter of an inch. 3. For submarines, a low pressure blow (using ship or yard air) is performed just prior to reading drafts to ensure that the main ballast tanks are at the residual water level.
1. Measurement of the transverse distance of each weight from its original position is recorded after each movement. 2. Motion of the weights across the deck should be steady and slow to avoid inducing a roll. If a crane alongside handles weights, they should be lifted and set down as slowly as possible.
For commercial ships, freeboard measurements are also taken to complement the draft readings. The freeboards are taken at various set locations along the hull and are measured from the water surface to a known or measurable vertical position on the ship (deck edge, shell strake weld, etc.).
13.8.3
Water Density
The density of the water is determined when the ship is inclined. Several samples should be taken at various locations and depths as a check against variations in density due to local conditions. The hydrometer reading must rst be corrected for temperature and then the corrected specic gravity converted to density. The hydrometer scale may be based on pure water at either 4 C or 60 F having a specic gravity of 1.0000. If it is based on 4 C, the corrected specic gravity should be divided into 35.922 to obtain the specic volume of the water sample in cubic feet per ton. If it is based on 60 F, the corrected specic gravity should be divided into 35.955 to obtain the specic volume. If a portable salinometer is used, calibration must be current and documented.
DR AF T
13.8.5 Tangent Readings 13.8.6 Plot of Tangents
Readings to determine the inclination of the ship should be taken with the inclining weights in their initial position, after each movement of the weights and with the weights returned to their original position at the conclusion of the experiment. Readings should be taken simultaneously at all three stations. The signal to read the inclination should be given after allowing sucient time for the ship to come to a position of equilibrium after movement of the weights. All personnel should be in their original positions. The ship should be clear of the pier and all lines well slacked. The signal to read should be given at a time when the external forces are at a minimum and the ship is as steady as practicable. If the ship is not absolutely steady, the reading of inclination should be taken at the midpoint of the pendulum swing.
13.8.4
Inclining Weights
The inclining weights are moved transversely to produce at least two inclinations to port and two to starboard, the intermediate inclinations being about one-half of the maximum inclination. Three movements to each side are preferable. The weights are returned to their original position after the extreme
After each weight movement, the tangents of the angles of inclination should be plotted against the transverse moments of the inclining weights, using the initial positions of the weights and pendulums, U-tubes, or inclinometers (see gures 13.5, 13.6, 13.7) as the zero points for each. The tangents of the angles of inclination for the two cases of weights returned to their original positions should also be plotted. Variations of the resulting plot from a straight line indicate that conditions are not favorable or that an error has been made, in which case a check should be made to determine the cause. After any corrections have been made, the experiment should be repeated to obtain a correct set of readings.
196

Plot of Tangents
800 Inclining Moment (ft-tons) 400 600
-400
-0.06 -0.05 -0.04 -0.03 -0.02 -0.01
AF
0.00 0.01 0.02 0.03 Tangent
-800
-600
Figure 13.4: Generic plot of tangents. Six weight movements are shown with three pendulum or inclinometer readings taken for each movement. These are plotted as shown and a linear regression line plotted through them. The slope of the regression line is divided by the as-inclined displacement to produce the as-inclined GM .
13.8.7
DR
Figure 13.5: Typical Pendulum Arrangement
Prior to the weight movements, the ship should be sallied (induced rolling) and the complete period of roll determined. As soon as the slope of the Plot of Tangents can be determined, the roll constant for the ship should be calculated and compared to the values for other ships of the same class. If the roll constant is not in line with values for the class, the reliability of the results obtained up to that point should be questioned. The ship should be sallied again later during the experiment to conrm that the period of roll used in the calculations is correct. Sally tests are generally not performed on commercial ships. 1. The following methods of inducing a roll are suggested: (a) By landing a weight on one side of the ship and lifting it rapidly by means of a crane.
T
Six weight movements shown and least-squares best-t line Slope = 13031 0.04 0.05 0.06
-200
200
Sally Test
13.8. CONDUCTING THE INCLINING EXPERIMENT

A
Pedestal
197
Water level
Water tube 3/16" to 1/4" ID
Side Shell
Deck 2 X Pendulum length
SECTION LOOKING FORWARD

Notes: Water tube should not be too small: 3/16"ID for a small beam; 1/4"ID for larger beams. There should be no kinks or air bubbles in the water tube. Paper tape is only required on one side (port or starboard). Food coloring can be added to the water to make the waterline more visible. Water tube Pedestal
Paper tape batten on one side
Weights Base
Figure 13.6: Typical U-Tube Arrangement
(b) By taking a lift, on a suitable tting on one side of the ship near amidships, by means of a crane and slacking o rapidly.
(c) For small ships, by a group of men moving across the deck in synchronism with the period of roll of the ship. After an adequate roll has been built up, the group should remain on the centerline while the period of roll is timed. For aircraft carriers and large
DR
SECTION A-A
Cribbing should be provided if necessary to avoid damage to the ship.
AF
2. After rolling has been induced, the total time of three or more rolls is measured by means of a stopwatch, and the period of roll is determined by dividing the total elapsed time by the number of rolls. The roll constant is then calculated from the formula:
T
Figure 13.7: Typical Inclinometer
deck amphibious ships, the use of trucks, tow tractors, fork lifts, etc. on the ight deck in the same manner is eective. If trucks are not available, a large group of men can be used.
198
CHAPTER 13. SHIP WEIGHT MEASUREMENT The ship is completely submerged and the variable ballast is carefully adjusted to obtain neutral buoyT GM C= (13.3) ancy and zero trim. The ship should be stopped and B held at rest long enough to make certain that these conditions are obtained. The density of the water in which the dive is made Where: is determined from a sample taken while the ship is C = roll constant submerged. Seawater should be drawn from a tting T = average time of one complete roll or piping system, which is in direct communication (port to starboard to port) with the sea, preferably a circulating water system. Reference should be made to the denition of Conin seconds dition A and an inventory taken to determine the GM = as inclined metacentric height weight and longitudinal center of gravity of all items = slope of Plot of Tangents aboard which are not part of the Condition A weight. The inventory should include, as a negative load, any divided by the displacement variation of the air in banks from the weight of the B = maximum beam to the outside full charge or missing light ship items. The total obof plating on DWL for tained from this inventory is the load to submerge surface ships corresponding to the water density observed at the time. = maximum beam of ships hull for submarines
3. The value of sally constants for surface ships varies from 0.40 to 0.50. For submarines, the value for a body of revolution hull is about 0.40 to 0.45. For other submarines, it varies from 0.32 to 0.37.
DR AF T
13.9
13.9.1 Submarine Trim Dives 13.9.2
Contents of Inclining Experiment Report (Part 1)

The following sections describe the general contents of the Inclining Experiment Report (Part I) for U.S. Navy ships. The content for a similar report for 4. Sallying gives fairly accurate results for ships in a commercial ship will be dierent and is fully decalm water, however, it is not practical for use scribed in [24]. at sea or after damage.
General Information
13.8.8
For submarine trim dives, an area should be selected for performing the dive that is free from strong currents and sharp density gradients. Insofar as practicable, tanks should be dry or completely full. The information to be obtained from the trim dive is the weight and longitudinal center of gravity of the load to submerge and the density of the water in which the dive was made. The load to submerge is dened as the total load, including all water ballast, required to be added to Condition A to submerge the ship in water of a specied density in a condition of neutral buoyancy and zero trim.
The ships name and identication number; place; date and time of inclining; supervising oce; and data regarding wind, tide, and mooring conditions are entered on the title page. Direction of wind and tide should be given relative to the ship. All drawings and other data used in preparing Part 1 are listed under references.
Boats and Ballast
Signicant items of weight that are included in Condition A but which are subject to change or readily removable are listed. Such items as boats, arma-
13.9. CONTENTS OF INCLINING EXPERIMENT REPORT (PART 1) ment, ballast, salvage gear, and storage batteries on submarines are included. The weight, center of gravity, and the vertical, transverse, and longitudinal moments of these items are listed. Where there is a difference between peacetime and wartime allowances, a listing of both shall be given. Armament may be listed by item and location identication if weights and centers of gravity are not readily available.
199
and the vertical moment of free surface. If the ship does not have a large trim when inclined, the form entitled, Displacement and Center of Gravity As Inclined Trim Not Excessive, is used. If the trim is large, the forms entitled, Displacement and Center of Gravity As Inclined Trim Excessive and Functions of Wedge Areas, are used and the displacement and center of gravity determined by the method indicated thereon. Use of the latter forms will not be necessary unless the trim diers from the displace13.9.3 Light Ship ment and other curves trim by an amount in excess Ship in condition A-Light Ship. The weight and loca- of 1/150 of the length between perpendiculars or untion of the center of gravity of the ship in Condition A less there is an abrupt change in the shape of the as obtained from the inclining experiment are entered waterplane due to trim. on this sheet and modied if necessary to conform to any changes in Condition A since the inclining exper13.9.6 Condition A iment. From the above, the draft at the longitudinal center The displacement and the center of gravity in Conof otation, metacentric height, moment to heel one dition A are calculated by modifying the as inclined degree, trim, drafts forward and aft, and curve of condition to take into account the weight to complete, weight to deduct, and the weight to relocate. The disstatic stability are obtained. The Light Ship Condition, designated as Condition placement and center of gravity in Condition A-1 are A, includes the weight of the ship with all those items calculated by deducting the permanent ballast, solid that are not consumable and not subject to frequent and liquid, from Condition A. change. Included are items that are expected to be aboard post delivery and weight reservations. It is 13.9.7 Weight Movements intended primarily to serve as a basic condition to which the items of variable load may be added in Each inclining weight or group of weights which are moved as a unit is assigned an identifying number order to arrive at the other conditions of loading. and its weight (in pounds or tons) and its location (including whether port or starboard) are tabulated. 13.9.4 Changes in Condition A If pendulums are used, their lengths and locations All signicant details of the changes in Condition A are given, or if other devices are used, their locations since the inclining experiment, with weights, centers are given. For each position of the weights, including of gravity and the longitudinal, vertical, and trans- the nal position, the total inclining moment is calverse (if required) moments of the various items are culated, and the tangent of the angle of inclination, included. Separate summations are made for weights as determined from each pendulum or other device, is added, weights removed, and weights relocated so entered. The inclining moment is calculated using the that the totals may be entered under Ship in Con- distance of each weight from its original position prior to the rst weight movement, not the distance from dition A. an intermediate position. If pendulums are used, the deection of each pendulum is entered in addition to 13.9.5 As-Inclined Condition the tangent of the angle of inclination. An identifying The displacement and the location of the center of symbol should be assigned to each tangent reading on gravity as inclined are calculated from the observed each device to correlate these gures with the plot of drafts, density of water, slope of the plot of tangents, tangents.
DR AF T
200
13.9.8
dition A should be included in the report. Calculations such as the determination of the mo13.9.10 Tanks ment of inertia of free surface, which cannot be preFor each tank, which was not completely full or com- sented on the other forms, should be furnished on the pletely empty at the time of the inclining experiment, form entitled remarks and miscellaneous calculations. the moment of inertia of the actual free surface about In determining the capacity, center of gravity, and longitudinal axis through its centroid is calculated. free surface eect of tanks in the as inclined condition, The vertical moment of the free surface is calcu- consideration should be given to the list and trim at lated by dividing this moment of inertia by the spe- the time the tanks were sounded. In a long tank, the cic volume of the liquid in cubic feet per ton. The liquid level at one end may be several inches above sum of the vertical moments for each of these tanks is or below the level at the other end. Similarly, a free the total vertical moment of free surface as inclined. surface may not extend throughout the length of a If the level of the water in the bilges is at the bot- tank, or a free surface may exist which is not apparent tom of the suction, no correction for free surface of from the soundings. bilge water is made since this quantity of bilge water Any explanatory remarks or information that with its free surface is considered as part of Condi- would be useful in evaluating the Inclining Experition A. If the level of the water in the bilges is above ment Report should be included on the form Remarks or below this level, a correction is made for the dier- and Miscellaneous Calculations. ence in free surface eect of the water at the actual and normal levels. When the conguration of the bilges and quantity of water are such that a substan- 13.10 Contents of Inclining Extial transverse motion of bilge water occurs at the anperiment Report, (Part gles of heel obtained during the experiment, the free surface eect cannot be evaluated in terms of vertical 2) Stability Data moment of free surface. In such cases, it is necessary to determine, for each angle of inclination obtained The following sections describe the general contents during the inclining experiment, the actual transverse of the Inclining Experiment Report (Part II) for U.S.
DR AF T
position of the center of gravity of that portion of the bilge water which exceeds the normal quantity. The A plot of tangents similar to Figure 13.4 should be free surface eect of the excess bilge water is then included showing all the readings taken during the in- taken into account by adding its transverse moments clining experiment. A least-squares tted line should to the transverse moments of the inclining weights at be drawn on the plot. Any points that were not con- the various angles of heel. sidered valid (yers) should be identied and noted that they were not included in the least-squares cal13.9.11 Hull Prole culation. The plot of tangents also often includes the results A sketch shall be made of the prole of the hull to of the sally test. show the location of the draft marks relative to the perpendiculars. The reference line for longitudinal centers shall also be included, as well as the relation13.9.9 Inventory ship of the molded baseline to the bottom of the keel Weights to complete, deduct or relocated should be amidships. accounted for. The total weight and the vertical, longitudinal, and transverse moments of each of these items are calculated. A summary sheet should be 13.9.12 Condition A Calculations included. All calculations leading to the determination of Con-
Plot of Tangents
13.10.
CONTENTS OF INCLINING EXPERIMENT REPORT, PART 2
201
Navy ships. The content for a similar report for 13.10.4 a commercial ship will be dierent and is fully described in [24].
Displacement and Other Curves (Hydrostatic Properties)
13.10.1
General Information
1. Armament, Boats, Submarine Batteries, Ballast. 2. Ship In Condition A-Light Ship.
3. Changes in Condition A Weight Since Inclining.
A statement as to whether the curves are based on even keel or (x) feet trim between drafts or perpen13.10.2 Loading Conditions diculars should be included. Loading conditions in report are required as specied Wherever possible, separate scales should be proin the specication which authorizes that an inclining vided for each of these functions so that their values experiment will be performed. may be read directly. It is not necessary to plot the Two forms are provided for each of these condi- functions for drafts below the light ship draft. tions; one entitled Ship in Condition (Small Free Surface Eect) and the other Ship in Condition (Large Free Surface Eect). The former is used when 13.10.5 Cross Curves of Stability the total moment of inertia of all slack tanks in feet A set of cross curves of stability is included, coverto the fourth is numerically less than twenty times ing approximately the same range of displacement as the displacement in tons. Otherwise, the latter form the form characteristics. A statement of the assumed is used. axis and the extent of watertightness of the hull is The title of the appropriate condition should ap- included. pear at the top of the sheet.
13.10.3
Should the trim in the loading condition exceed 1/150 of the length between perpendiculars or there is an abrupt change in the shape of the waterplane due to trim, the required form characteristics should be determined manually with the aid of Bonjean curves or by computer means. The righting arm curve trim corrections need only be determined if a suitable computer program is readily available.
DR AF T
Transverse metacenter. KM Moment to trim one inch. MTI Tons per inch immersion. TPI
The ships name, identication number, and general measurements are entered on the title sheet. Under References, all plans and other data used in preparing the booklet are listed. The various pages of this Part are listed under Contents, and in the order listed below:
The following form characteristics are plotted against draft and included in the stability data and an example is shown in Figure 13.8 :
Displacement in salt water & Delta; SW
Longitudinal center of otation. LCF Longitudinal center of buoyancy. LCB
13.10.6
Excessive Trim in Loading Conditions
Diagram Showing Location of Draft Marks
A diagram showing an elevation view of the ship is included in the report to show the principle dimensions of the ship and the relative locations of the draft marks. All draft marks should be shown including navigational, calculative, and projected. The longitudinal distances between the draft marks and the longitudinal datum (midships or forward perpendicular) should be noted on the drawing.
202
13.10.7
A diagram is included showing the approximate change in metacentric height due to adding a xed weight at levels between the keel and the highest level of the superstructure. The xed weight considered is a round number of tons, about one percent of the full load displacement. The eect of this added weight is shown by a straight line for each condition of loading included in the stability data, plotted so that ordinates represent heights of the added weight and the abscissae represent the increase or decrease in metacentric height. The eect of the added weight in changing the position of the transverse metacenter and the vertical position of the center of gravity of the ship are taken into account. The heights of the various deck levels amidships are indicated on the diagram.
DR AF T
Figure 13.8: Example Sheet for Plotting Displacement and Other Curves.
Approximate Change in 13.10.8 Summary of Load Items Metacentric Height due to The weights and locations of the center of gravity of Added Weight
each item of load are tabulated. The load items are added to the ship in Condition A.
13.10.9
Details of Load Items
Details of the items of load for each load condition are included. The weight, location of the center of gravity, and the associated moments are tabulated and separate summations made for each type of load. For ships having a small free surface eect, the vertical moment of free surface is included in this tabulation. For ships which have a large free surface eect, the tabulation of vertical moment of free surface is not made on these sheets since the free surface eect is determined by a separate calculation.
13.11.
INCLINING EXPERIMENT ACCURACY
203
13.10.10
Correction to Righting Arms 13.10.13 for Free Surface
Table of Frame Spacing
This calculation is included only for ships which have a large free surface eect.
One sheet shall be lled out indicating the distance of each frame from the longitudinal reference point in feet and decimals. The frame spacings should also be included on this sheet.
13.10.11
Tank Capacities
13.10.14
13.10.12
DR
Compartment Capacities
A tabulation is made of all tanks or voids tted for carrying liquids in bulk, including salt water ballast. Tanks are grouped according to the type of liquid carried. The vertical moment of free surface, capacity in gallons and tons, and the vertical, longitudinal and transverse position of the center of gravity are tabulated. Capacities of oil tanks correspond to the 95 percent full condition, and capacities of water tanks to 100 percent full. Capacities of gasoline tanks correspond to the rated gasoline capacity and, in addition, the weight of salt water at the rated capacity is shown. The vertical moment of free surface is the moment of inertia at the level at which this gure is a maximum divided by the specic volume of the liquid in cubic feet per ton. In the case of compensated gasoline tanks, the vertical moment is I/ ; S.W. minus I/ ; GAS. Where tanks are tted for fuel oil or ballast, the weight of fuel oil is entered but the fact that they are tted for ballast is indicated. Tanks normally used for carrying liquids as cargo or for issue to other ships are so designated. The density factors for liquid loads are listed in the Glossary, page 330.
AF
13.11
13.11.1 Accuracy
This should contain any comments, remarks, observations, assumptions or calculations that were used to produce the report and are not found elsewhere in the report.
The importance of accuracy in observing and calculating data relative to a particular item can be judged by considering the eect of that item on the ships displacement and center of gravity. Ships draft readings, freeboard measurements (if required), and tank soundings should be taken to the nearest eighth of an inch. Pendulum lengths and data should be taken to the nearest sixteenth of an inch. Tank soundings data should be taken to the nearest eighth of an inch. There are many factors that can inuence the accuracy of an Inclining Experiment and the following is a list of some of those factors: 1. An error in measurement of pendulum length, pendulum deection, inclining weight or weight movement will be reected as a proportional error in the metacentric height in the as inclined condition. 2. Inaccuracy in draft reading will result in an error in displacement and, at the lighter drafts, may also cause a substantial error in the position of the transverse metacenter with a corresponding error in the vertical center of gravity.
A list of all compartments intended for stowing ammunition, provisions, stores, or dry cargo is prepared, giving the bale capacity and the vertical and longitudinal position of the center of gravity of each space. Compartments containing the same type of material are listed together. For ammunition stowages, the maximum capacity of each space in rounds is also included. In all cases, the type of material stowed is indicated.
T
Inclining Accuracy
Remarks and Miscellaneous Calculations
Experiment
204 3. Errors in weight-to-complete and weight-todeduct aect the Condition A displacement directly. The degree of accuracy required to determine the center of gravity of any item depends upon the weight of the item.
13.12
General Inclining Guidance
This section provides general guidance for planning as well as conducting an inclining experiment.
4. The importance of various tanks in determining the total free surface correction varies widely. 13.12.1 Planning For a bottom tank whose width is about half the 1. The accuracy of the inclining experiment is imships beam it is essential that the size and shape proved when the ship is as nearly complete as of the free surface be determined accurately and practicable, and therefore the inclining experthat precise methods of calculating the moment iment should be conducted toward the end of of inertia be used. For narrow tanks, less prethe construction period, and in some cases where cise measurement and calculations are acceptship stability is in question, a deadweight survey able. There are many small tanks for which the or an inclining experiment is performed prior to free surface correction is negligible. The criterion any sea trials. Simply stated, the ship should be in each case is the eect on the vertical center of as near complete as practicable for the test. In gravity of the ship. most cases there is a requirement for the technical oce (U.S. Navy, U.S. Coast Guard, Amer5. There are certain areas in which the substituican Bureau of Shipping (ABS), DNV, Owner, tion of a reasonable approximation for a precise etc.) to ocially witness the experiment, therecalculation would save a great deal of time with fore the inclining procedure and schedule of no signicant reduction in the accuracy of the events should be submitted for their review at nal result. An example is the determination least thirty days prior to the event. of the weight, moment of inertia of free surface, 2. A thorough cleaning of the ship should be conand the vertical and longitudinal position of the ducted prior to the experiment. Weight surveys center of gravity of liquids in tanks, which are including estimates of weight and the longitupartially lled at the time of inclining. In most dinal, transverse and vertical center of gravity cases, sucient accuracy will be obtained by uslocations must be conducted. The survey of ing the tank capacity tables for weight and verti(weights to deduct) is to determine the amount cal center of gravity, assuming that the surface is of foreign material such as scaolding, or other trapezoidal for the purpose of obtaining moment construction material that is not part of light of inertia and assuming a linear variation of secship but may be onboard ship at the time of tion area along the length of the tank to locate the inclining experiment. Another survey of the longitudinal center of gravity. If the vertical (weights to add/complete) is performed to detercenter of gravity is not shown on the tank capacmine all items, which are part of the light ship ity tables, an approximate formula for vertical but have not been put onboard. Additionally, center of buoyancy may be used for satisfactory a survey for items of light ship (weights to reloaccuracy. cate) that are onboard but not in their nal poAn inclining experiment is not as controlled as a sition must be identied, the moments that will laboratory setting, however, it is essential to take the result from the relocation of these items must necessary measures to control the variables as much be recorded. The information from the surveys as practical. With that being said, inclining experiwill be used in the development of the inclinment accuracy can result in variation of as much as ing report. The surveys take advantage of the one inch in draft reading and three inches in KG. most accurate weight information available and
DR
AF
13.12.
GENERAL INCLINING GUIDANCE
205 the vessel be certied prior to the inclining experiment. When reading drafts, they should be taken simultaneously from boats located on the port and starboard sides. Readings are to be taken from the forward, amidships, and after draft marks at the time of the inclining. Some shipbuilders have developed a draft reading device made up of a clear tube with a hole in the bottom and a scale inside to help dampen out wave action. 7. The most common device for measuring the angle of list is a pendulum constructed of a ne wire such as piano wire, of sucient length, with a heavy plumb bob damped in a trough lled with heavy weight oil. A horizontal batten is attached to each trough for recording pendulum deections. Another device, a u-tube made of clear vinyl or plastic and lled with water axed to vertical battens is installed transversely port to starboard. Inclinometers have also been used and are normally used for submarine inclining experiments due to the lack of vertical areas in which to erect pendulums. When reading measurements, it is important to note that the ship should be allowed sucient time to settle out after each block movement.
in some cases require actual weighing of individual components. 3. The ships trim and list should be as near to zero as practicable for the test to avoid having to make adjustments to the tank capacity and curves of form data. It is common practice to use concrete leveling blocks for this purpose. In addition, care must be exercised in the determination of the liquids in tanks and their associated free surface eect on the test. Ideally, tanks should be either completely full or completely empty for the experiment. An empty tank literally means that the tank is empty. The liquid below the suction has been removed through whatever means, this may include actually moping of tanks. Whereas a full tank means that the sounding is above the top of the tank. To prevent air pockets in tanks, air escapes are required at the highest point of the tank and heeling of the ship is necessary to assist in the removal of air while lling the tanks. In general, tanks that must contain liquid should be between 20 and 80 percent full, provided that calculations for freesurface eect can be calculated accurately. Additionally, a careful review of the piping systems must be performed to determine cross-connect piping, all valves must be closed to prevent any transfer of liquids. 4. Eorts should be made to reduce the number of people aboard during the test, and those onboard should stay in an assigned location during the experiment. In addition, doors, crane booms and boats should be secured to prevent swinging during the experiment. 5. All mooring lines should be well slacked while inclining measurements are being taken, and the gangways, fenders, and construction lines should be clear of the ship. Wind forces aect the accuracy of the test and it is recommended that should wind forces exceed 10 knots, the test should be delayed until the winds subside.
DR
6. The displacement of the vessel is determined by reading the draft marks, therefore, it is important that the installation of the draft marks on
AF
13.12.2
1. The inclining experiment for some shipyards begins around midnight in an attempt to take advantage of typically calmer wind and sea conditions. A survey of weights to add, weights to deduct and weights to relocate is needed because it is the nature of ship construction to have unexpected changes in the day to day condition of the ship. All spaces should be included in the survey, including voids and spaces reported as empty. All doors and hatches are secured in their normally open or closed position. All tanks and voids should be sounded just prior to starting the experiment and also after the experiment. Specic gravity of the liquids in the tanks should be taken and recorded. The lengths of the pendulums or u-tubes should be measured
T
Conducting
206 and recorded; the position of the pendulum wire installation should be veried to ensure that the wire hangs from a knife edge to ensure a free swing of the wire. At this point the ship should be breasted out and basically free oating (all lines slack). 2. After the ship is determined to be ready for the test, all personnel onboard are instructed to remain in their assigned inclining experiment locations. Three draft readings are taken, individually at each of the three draft mark locations, the port and starboard readings should be taken simultaneously. Water samples should also be taken at this time from various locations and depths along the side of the ship to determine slip water density. 3. The next step of the experiment is to measure the inclination; First, all three battens are marked simultaneously to a zero point before any block movement takes place. A minimum of two movements to starboard and two to port are required. The distance each block is moved is measured from its initial position and recorded. After each block movement, and after the ship has stabilized from the block movement, the signal to read the measurement of the inclination is given. If the ship maintains some level of residual motion, the reading should be taken at the midpoint of the motion. Readings from all stations are taken simultaneously and marked on the battens. To maintain accuracy of the experiment, a novice should not be placed in a position to read and record the markings of the battens, since this task normally requires experience and practice to become procient. 4. After each block movement, measurements are recorded and the tangents of the angles of inclination are plotted against the moments of the inclining weights. A straight line plot is desired, whereas variations in the straight line plot may indicate that conditions (wind, incorrect block weight, incorrect pendulum or u-tube measurement, etc.) may have adversely inuenced the experiment. A plot other than a straight line
CHAPTER 13. SHIP WEIGHT MEASUREMENT should be investigated, and after checking in some cases some of the points of the plot may be discarded. If the plot is satisfactory, all battens are to be collected for verication of markings, plot sheets and other data needed to complete the inclining report. 5. The last step of the experiment is to take one nal set of tank soundings (and for submarines, a nal set of draft readings). The inclining coordinator at this point shall announce the inclining experiment is complete.
DR AF T
13.13.
EXAMPLE PROBLEMS
207
13.13
13.13.1
Example Problems
Example 1. As-Inclined Condition
New example. 8-31-06 Tellet
This example shows how to calculate the as-inclined GM of a ship from inclining experiment data. Problem: An inclining experiment has been performed on the example ship. Determine the as-inclined values for displacement and GM . Given: The following data from the inclining is provided: Forward mean draft: Mid mean draft: Aft mean draft: Water specic volume: Length btwn Perps: Length btwn Draft Marks: Length fwd mark to mid: Design trim: Keel deection: Draft 15 16 17 Ship Displ 3700 4080 4440 Hydrostatic LCB LCF 2.50 23.70 4.55 24.10 6.30 24.20
DR
Trial No. 1 Weight 6.732 6.836 33.99 Port 2 3 6.732 6.836 6.774 34.13 33.99 34.03 Stbd Stbd Stbd 4 6.794 5 34.02 Stbd
Weight Movements and Tangents Distance Side Moment Ttl Moment 34.09 Port 229.5 229.5
AF
f t3/ton
15.98 16.02 16.10 35.57 408.00 397.00 198.00 0.00 -0.02
Properties TPI KM 32.20 22.35 33.00 22.22 33.50 22.20
232.3
229.8 232.3 230.5
231.1
T
ft ft ft ft ft ft ft ft MTI 765 792 820 461.8 0.3 230.8 461.9 Tangent 0.0179 0.0171 0.0177 0.0348 0.0332 0.0340 0.0009 0.0009 0.0004 0.0145 0.0166 0.0166 0.0307 0.0329 0.0328
Side P P P P P P P S S S S S S S S
208 Process
The process for calculating the as-inclined condition of the ship is relatively straight forward: 1. Plot the inclining moments and inclining angle tangents to identify bad readings or movements. 2. Calculate the slope of the plot of tangents. 3. Determine the hydrostatic properties for the given drafts.
4. Use the hydrostatic properties to calculate the ships equivalent draft at the time of the inclining. 5. Use the equivalent draft to calculate the displacement as-inclined.
6. Divide the slope of tangents by the as-inclined displacement to nd the as-inclined GM . Plot of Tangents
The gure below shows the plot of tangents for the example inclining experiment.
DR AF T
Plot of Tangents
qqq
400
PORT
qq q
Inclining Moment (fttons)
200
q q q
200
Five weight movements shown and leastsquares bestfit line Slope = 13904
q q
400
STARBOARD
0.02 0.01
q q
0.04
0.03
0.00
0.01
0.02
0.03
0.04
Tangent
The points show some spread which is always to be expected. In this case, no point is far enough of an outlier to discard it. A plot of tangents is normally done at the same time as the weight movements in
13.13.
EXAMPLE PROBLEMS
209
order to quickly identify problems with the movement or the tangent readings. Many times movements are repeated or readings corrected before the inclining experiment is considered complete. The gure shows a best t line by the preferred least squares method. The slope may also be determined by drawing a best t line and calculating the rise over run or (change in y)/(change in x). Since most spreadsheet programs can place a trend line through the data (by least squares) and show the equation of the line, the hand method is no longer widely used. Equivalent Draft
The equivalent draft is the mean draft at the time of the inclining corrected for water density and the ships trim. Normally the curves of form data is calculated based on standard sea water and the normal design trim of the ship. Any variations from this normal condition must be taken into account before the curves of form drawing can be used to determine the as-inclined displacement. Using the mean draft at midships (from the given information), we need to nd the LCF. Since the mean draft is between values given, we need to interpolate the hydrostatic information to arrive at the correct values. Since we are only given a table of values, we can assume that a linear interpolation is okay. In real life, the actual curves of form drawing should be consulted to ensure that the curves of each property are well behaved and dont have any sharp angles or discontinuities that would make using a linear interpolation invalid. After interpolating for the LCF, we then need to calculate the distance from the forward draft mark to the LCF, and the overall trim on the ship.
DR AF T
x = (24.20 24.10) = 0.10 0.02 = 0.002 ft (16.02 16) (17 16) LCF = 24.10 + x = 24.10 ft Forward Mark to LCF = fwd mark to mid + LCF = 198.00 + 24.10 = 222.10 Trim between Marks = Aft draft Fwd draft = 16.10 15.98 = 0.13 ft
210 Calculated draft at the midships draft marks:
draft = fwd draft + trim
Calculated draft at the LCF:
Equivalent draft (corrected for hull deection):
As-Inclined Displacement
Now that we have the equivalent draft, we can nd the displacement in sea water from the curves of form data. Naturally, this will require interpolation. (16.04 16) (17 16)
As-Inclined GM Now that we have the displacement as-inclined, and the slope of tangents, we can easily calculate the metacentric height (GM ) as-inclined. This value indicates the initial stability of the ship in the condition at
DR AF T
Calculated Draft at LCF = fwd draft + trim fwd marks to LCF fwd marks to aft 222.10 = 15.98 + 0.13 397.00 = 16.05 ft Equiv. draft = calc. draft at LCF + 0.75 keel deection = 16.05 + 0.75 0.02 = 16.04 ft x = (4440 4080) = 360 0.04 = 14.40 tons Displ = 4080 + x = 4094.40 tons
fwd marks to mid fwd marks to aft 198.00 = 15.98 + 0.13 397.00 = 16.04 ft
13.13.
EXAMPLE PROBLEMS
211
the time of the inclining, and is also used to derive the vertical center of gravity (VCG or KG) of the light ship in later calculations in an inclining experiment report. So for the as-inclined GM: slope of tangents displacement as-inclined 13904 = 4094.40 = 3.40 ft
GM =
This calculation combines all the weight movements and tangent readings into the nal value, however the GM can be found during the experiment for each movement using the formula below (also on page 188). This is sometimes done to get the feel of where the GM of the ship is at the time of the inclining, but it is never used for the ocial value since it only represents one data point.
DR AF T
GM = wd W tan where: w = inclining weight (tons) d = distance weight moved athwartships (feet) W = displacement of ship including weight w (tons) tan = tangent of angle of list
212
DR AF T
Chapter 14
Economics of Mass Properties

by Alan Titcomb
Location of the weight As in real estate, location is very important. To a mass properties engineer, a pound of weight saved in one location on a can be an improvement to the of 14.1 Background and Purpose shipship while a similar magnitude mass properties in the of weight saved another location can have a detrimental impact. LoOne of the most dicult questions for a mass propcation is dened in terms of the vertical height above erties engineer working in the marine industry to anthe keel, the distance port or starboard of centerline, swer is What is the value of a pound of weight on and the distance fore or aft of the longitudinal center a ship? Regardless of the experience or background of gravity. of the individual, the answer is usually It depends. This answer has not changed since the rst SAWE technical paper, Reference [25], on this subject was Magnitude of the total weight involved The presented in 1942. The title of that denitive paper, incremental value of 10 pounds of weight impact on The Value of a Pound, has since become a relevant a ship may be very dierent than the value of a 10 subject whether the industry is aerospace, as in the LT impact. case of the original paper, or the marine industry. For the marine industry the pound is frequently a Long Type of ship The value of a pound is greatly Ton or LT, but otherwise the similarities are many. inuenced by the type of vessel on which it is located. This chapter will attempt to describe the many fac- Commercial cargo vessels place a very dierent value tors on which the value of a pound is dependent as on weight than does a naval combatant ship. Simwell as describe some means by which the value of a ilarly, an oshore oil platform would likely place a vastly dierent value on a pound than would a small pound can be determined. yacht. The Value of a Pound is the Time The value of a pound of weight saved on Economic Benet per Unit of Weight a vessel when it is in detail design and construction The value can be dened as the economic benet is very dierent than the same pound of weight saved per unit of weight. The concept is simple; however 15-years into a 25-year service life. the actual determination of a value of a pound of weight or inch of KG (vertical center of gravity) for a Use of the economic data The value of a given ship is not. It depends on a number of dierent pound can vary widely depending on the use of the data. The value of a pound of weight saved with factors. Some of the many factors are: 213
DR AF T
214
CHAPTER 14. ECONOMICS OF MASS PROPERTIES
the objective of improving the ships list will have a greatly dierent value than a pound of new electronic equipment being added to the mast of a ship. Legal instruments in force The value of a pound for a ship being built under a construction contract can vary drastically from the value of a pound on the same vessel which is being operated under a charter agreement to carry cargo from one place to another. The savings in manufacturing The savings that can be attributed to producing or procuring one less unit of weight for the ship.
14.2
Methods of Determining the Value of a Pound
The savings in operational cost The eco- 14.2.1 Method 1 Contract Price of Ship($) nomic savings that can be attributed to carrying one Value of a Pound = Accepted Weight of the Ship(LT ) less unit of weight over the life of the ship. The perspective of the viewer The value of a pound of weight varies from the perspective of the viewer. If the viewer is a shipyard engineer then his perspective will vary from a ship owner who may have a markedly dierent perspective from a ship operator. A shipyard is concerned about the cost and labor associated with a given weight change and whether this change is needed to comply with the ships specication, while a ship owner is concerned about the additional cargo that can be carried. A ship operators main concern may be for the draft of the vessel or its trim so that its performance in a seaway will be optimal. The economic value of a pound is usually an important consideration when a shipyard, ship owner, or ship operator is trying to remove weight from the ship in order to improve the ships ability to carry out its mission in the most ecient and economical manner or to meet certain naval architectural characteristics that are required for the safety of the vessel. However, most parties will agree that the benet that is derived by saving a pound of weight must exceed the cost of implementing the weight savings. It is in this context that this chapter will attempt to oer several means of determining the value of a pound.
DR AF T
14.2.2 Method 2
ESWBS 100 Structure 200 Propulsion 300 Electric 400 Command 500 Auxiliary 600 Outt 700 Armament
The simplest answer to a question regarding the value of a pound may be found by dividing the contract price of the ship by the contract, or accepted weight estimate, of the ship. This simple formula yields a dollar value per unit weight for the specic ship. However, it really represents a cost metric for ship construction that is useful to a ship owner in sizing a vessel and establishing an initial budget. It treats all weight exactly the same without regard to whether the weight is low in the ships structure or high in the ships mast.
Using Cost Date to Value a Weight Group A better way to approach the question may be to look at the issue in terms of the ship work breakdown structure, the classication system by which weight is tracked during design and construction by a ship yard. Table 14.1 provides a cost/weight sensitivity table from Reference [26] that was used in the US Navys DDG-51 Program to relay the costs of changes to the various weight groups. Program Cost ($/LT) 17,500 110,800 180,200 46,300* 80,800 78,500 16,000*
*Shipyard installation cost only. Equipment procured separately.
Table 14.1: Cost/Weight Sensitivity Example
14.2. METHODS OF DETERMINING THE VALUE OF A POUND Such information is typically available from the cost engineering or sourcing functions at a shipyard. As this table indicates, a pound of weight saved in the electrical system is of much greater value than a pound saved in ship structure. This method is more useful than the previous formula because it treats the various weight groups which comprise a ship dierently according to their procurement cost. If a certain amount of weight must be saved, this approach will allow the decision-maker to select the group that is most economical. The drawback is that the method does not take into consideration exactly where in the ship the weight should be saved.
215
For every pound of weight saved in the vessel itself an additional unit of weight of revenue-producing cargo can be carried thereby yielding additional prot to the ship owner. Many commercial ships are the sub14.2.3 Method 3 ject of economic data can help determine the value of a unit of weight aboard the ship. For examCombining Method 2 with Location Data ple, Required Freight Rate (RFR) for tankers, $/TEU (Twenty foot Equivalent Unit) for container ships, Location is extremely important to most decisions reand $/LT for bulk cargo carriers oer very good ways garding weight because in nearly all cases the value to determine the value of given quantity of weight of a given quantity of weight is needed to make a deon their respective ship types. In some cases, a concision that will improve the trim, heel or list, or the version to weight may be required. For example, an KG (vertical center of gravity) of the ship. List, trim average weight for a twenty-foot container is needed and KG refer to ship motions about the three orthogto determine the value of a pound for a container onal axes of the ship (See Figure 2.1 in Chapter 2). If ship. The ship owner and/or naval architect used a ship has an unacceptably high KG, then the soluthis type of data in determining the economic viabiltion is to reduce weight above the ships present KG ity of building the ship and in determining its size. or to increase weight below the KG. If a ship has a This method does not apply to naval vessels, pleasure forward trim problem, then weight must be added aft craft, or oshore drilling rigs. Ship operators, profesor removed forward of the LCG. If starboard list is sional societies, or marine industry trade periodicals the problem, weight must be added to the port side of are good sources of the type of economic data that the vessel or subtracted from the port side of the vescan be used to determine the value of a pound. sels TCG. These examples identify the importance of moments to determining the value of a given quantity of weight. Chapter 2 provides a more comprehensive 14.2.5 Method 5 treatment of the basic naval architectural characterUse of Contract Data to Value a Pound istics of a ship. Using this information in conjunction with the previous method of valuing a pound of Another valid method of determining the value of weight results in a method that combines the cost unit of weight is based on the ships acquisition condata by weight breakdown with the actual location tract. Because mass properties constitute a critical where the weight removal or addition is most ben- ship parameter, many owners include a provision in ecial to achieving the desired ship objective. This the purchase contract for liquidated damages or perallows the decision-maker to search for the most eco- formance bonuses that may be applicable to the shipnomical ways to save or add weight in specic loca- builder. Such clauses are used to provide an incentive tions that directly contribute to the solution desired. to control weight during the design and construction
DR AF T
14.2.4 Method 4
This method can be applied to most types of vessels as it is independent of the type or function of the vessel in question. However, in some cases the type of the vessel may oer more options for the valuation of a pound. For example, commercial cargo vessels are designed to carry revenue-producing cargo from one point to another.
Using incremental revenue to value a pound
216
DR
Method 6
Cost of Alternatives Weight saved
of the ship. For example, an owner may assess a penalty of $100,000 for every 10 LT that a ship exceeds a contractual weight limit or an accepted weight estimate. Conversely, another owner may provide a nancial incentive in the form of a bonus that can be earned by the shipyard if delivers a ship with a deadweight that yields more cargo carrying capacity. In these cases, the value of a unit of weight can be easily determined by dividing the penalty or bonus by unit of weight involved. For example, a penalty of $100,000 per 10 LT yields a value of $1000 per LT (or $0.47 per pound). This data can be used to make decisions regarding changes to the ship. If the cost of saving a long ton of weight is greater than $1000, then the change is economically justied. Weight Improvement Programs as described in Chapter 12 can also provide useful information that can be used to determine the value of a unit of weight or an inch of KG recovery. In each case, a number of alternatives are typically identied and invariably company management will require a cost estimate be conducted for each to help determine which option should be pursued. Dividing the cost of each alternative by the benet derived yields a cost per pound or inch of KG. Using a medium or average of all the individual benets of the options can yield a value per unit of weight can be used to make decisions. For example:
14.3
Use of Mass Properties Data in Cost Estimating
AF
14.4
Weight plays an important role in the cost estimating function at most US shipyards. Weight represents the most consistent physical property available for use as a technical parameter in forming the basis of parametric cost estimating. From the earliest stages of ship design when a class F, or conceptual, cost estimate is developed based on a one-digit weight breakdown to a class C, or budget quality, estimate which requires a 3-digit weight breakdown. Weight, therefore becomes an important contributor to the development of cost estimates, cost analysis, budget and schedule control and even risk analysis. The cost engineering group or department is one of the companys internal customers for the weight data and reports generated by mass properties personnel. The parametric cost estimating equation, Reference [27], usually takes the general form of:
T
Summary
C = K(W )
(14.1)
In this formula, C is dened as the estimated cost, K represents the cost per unit of weight, and W is the weight of the item in appropriate units. This equation forms the basis of most cost estimating functions at the preliminary and detail ship design levels.
14.2.6
$ LT
1. The value of a pound is a measure of economic benet per unit of weight 2. There is no single, undisputed value of a pound. 3. The value of a pound is dependent on a number of dierent variables 4. For commercial ships, a pound of weight saved is worth revenue stream that can be realized by carrying an extra pound of cargo. 5. In making a decision involving cost and weight, the benet to be derived should be greater than the cost of implementation
A similar case can be made for list or trim improvement in units of degrees. Because most decision-making requires a sound cost estimate of the cost of implementation of a weight impact, it import to ensure that all relevant factors and included. The cost should include all costs associated with the weight action in question. Typically these include the cost of design or engineering, the cost of materials, and the labor cost for any rip-out and the installation of any new equipment or structure.
14.4. SUMMARY 6. Economic benet may be based on investment cost, the value of specic weight groups per unit of weight, or the increased revenue of carrying an additional unit of weight.
217
DR AF T
218
DR AF T
Chapter 15
Risk Assessment
15.1 15.2 15.3 Denition of Risk
Program and Project Risk Management Weight and CG Risk Management Process
Any time an improvement is planned for a submarine, a multitude of factors must be addressed to understand the impact of the alteration (shipalt) on the submarine. The impacts are both 15.4 Risk Assessment Levels positivecapability improvementand negative cost, weight, and energy use. The risks of the in15.5 Risk Assessment Methods stallation must be understood and proper tradeos made to ensure that the perceived improvement in capability does not, in some other way, adversely im15.6 Reporting and Tracking pact the boat. For this risk analysis, a large shipalt was postuThe following material is a placeholder for the actual lated, one that will signicantly increase the warghtrisk chapter for this textbook. ing capability of the boat but will also add signicant weight ( 200 long tons), displacement ( 50 tons), and 15.7 Introduction - In Service cost ( $50 million). The weight and displacement increases will degrade the stability of the boat and will increase the draft of the boat (how deep it sits in the by David Tellet This section presents one methodology for the risk water). analysis of the installation of a warghting improvement ship alteration on a class of in-service sub15.9 Project Objectives marines.1 Though the methodology presented here can be used for various areas of the ship alteration In order to both recognize risk areas and quantify process and focus of interest, the data used is based them, a formal methodology for risk analysis must on Naval Architectural aspects. The whole analysis be developed and used to aid decision makers in de1 This methodology is equally applicable to any marine vehicle as well as any other complex engineering product.
DR AF T
15.8
219
is based on the perspective of the Naval Architect rather than the program manager, cost engineer, or waterfront personnel.
Problem Denition
termining the feasibility and ultimate costs (in terms of money and risk) of the installation of the shipalt.
220 The objectives of this study is to provide decision makers with a logical tool to understand potential risk areas and to quantify the risks enough for them to be able to make decisions. In essence, this tool addresses the three questions of risk assessment: 1. What can go wrong?
CHAPTER 15. RISK ASSESSMENT 2. Risk Filtering, Ranking, and Management. This is an eight step process where risk areas are further dened, ltered, and ranked to identify the areas which have high risk and/or high consequence. This is an iterative process which should be revisited and rened as the design process continues. 3. Policy Options. This takes the high risk areas identied in Phase 2 and examines potential policy options in terms of probabilities and conditional probabilities. 4. Decision Tree Analysis. This takes the most favorable policy options from Phase 3 and develops decision points based on loss vectors. This ultimately provides the most favorable decisions as well as when to make that decision.
2. What is the likelihood that it would go wrong? 3. What are the consequences?
And then provides the method to handle the management of risk: 1. What can be done and what options are available?
2. What are the associated tradeos in terms of all costs, benets and risks? 3. What are the impacts of current management decisions on future options?
However, it is not the intent of this chapter to provide rm data or actual risk probabilities. The data used herein was developed for illustrative purposes only and while it has some broad application, it was not developed with the rigor required for direct application to a real life situation. Similarly, the shipalt 15.11 State of the System is imaginary. Though the data is broad and the details lacking, It is imperative to understand the entire system bethe methods and approach of this process can be di- fore one can look deeper into individual risk areas. The state of the system will provide an overview of rectly applied to actual situations. the state variables, the inputs and outputs of the system, the constraints of the system, and those vari15.10 Approach ables which are beyond the control of the decision makers but which introduce variability and risk to The approach of this analysis can be broken up into the system. four phases: Only by starting with this high level view can one understand the interrelationships between all the fac1. State of the System. This is an overview of all the inputs, outputs, and variables which af- tors as well as be sure that all factors are addressed fect the current system. This wide view allows in the later stages of the risk assessment. Figure 15.1 illustrates the state of the system for one to see the general interrelationships of all the identied factors. This view is essential to en- the ship alteration system. In each of the boxes, the sure the decision makers understand the overall variables are described in general terms that will be objectives and constraints of the system as well expanded upon in later phases of the analysis. The as ensuring that all the necessary factors have diagram also shows the general objective functions of the analysis: maximize mission capability while been included.
DR AF T
In each one of these four phases, proven risk analysis and management methods are used. The approach here is to move from the very general to the specic and use appropriate methods accordingly. However, the tools used in any of these phases can be used independently for other situations.
15.12.
RFRM
Decision Variables Acceptable Threat Acceptable Cost Mission
221 or weights engineer. These are shown in the shaded boxes of the gures. The value of the HHM can be seen just in this limited example. While the greatest concerns of the individual naval architect are obviously within the ship impact column, the less obvious areas are identied under columns for Physical, Environmental, Institutional, and Funding. While these may not be the major areas of concern, they have been identied and they will be considered. As a matter of fact, for this problem, one of these factors will turn out to be a critical risk area. It is possible that in doing the analysis without the HHM step this critical area would have been missed and the analysis unknowingly incomplete. With the major areas of concern identied, a rough ltering and ranking can be done using words rather than numbers. This is called Bi-Criteria Filtering and Ranking and is shown in Figure 15.3. The format of Figure 15.3 follows that which was developed by the US Air Force and McDonnell Douglas Corporation and is widely used today. The colors range from green in the lower left corner through yellow, orange, and red as you move toward up and to the right of the graph. These colors represent relative severity of risk considering both the likelihood of the event happening or failing, and the eect of it happening. Naturally we are more concerned about the critical and catastrophic events which are likely to occur than we are about the moderate or marginal events that are unlikely to occur. Though Figure 15.3 contains no hard data, one can see the relative ranking of the factors and can easily pick out the areas which are likely to be of most concern; that is, the higher risk or uncertainty with higher consequence. As mentioned before, it is important to note that Factors 8 and 9 are high in likelihood and eect, but they come from the HHM columns which are not always considered in the approach to a naval architecture problem. The holographic approach brought these important factors to light. The next step in the RFRM is a Multi-Criteria Evaluation of the top factors identied in Figure 15.3. The intent of this step is to examine these factors or risk sources with regards to the defenses of the sys-
Input Variables Threat Ballasting
State Variables
Stability Baseline Mission Capability
Output Variables New Stability New Draft New Capability
Figure 15.1: State of the System
minimizing stability degradation and cost. From the diagram one can also understand some of the constraints of the system: stability limits, threat goal, cost, and channel depth (connected with draft). The exogenous variables shown are those things that cannot be controlled or quantied in this type of analysis. Though no numbers can be put to these risks, they must be identied to the decision maker so it is understood that other risks exist.
15.12
This second phase of this analysis is ltering and ranking all the potential risk areas using a methodical and iterative process that will allow the identication of high risk and/or high consequence areas and will provide a tool to rank the factors of most concern. The method used here is RFRM, the rst step of which is looking at the entire system using Hierarchical Holographic Modeling (HHM) []. This method provides a wide, overlapping view of all the aspects of the problem thereby ensuring that most, if not all, of the major sources of risk are identied. Figure 15.2 shows the HHM for the shipalt problem. Analyzing all the columns is beyond the scope of this analysis, so it was limited to the areas that would be of concern to the individual naval architect
DR AF T
Random Variables Sea Spectrum Tides Exogenous Variables Storms New Threats
Risk Filtering, Ranking, and Management (RFRM)
222
CHAPTER 15. RISK ASSESSMENT
Submarine Alteration Project
SUBMARINE ALTERATION PROJECT

Institutional Funding
Schedule Environment
Submarine Alteration Project Continued

Shipbuilder Security Ship Impact
Physical
Scope
Phase
Lifecycle
Steel Fasteners Foundations Foam
Ship Class Ship
Concept Preliminary Detail Construction Follow on
Corrosion Preservation Inspections Repair
Program Office Engineering Ship Design Mgr Ind. Engineer
Program Contractor Eng. Support Design Cost
Design Testing S/A Development Installation
Weather Tides Storms Channel Depth
Personnel Avail Union Issues Shifts Default Quality
Clearances Data Transfer Breach Protocols
Weight Displacement Vertical Moment Long. Moment Ballast List Trim Draft Reserve Buoy Crew Access Docking Plan Maneuvering Acoustics Speed
Figure 15.2: Hierarchical Holographic Modeling (HHM) for the submarine alteration project. Shaded boxes show the areas of concern for a naval architect or weight engineer.
tem. In other words, this step looks at the top sources of risk and determines if the system has the resilience, robustness, and redundancy to defend against them. To judge the defenses of the system, eleven criteria of risk scenarios are examined:
Undetectability: the absence of modes by which the initial events of a scenario can be discovered before harm occurs. Uncontrollability: the absence of control modes that makes it possible to take action or make adjustments to prevent harm. Multiple Paths to Failure: multiple ways for the scenario to harm the system.
Irreversibility: scenario where the adverse condition cannot be returned to the pre-event condition.
These criteria are measured using broad, subjective values of Low, Med, or High risk. Some areas are Duration of Events: long duration of adverse not applicable to the shipalt problem and are labeled consequences. N/A. The evaluation is shown in Figure 15.4. Cascading Events: scenario where the eects of The next step in the RFRM is to attempt to rank an adverse condition propagate to other systems the top sources of risk quantitatively. That is, to or sub-systems. take Figure 15.3 and replace the likelihood words
DR AF T
Interfaces Welding Paint Shipyard Eng. Fabrication Cost Installation Cost R&D Cost T&E Cost
Dock Availability Ship Availability Weather
Personnel Avail.
Operating environment: scenario that results from external forces. Wear and Tear: scenario that results from use, leading to degraded performance. HW/SW/HU/OR: scenarios where the outcome is magnied by hardware, software, human, and organizational interfaces. Complexity/emergent Behaviors: scenario where there is a potential for system-level behaviors that are not anticipated from knowledge of the components and their interactions. Design Immaturity: scenario where adverse consequences are related to the immaturity of the design.
15.12.
RFRM
223
Unlikely Seldom Occasionally Likely Frequent
Likelihood Effect
A. Catastrophic B. Critical C. Serious
9 12, 17 14 16 4, 7 11 8 3 2 10
D. Moderate E. Marginal
Subtopic
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
DR AF T
18 19 1, 13 5 6, 15 Risk Moderate Low Moderate Moderate Low Low Moderate High Extremely High Extremely High 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Displacement Vertical Moment Longitudinal Moment Ballast List Trim Draft Reserve Buoyancy Docking Plan
Risk
Steel Fasteners Foundations Foam Welding Paint Individual Engineer Engineering Support Channel Depth Weight
High High Moderate Moderate Low Low High Low Low
Figure 15.3: Bi-Criteria ltering and ranking.
(seldom, likely etc.) with ranges of probabilities, and replace the eects with more specic eects.
Attribute
Normally the probabilities would be calculated using Bayes Theorem where the initial probabilities would be rened based on better, new information available as this entire process iterates. For this initial iteration, the probabilities are best estimates from experts in the eld. Table 15.1 provides the initial probabilities along with the eect and risk for the top six risk subtopics. Figure 15.5 shows this quantitative ranking of the top six subtopics. The table and the gure show the relative positions of the six top attributes and indicate that Channel Depth has the most dire eect, though it has a lower probability than Weight, Displacement, and Engineering Support. The gure shows that all six of these attributes should be continually examined as the iteration process continues, though it is likely that positions may
Weight
Likelihood of failure 0.20 0.08
Eect
Risk
Critical Catast.
3 4 5 6
Channel Depth Displacement Vert Mom. Draft Eng. Support
0.12 0.09 0.08 0.14
Critical Critical Critical Serious
Ext. High Ext. High High High High High
Table 15.1: Quantitative Ranking
change or attributes added or dropped as the probabilities become more dened through new and better
224

Subtopic Attribute Risk Scoring
Detectability Controllability Multiple Paths Weight Channel Depth Displacement Vertical Moment Draft Engineering Support L H L L L M M H M M L M N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A M Irreversibility M M H H M N/A Duration M H M M M H Cascading L M M L M M
cont'd
DR AF T
Operating Env N/A L N/A N/A N/A M Wear/tear L N/A L L L L Weight Channel Depth Displacement Vertical Moment Draft Engineering Support N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A L L L L L L
HW/SW/HU/OR Complexity Design Imm. H L H M M M
Figure 15.4: Multi-Criteria evaluation.
information. However, at this point, a risk management plan should be developed that largely focuses on these six attributes, with special attention to Weight and Channel Depth.
No. 1 2 3 4 5 6
Option
15.13
Policy Options
Cancel Shipalt Lengthen Boat Reduce Mission Cap. Dredge Harbor Use Ti vice Fe Weight Control
Est. Cost ($M) 0 300 50 85 150 25
Having gone through the RFRM once and identied major risk factors, policy options can be proposed to try to mitigate the risks. These policy options will be examined in terms of cost and mission degradation. Considering Weight and Channel Depth as the two major risk attributes, six policy options were considered and cost estimated. See Table 15.2. Canceling the shipalt is not likely to be an acceptable solution, though it represents the lowest bound of the problem. And while it represents the least risk to the Naval Architect, it would be otherwise for the person who is trying to increase the boats mission capability.
Table 15.2: Policy Options and Estimated Costs
Lengthening the ship is the other extreme option. Increasing the length will improve the submarines weight growth capability and thereby lessen the degradation to the boats stability. Obviously this is the highest cost option and the complexity of such an option introduces great uncertainty in the cost estimate. Reducing mission capability trades o on the original purpose of the shipalt. This is often a viable
15.13.
POLICY OPTIONS
225
0.02 <P< 0.1 0.1 <P< 0.5 0.5 <P< 1
Likelihood Effect
A. Loss of Boat/Lives B. Loss of Mission C. Program Broken E. Marginal D. Program in Difficulties
0.001 <P< 0.01 0.01 <P< 0.02
2 4; 5 1; 3 6
alternative though unpopular to the ship operators. Dredging the harbor is a way to mitigate the risk of the increased draft of the boat while maintaining the mission capability. This again shows the importance of the HHM in that one of the policy options is not changing the boat or the design of the shipalt, but altering the environment. This alternative might not even have been considered using the more traditional, parochial approach. The option to use titanium vice steel is a classic weight savings design change. The only drawback is the cost involved and the limited eectiveness that depends on the design details. This also introduces secondary considerations such as increased risk of corrosion. The nal option is to exercise strict weight control on the current design to reduce the risk of weight growth of the design, to identify weight saving measures, to monitor weight trends as the design matures, and to collect data for further risk analysis iterations.
This is a straightforward calculation based on the geometry of the probability distribution function, and says that there is a 65% probability that there will be mission degradation if the shipalt is cancelled. In addition to the expected value of mission degra15.13.1 Probability Density Functions dation, it is important to consider the percentage of In order to evaluate these policy options, probabil- degradation given that it occurs with some set probity density functions (PDF) were developed using the ability. In this case, it was deemed important to look fractile method with input from experts. From these at the worst 10% scenario or the conditional expected PDFs the expected values for mission degradation value (f4) of mission degradation given it occurs with were calculated. In addition, extreme events were a probability of 10% or less. This calculation proconsidered by calculating conditional expected val- vides insight to the extreme events that may be rare
DR AF T
Figure 15.5: Quantitative Ranking.
ues (f4 ) based on a 10% probability of exceedance for each policy option. The PDFs for the six attributes are shown in Figure 15.6 on page 230.
15.13.2
Expected Value
The formula to calculate the expected value of the mission degradation is shown below for the PDF for canceling the shipalt:
Exp.value = 0.25 20 +
(55 20) (65 55) + 0.25 55 + 2 2 (75 65) (100 75) + 0.25 65 + + 0.25 75 + 2 2
Exp.value = 63.75
226 but which hold severe consequences. This calculation is shown below for the cancel shipalt option. pe = 0.25 (1 0.9) 0.25 (100 75) + 75

Cost vs Mission Degradation
100
80 % Mission Degradation
Options 3&4 are inferior 60 f4
pe = 90 (pe + 100) 2 f4 = 95
f4 =
This indicates a large dierence between the expected value ( 64%) and the condition expected value (95%). The decision makers must understand that while 64% may be acceptable odds, the extreme event will have far more dire consequences and though the event may not be probable, the degradation may be too severe to consider this option. Table 15.3 lists the options and the expected values and the condition expected values for all the options. Figure 15.7 shows the plot of this data against the cost of the options. No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 Option Exp. Value 63.75 29.63 57.50 47.50 17.50 40.00 Cond. Exp. 95.00 37.00 78.00 84.00 44.00 68.00
DR AF T
40 20 0 0 50 100 150 Cost ($M) Pareto Optimal Frontiers
Expected
200
250
300
Figure 15.7: Pareto optimal frontiers for the expected and conditional expected values of mission degradation.
Cancel Shipalt Lengthen Boat Reduce Mission Cap. Dredge Harbor Use Ti vice Fe Weight Control
Similarly, Option 2 may be inferior as it shows similar mission degradation to Option 5 but costs a great deal more. The actual choice will likely be between Options 5 and 6 and will depend on whether the decision makers believe the cost dierential is worth the dierence in the mission performance. For this iteration, Option 6 was chosen as the most promising and will be examined further in Decision Tree Analysis.
15.14
Decision Tree Analysis
Though ideally the previous phase would go through iterations before an option is chosen, for the purposes The curves in Figure 15.7 are termed the Pareto of this chapter Option 6 was picked for further study. Optimal Frontiers . These show the minimum val- The assumption is that as the design of the shipalt ues possible for the problem. The points for Options is progressing there will be decision points for imple3 and 4 are above the lines and therefore represent menting the weight control option with consideration inferior options; the cost of these options are greater of costs related to the timing of implementing the opthan other options that result in lower mission degra- tion. dation. In other words, there would be no reason to In this case, a multiple objective decision tree choose Option 3 or 4 when Option 6 is cheaper and (MODT) is used to illustrate the possible decision results in less degradation. Therefore, Options 3 and points and calculated loss vectors for the decisions 4 can be rejected, unless new information changes the made and the timing of those decisions. Due to the result. limited scope of this report, only two cycles or stages
Table 15.3: Expected and Condition Expected Values
15.14.
DECISION TREE ANALYSIS
227 The probabilities of exceedance are calculated for each of the four events in the rst stage and then new probabilities are calculated using Bayes formula. Due to the constrained scope of this example, it was assumed that the probabilities of exceedance did not change for the second stage. During the actual shipalt process, interim data reporting would be required to provide new data from which new probabilities could be calculated. This would improve the accuracy and usefulness of the loss vector calculation. The calculated probabilities of exceedance are as follows: P P P P (exceed): (higher): (same): (lower): 0.31 0.27 0.24 0.19
In the second period, the costs are: CD2 WC2 DN2 = = =
The maximum cost due to weight growth exceeded with no actions taken is $10 million and a capability loss of 5 (dimensionless but based on possible injury, death, or ship damage due to extreme rolls due to reduced stability). The costs associated with the decisions are shown in the decision tree and are based on estimates. At the end of each period of the tree, there are four possible events: 1. The weight growth exceeds 200 tons.
2. The weight growth is greater than previously (between 100 and 200 tons) 3. The weight growth is the same as the previous period (between 50 and 100 tons).
DR AF T
CD1 WC1 DN1 = = =
$2 million $1.3 million $0 $7 million $0.9 million $0
100
Do Nothing
were developed though it is likely that the actual MODT would be more complex. The objectives here are to minimize the cost of the implementation while striving to meet the goal of mission capability. The constraints on the model are based on the calculated weight limits. The three possible actions shown in Figure 15.8 on page 231 are to change the design of the shipalt (CD), pursue aggressive weight control procedures (our Option 6 denoted as: WC), or do nothing and hope for the best (DN). In the rst period, the costs associated with the actions are as follows:
The calculation of the loss vectors results in the plot shown in Figure 15.9 for the rst period of the decision tree.
Loss Vector Pareto Optimal Frontiers - First Period
80
% Mission Degradation
60
Weight Control
40
20
Cost ($M)
Figure 15.9: Loss vector pareto optimal frontier for rst MODT period.
4. The weight growth is less than previously (below 50 tons).
For the purposes of this example, the weight growth is assumed to be a log natural distribution (LN1) with a of 4.8 and of 1. The validity of this distribution should be validated prior to using the results of this calculation for decision making.
From Figure 15.9 it can be seen that in most cases choosing Weight Control will result in lower mission degradation and cost savings over the option to change the design of the shipalt. From this, it is evident that WC1 is the correct route to take as the rst decision.
228 This does not hold true for the second period. Figure 15.10 shows that implementing weight control for the second period is an inferior solution to doing nothing. This is likely to be a factor of using the same probabilities for both periods, as well as an indication that late action incurs great cost for little or no positive impact on the situation.
Loss Vector Pareto Optimal Frontiers - Second Period
CHAPTER 15. RISK ASSESSMENT terms in the HHM where many of the sources of risk or uncertainty are mapped out in a organized overview. What is the likelihood that it would go wrong? This is answered in words rather than numbers in the Bi-Criteria Filtering and Ranking shown in Figure 15.3. Though only words are used, one can already see some patterns of risk ltering. What are the consequences? The consequences are shown in Figure 15.4 in broad terms and then in Figure 15.5. Here the patterns are better delineated by more precise words and ranges of probabilities. The result of the rst and second phases of this process was the identication of nineteen areas of risk and the ltering of those areas to six high risk, high consequence sub-topics. From these six, the two factors with the greatest risk and consequences were selected for the second phase. The third phase of this process is the management of these identied high risk areas. What can be done and what options are available? Six policy options were proposed and cost estimates for each developed. The options covered a wide range of costs and included options based on technical changes such as material substitution, as well as options based on organizational (weight control) and environmental (dredging) aspects. What are the associated tradeos in terms of all costs, benets and risks? The options were examined using probability density functions for mission degradation derived from input from experts The expected values and conditional expected values were calculated and plotted. The plot shows the relative cost and eectiveness of the options and illustrates the large dierence between the expected values and the conditional expected values. In this case the curves were similar and mainly diered in magnitude, rather than shape or slope. From this phase the most promising policy option was chosen and was examined in the last phase to answer the question: What are the impacts of current management decisions on future options? In the last phase, an MODT was developed for the policy option of weight control to examine whether
100
80 % Mission Degradation
60
40
20
Figure 15.10: Loss vector pareto optimal frontier for second MODT period.
15.15
The intent of this chapter is to apply risk analysis and management methods to a weight engineering problem and illustrate how decision makers can benet from an encompassing and logical approach to risk. Though the nal answer in this example is debatable due to lack of solid data upon which to build comprehensive probabilities, the example successfully illustrates the approach to this kind of problem and how tools such as Risk Filtering, Ranking, and Management (RFRM), Hierarchical Holographic Modeling (HHM), and Multi-Objective Decision Trees (MODT) can be used to help answer our primary risk questions: What can go wrong? The rst step to answer this question is to look at the current state of the system. From there the answers can be seen in broad
DR AF T
Do Nothing Weight Control
Cost ($M)
Summary - In-Sevice
15.15.
SUMMARY - IN-SEVICE
229
DR AF T
that decision made sense both initially and later on. The results of the MODT loss vector calculation showed that the decision to implement weight control was a good one as long as it was implemented early. The essence of this entire process is to move the potential decision maker from the wide view of risk areas, along a logical framework of tools, to the very specic choice of a policy option to manage the risk. The use of such a process will ensure that most, if not all, the risk areas will be identied and logically ltered and ranked, and that logical and repeatable decisions can be made to manage the risks.
230
PDF for Cancelling ShipAlt
PDF for Dredging Harbor
0.04
DR AF T
0.02 y 0.00 0 20 40 60 80 100 0.00 0.02 0 20 40 60 x x
0.04
80
100
PDF for Lengthening Ship
PDF for Ti vice Steel
0.04
0.02
0.00
20
40
60
80
100
0.00
0.02
0.04
20
40
60
80
100
PDF for Degrading Mission Capability
PDF for Weight Control
0.04
0.02
0.00
20
40 x
60
80
100
0.00 0
0.02
0.04
20
40 x
60
80
100
Figure 15.6: Probability density functions (PDF) for the six attributes.
15.15.
SUMMARY - IN-SEVICE
2; 5 M
231
0; 0 M
C1
2; 6 M C4
CD
2
C5
0; 0 M 3; 7 M 0; 0 M 3; 8 M 0; 0 M 2; 6 M 0; 0 M 3; 7 M 0; 0 M 3; 8 M 0; 0 M 2; 6 M 0; 0 M 3; 7 M 0; 0 M 3; 8 M 0; 0 M
D1
DR AF T
EXCEED D2
DN 2
WC2
CD1
HI G
HE
C6
D2
C7
C2
SAME
D3
WC2
C8
C1
DN 2
C9
LO
ER
D2
C10
D4
WC2
C11
DN
C12
5; 10 M 3; 7 M 0; 0 M 4; 8 M 0; 0 M 5; 9 M 0; 0 M 3; 7 M 0; 0 M 4; 8 M 0; 0 M 5; 9 M 0; 0 M
DN1
D2
C13
EXCEED
D5
WC2
C14
DN
C15
HI
HE
D2
C16
C3
SAME
D6
WC2
C17
DN
C18
Figure 15.8: Multiple objective decision tree (MODT).
LO
ER
3; 7 M 0; 0 M 4; 8 M 0; 0 M 5; 9 M
D2
C19
D7
WC2
C20
DN
2
C21
0; 0 M
232
DR AF T
Chapter 16
Submarine Weight Control, Equilibrium, and Stability

by David Tellet and Dean Royal
16.1
Introduction
Even more so than surface ships, the study of weight engineering for submarines encompasses and integrates mass properties with volumetrics. Though the principles of mass properties for submarines are, in most cases, exactly the same as has been described earlier in this book for surface ships, the volumetrics of a submarine must be considered in parallel with the mass properties and the designer and engineer must always understand the relationship between the two.
In this chapter we will discuss this relationship, how it aects design decisions, limits, missions, and calculations. We will discuss basic submarine design and arrangements, the environment in which the submarine operates, and methods of calculating hydrostatics (volumetrics and uids). We will also cover the links between weights and volumes, namely solid and liquid ballast, and how these links are calculated, sized, and presented. Both surfaced and submerged stability will be discussed and how these are calculated and measured. Finally, we will briey discuss the documentation of a submarines life with regard to weight, stability, and equilibrium.
DR AF T
16.2 Archimedes
233
No discussion of either surfaced or submerged craft can neglect the fundamental principles of oating bodies which were developed by Archimedes. Considered by many to be one of historys greatest mathematicians, Archimedes lived from 287 BCE to 212 BCE, mainly residing in Syracuse. He rst made a name for himself through his inventions defending Syracuse from the Roman siege in the rst and second Punic wars. Though his military engines range from the mythic (burning the Roman eet using land-based mirrors) to the practical (the Claw of Archimedes which was a crane and grappling hook that could be used to capsize a ship from the defending wall), it was a favor asked by the king of Syracuse, Hiero II, that would lead Archimedes to his law of buoyancy. Heiro II had given a goldsmith a commission to make a golden crown from an amount of gold the king provided. The crown was duly made and presented to the king who became suspicious that some amount of silver might have been used in the crown with the replaced gold nding a way into the goldsmiths coers. He asked Archimedes to test to see if the crown was truly pure gold, but do so without marring the crown in any way. Archimedes put a great deal of thought into the problem and is said to have seen the solution after observing the rise of his baths water level when he
234
CHAPTER 16. SUBMARINE WEIGHT CONTROL, EQUILIBRIUM, AND STABILITY
immersed himself. Whether he actually ran naked through the streets shouting, Eureka!, who can say? And exactly how he tested the crown is a subject of some discussion (direct measurement of water displaced seems to be unlikely since adequately precise tools were not available), but what this showed was Archimedes understanding that a pure gold crown and an alloyed crown of the same weight must displace dierent amounts of water. In other words, they must be of dierent volumes. This lead to the Archimedian principle (or the law of buoyancy) which states that the buoyant force acting on a oating body (or a body immersed in a uid) equals the weight of the uid displaced by the volume of that body. It follows that a body that weighs more than the amount of uid displaced will sink (negative buoyancy), one that weighs less will oat (positive buoyancy), and one that weighs exactly the same will have neutral buoyancy and remain where it is. For our area of concern, this is the fundamental principle for submarine design. Archimedes went much farther than just his crown experiment with his publication of On Floating Bodies in two volumes (scrolls). The rst part set out the Archimedian principle of buoyancy, the second identied the equilibrium positions of oating parabaloids which explained how the buoyant force interacted with the weight of the object which acted through the objects center of gravity; a term and concept that he also identied. So from Archimedes we can look at Figure 16.1 of a submerged object and understand that the basic forces acting on it are buoyancy and weight. Looking at the gure, the center of buoyancy (B) of the object is the point though which the buoyancy force acts (upward) and is essentially the center of gravity of the displaced uid. The center of gravity (G) is the point though which the weight of the object acts (downward). If the object were perfectly symmetrical or if it completely homogeneous, the buoyancy and weight would act at the same point and, if it had neutral buoyancy, the object would also be neutrally stable; it would remain at any orientation in which it was placed. Normally, and in this case, the object is neither symmetric nor homogeneous and therefore
Rolling moment due to separation of B and G
Buoyancy B G Weight
DR AF T
16.3
Submerged neutral body will rotate until forces are colinear.
Figure 16.1: Submerged neutral body.
there is some distance between B and G. This distance will be discussed in detail later on in the discussion on stability, but for now it is important to understand that opposite forces are acting through dierent centers thereby producing a moment. This moment (barring any other forces) will re-orient the object so that the forces are in equilibrium (dotted object).
With Archimedes principle always in mind (always in mind), we can now continue on to look at how this principle relates to modern submarines.
Factors in Submarine Weight Control, Stability, and Equilibrium
There is a fundamental goal in submarine design: during its entire life, the submarine shall be capable of achieving neutral buoyancy and zero trim for all design conditions. This sounds simple enough but entails almost all of the eorts of a submarine weights engineer. This is due to the design conditions which encompass changes in volume, displacement, weight and centers of gravity and buoyancy.
16.3. FACTORS IN SUBMARINE WEIGHT CONTROL, STABILITY, AND EQUILIBRIUM
235
16.3.1
Volume
16.3.2
Displacement
The next factor we want to look at is displacement. This is simply volume expressed in terms of the water displaced; instead of cubic feet or cubic meters, we express displacement as tons or tonnes of sea water. Ive separated this from the volume discussion to distinguish between volume or displacement changes of the submarine itself, and changes to the displacement of the submarine due to the environment. Besides changes to the weight of the submarine itself (which we will get to in due course), changes in the environment have the greatest impact to the buoyancy of the submarine. These changes are due to changes in the density of the sea water in which the submarine operates The standard sea water density we use is 64 pounds per cubic foot (35 cubic ft per long ton; 261.80 gallons per long ton; 1.025182 grams per cc). This equates
DR AF T
At 40 F At 60 F At 80 F 0.000060 0.000124 0.000175
gm/cc
Let us look at changes to volume rst. We will go into the details of the submarine in later sections, but for now let us look at a submerged submarine that is neutrally buoyant. The one thing that will aect the actual volume is the sea pressure acting on the hull due to depth. As the submarine dives deeper, the hull will contract slightly due to the increase in sea pressure. The amount of contraction will depend on the structural design of the hull and can be calculated to a fair degree of accuracy. Thus this change in volume is a known and predictable quantity. Other volume changes can be the result of the compression of things like sound dampening treatments which are also calculated and added to the volume change of the hull. Just like Archimedes crown, the volume change with depth means that the volume of the water displaced by the submarine will decrease with depth and therefore the buoyant force will decrease. Assuming the weight has stayed the same, the submarine that was neutrally buoyant at one depth will become increasingly negatively buoyant as depth increases. This sounds a bit dire, but this isnt the only thing that is happening.
to a salinity of about 35 parts per thousand (35) and a temperature of 60 F (15 C) and a near-surface depth. Density changes due to changes in sea water temperature, salinity and depth. Salinity in open ocean ranges from 30 to 40. Brackish water can be found in river mouths, the Baltic sea, and Arctic areas. A 1 change in salinity equates to a 0.00078 gm/cc change in density (0.0487 lbs/ft3 ). Temperature changes are not as linear as salinity. The range in open ocean is 28 F to 90 F (-2.2 C to 32.2 C) and the approximate changes to density due to a 1 F temperature increase is shown in Table 16.1.
(0.0037 lbs/f t3 ) gm/cc (0.0077 lbs/f t3 ) gm/cc (0.0109 lbs/f t3 )
Table 16.1: Change in density due to a 1 F temperature increase.
Finally, there is some density change due to depth. While water is considered an incompressible uid, some increase in the bulk modulus of the water does happen with depth. Assuming a constant temperature of 60 F, the density increase due to bulk modulus is 14.2 107 gm/cc per foot of depth. Considering all these together, some general assumptions can be made. In general, warmer water is less dense. Density of water generally increases with depth. Density of water increases with increased salinity. These assumptions can be misleading, however, when all the variables for density are not considered. For instance, low density water can be found in the Arctic due to ice melt, even though it is cold water and cold water is normally equated with dense water. Conversely, highly saline water can be found in very warm areas thereby negating the idea that warm water is always less dense. This is why we work with densities almost exclusively instead of designing to a temperature or salinity range. The range of density that a submarine is designed to must match the areas of the oceans (rivers and bays) in which the boat will operate. A range that
236
CHAPTER 16. SUBMARINE WEIGHT CONTROL, EQUILIBRIUM, AND STABILITY ally cannot be) during operations, but it provides the starting equilibrium. The variable ballast provides the method to maintain equilibrium throughout a deployment. The variable ballast is made up of sea water that is held in internal tanks. The amount and longitudinal and transverse distribution of the water can be adjusted by the crew to compensate for load changes (weight side of the equation) and displacement changes (volume side). The overall capacity of the tanks and their locations will dictate the capability of the submarine to compensate for all the variables. This will be discussed later in the section on the equilibrium polygon.
16.4
The weight of a submarine can be separated into two broad categories: light ship (Condition A) and variable loads. The former is all the permanent structure, lead ballast (more on this later), and equipment of the boat and includes specic operating liquids at normal levels. The latter includes all the consumable loads including crew and crew eects, provisions, spare parts, fuel, potable and other fresh water, weapons, and variable ballast (more on this later). Naturally, one can see that the consumption of variable loads will change the weight of the submarine as waste is expelled. The greatest change is normally seen from the use of weapons (for a military submarine) which usually make up the greatest percentage of the variable loads. In order to balance (and keep balancing) Archimedes equation, we must start at equilibrium and be able to vary weight during operations to maintain that equilibrium. To do this we have ballast.
So we now understand the factors that aect the weight, stability, and equilibrium of a submarine. And we have an idea of what the submarine looks like with a pressure hull containing people, equipment, and variable ballast tanks, and a non-pressure 16.4.1 Ballast hull containing main ballast tanks. And, of course, Ballast in a submarine comes in two avors: per- we have Archimedes principle rmly in mind. So how manent and variable. Permanent ballast is gener- do we go about quantifying our weight, stability, and ally lead and steel and is installed to balance out the equilibrium? equation between the weight of the design light ship For the rst step we must quantify the volumetric and nominal variable loads, and the design displace- properties, or hydrostatics, of the submarine. This is ment. The lead is generally placed low in the boat to done in the same manner as for a surface ship: the improve stability, and placed longitudinally to pro- set of three drawings in the lines and osets drawing vide a zero trim condition in the normal submerged represent the three dimensional hull form on the two condition. This lead ballast is not changed (and usu- dimensional paper. The buttock lines are imaginary
DR AF T
Weight 16.5 Arrangement 16.6 Hydrostatics
covers most open ocean areas is from 63.6 pounds/ft3 to 64.3 lbs/ft3 , with the normal density set at 64 lbs/ft3 . So we see that the buoyancy of the submarine can change due the physical change of the hull due to depth and pressure, as well as from the change in the surrounding water due to temperature, salinity and depth changes. Since these are changes that cannot be controlled by the submarine, and since we want to maintain neutral buoyancy, the submarine must have a way to adjust the other side of Archimedes equation, the weight.
Figure 16.2 is an illustration of a generic submarine with a round cross-section and main ballast tanks located fore and aft. Depending on the mission, size, propulsion, depth rating, and country of origin, you will nd variations in appendages, internal arrangements, and non-pressure hull design. Some terms are shown in this gure, and the Glossary starting on page 293 can be used for any other unfamiliar terms used in this section.
16.6. HYDROSTATICS
237
Upper Rudder
Sail (Fin, Fairwater)
Aft Perpendicular
vertical cuts through the hull parallel to the longitudinal axis of the boat and at set distances from the centerline. These are shown on the prole or sheer plan. The waterplanes are cuts perpendicular to the buttock lines; longitudinal slices at set distances from the baseline to the top of the hull. These are shown in the waterline or half-breadth plan. The body plan is made up of transverse or sectional cuts along the hull from bow to stern. The intersections of these slices produce points in space with a given longitudinal location (station; xaxis), a distance from centerline (oset; y-axis, and a vertical distance from the baseline (height; z-axis). All these points provide a model of the hull, though in actuality only two of the three plans are required to determine the points. This is especially true for most submarine hull forms which are bodies of revolution (cylindrical) and therefore the buttock lines and waterlines are essentially identical. Once the areas of the slices of the hull are calculated, they can be integrated in the orthogonal direction to calculate the volume of the boat. In other words, if you calculate the areas of the transverse cuts (circular sections), you would integrate the areas longitudinally to calculate the total volume of the hull. Integrating vertically up to some waterline would provide the volume of the submerged hull up to that waterline. You could, of course start with areas of waterline sections and integrate vertically up
DR AF T
Midships Aft Main Ballast Tanks Aft Trim Tank Aux Tank 3&4 Aux Tank 1&2 Fwd Trim Tank Fwd Main Ballast Tanks
circular crosssection
Fwd Perpendicular
Figure 16.2: Generic submarine diagram.
to come up with the volumes, but for a submarine with a circular cross-section, the former method is easier. The methods for producing these drawings and integrating them are described in depth in Reference [3] and wont be repeated here due to space constraints. Nowadays computers are used to calculate most of the hydrostatics of our submarine. Figure 16.3 shows a generic submarine computer model. The model is made up of circular cross-sections, point volumes for small appendages (cleats, propeller, etc.), line volumes for small appendages that extend longitudinally or vertically (periscopes, masts, etc.), and volumes that are constructed from osets in a similar manner to that of the hull; this is for larger, more complex appendages or freeoods. Note that all these types of appendages can be buoyant or non-buoyant. Figure 16.4 shows the body plan for a generic submarine. This clearly shows the circular hull crosssections and major appendages. The format for this drawing is that the hull forward of midships is shown on the right, aft of midships on the left. Figure 16.5 shows the waterlines or half-breadth plan for our model submarine. One thing to notice here is that at deeper drafts quite a bit of the hull of a submarine is underwater. How much depends on the reserve buoyancy of the submarine which is equal
New note
foot-
238
CHAPTER 16. SUBMARINE WEIGHT CONTROL, EQUILIBRIUM, AND STABILITY to the size of the main ballast tanks1 . The goal of constructing this model is to determine the volume and the volumetric properties of the hull, or the hydrostatics. The details of the hydrostatic calculations can be found in Reference [3], and a sample output is shown in Table 16.3 on page 240. The graphical representation of the table is called the Curves of Form, or often for submarines, Displacement and Other Curves (D&O for short). In this drawing, the displacement (which is the volume converted to tons of sea water) and all other properties are plotted against the draft of the boat. This drawing is useful in identifying how the volumetric properties of a boat change with draft and showing any kinks in the curves which may be the result of a faulty model (see Figure 16.6 on page 241). Table 16.2 shows a summary of the volumetric properties typically found on a submarine D&O drawing, how they are calculated, and where they are used. Details of calculations using these properties can be found in Reference [3].
Figure 16.3: Generic submarine hydrostatics model.
DR AF T
1 For
Figure 16.4: Generic submarine bodyplan.
a boat that is in proper diving trim. The reserve buoyancy for a submarine is in terms of the percentage of the sur( submerged surf ace ) faced displacement. The formula is: surf ace 100
16.6. HYDROSTATICS
239
Term Displ KMt MT1 TPI LCB LCF
DR AF T
Figure 16.5: Generic submarine waterlines.
Text
Formula ( )
Units Tons
Use
Displacement
tons 35f t3
Drafts, reserve buoyancy Stability calcs drafts and trim Drafts trim, ballasting trim
Transverse Metacenter Moment to Trim 1in. Tons per Inch Long. Center of Buoyancy Long. Center of Floatation
= KB BM = GML/12L = A/1235 R As Ls/ =
ft (m) ft-tons tons ft ft
Table 16.2: Submarine D&O Terms
Draft 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 40 96454 104932 113300 121608 129816 137878 145734 153319 160581 167477 173961 179982 185483 190398 194662 198199 200907 202634 203513 2755.8 2998.0 3237.1 3474.5 3709.0 3939.4 4163.8 4380.5 4588.0 4785.1 4970.3 5142.3 5299.5 5440.0 5561.8 5662.8 5740.2 5789.5 5814.7 7.42 7.71 8.12 8.52 8.91 9.28 9.65 10.04 10.45 10.87 11.3 11.74 12.18 12.63 13.07 13.49 13.89 14.23 14.46 9.60 10.15 10.68 11.20 11.71 12.21 12.70 13.18 13.63 14.07 14.48 14.87 15.24 15.57 15.87 16.12 16.32 16.45 16.52 9.92 12.97 13.70 14.31 14.92 15.62 16.90 18.35 19.82 21.52 23.49 25.39 27.93 30.96 34.73 39.89 47.51 65.26 42.77
Volume
240
DR AF T
Displ LCB LCF Wetted Surface 5608 5832 6056 6281 6508 6735 6968 7207 7452 7705 7964 8236 8528 8843 9183 9575 10052 10796 11655 Wplane Area 8521 8387 8343 8264 8142 7972 7730 7432 7086 6695 6267 5773 5217 4603 3915 3140 2252 1156 2 LCF TPI BML BM KML 20.29 19.97 19.86 19.68 19.39 18.98 18.40 17.69 16.87 15.94 14.92 13.74 12.42 10.96 9.32 7.48 5.36 2.75 0 528.7 457.8 419.5 385.1 352.7 321.1 287.1 253.8 222.4 192.7 165.5 138.6 112.9 88.9 65.9 44.7 25.4 7.8 0 7.02 6.33 5.80 5.28 4.77 4.27 3.79 3.31 2.86 2.42 2.01 1.62 1.26 0.92 0.63 0.38 0.18 0.05 0 538.3 467.9 430.2 396.3 364.4 333.3 299.8 267.0 236.0 206.8 180.0 153.5 128.1 104.5 81.8 60.8 41.8 24.2 16.5
Table 16.3: Submarine Hydrostatic Table
KM
MT1
16.62 16.48 16.48 16.48 16.49 16.49 16.49 16.49 16.49 16.49 16.49 16.50 16.50 16.50 16.50 16.50 16.50 16.50 16.52
394.2 371.3 367.4 362.0 353.9 342.2 323.4 300.9 276.1 249.5 222.6 192.8 161.8 130.9 99.2 68.5 39.5 12.2 0
16.6. HYDROSTATICS
DR AF T
Figure 16.6: Generic Displacement and Other Curves Drawing.
241
242
CHAPTER 16. SUBMARINE WEIGHT CONTROL, EQUILIBRIUM, AND STABILITY groups for ESWBS are shown in Figure 6.1 and also here in Figure 16.4. ESWBS 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 M F Description Hull Structure Propulsion Plant Electric Plant Command and Surveillance Auxiliary Systems Outt and Furnishings Armament Margins, Acquisition Loads, Departure Full
Dry Light
Dry Light (no ballast)
Nuclear & Non-Nuclear Operating Liquids
A-1 Light Ship
Dry Light (no ballast)
Lead Ballast
A Light Ship
N Surface
N Submerged
Hydrodynamic Submerged
Figure 16.7: Submarine weight and loading condition diagram showing the incremental addition of weights to move from light ship to the displacement of a fully submerged submarine.
16.7
Now that we have a mathematical model of the submarine and have produced good volumetric properties, we need to look at the other side of the equation, weights (or mass properties). This process is nearly identical to the weight estimating, calculating, weighing, and tracking process used for surface ships and detailed elsewhere in this textbook. Therefore wont go into great detail here but will cover the overall process and areas that are unique to submarines. One thing that is slightly dierent from surface ships is the terminology of the basic weight conditions of a submarine. Figure 16.7 shows the general make up of Condition A-1, A, and N.
Just as with surface ships, the design and construction process for a submarine includes the preparation of periodic weight reports. Generally, the process starts with a Preliminary Allocated Baseline Weight Estimate (PABWE). This eventually becomes the ABWE and denes the datum for the beginning of detail design (equivalent to the Accepted Weight Estimate (AWE)). Throughout the detail design process quarterly weight reports are prepared and submitted to the customer. These quarterlies are fully detailed weight reports and include margin usage, details of changes since the previous report, and volumetric changes. 16.7.1 Weight Classication The weight details add up to the light ship weight New submarine designs for the US Navy follow the of the boatCondition A-1for that point in the deESWBS that was described in Chapter 6. The major sign and construction. The report includes how much
DR AF T
A-1 Light Ship
Variable load + variable ballast + residual water
A Light Ship
Main Ballast Tank Water
N Surface
Freeood water
Table 16.4: ESWBS one-digit weight groups.
N Submerged
Mass Properties
The full index of the ESWBS classication can be found in Appendix B. Older designs followed proprietary classication schemes like BSCI, and some submersible designs have used very loose weight classication methods that are based on system or area drawings. The success of the latter is debatable; it allows a closer relationship with the 3D computer model of the vehicle, but it makes verication of the weight report dicult for customers and certifying authorities.
16.7.2
Weight Reports
16.8. MARGINS AND BALLAST of the weight is estimated, calculated, or weighed, and theoretically the weight report becomes more accurate and complete as the design and construction progresses. In format, the submarine weight report is nearly identical to one for a surface ship, at least for the weight details. The dierences arise when the full load and the margins are calculated.
243
16.8.1
Limits
Weights
Condition A-1 (Light Ship)
Figure 16.8: Relationship between weights, volumes, and ballast for submarines.
DR AF T
Fixed and Variable Ballast Volumes
In general, surface ship weights are compared to KG limits developed from stability studies. Submarines are also required to meet minimum stability limits (discussed further on in this chapter), but they are also required to meet equilibrium limits which are based upon mission requirements and our old friend, Archimedes. Essentially, the there is a gap between the weight of the submarine and its displacement. This gap is 16.8 Margins and Ballast lled with the design, construction, and service life margins, loads, and variable ballast. Figure 16.8 shows, in a very general way, the relationUnlike surface ships where margin is roughly equivship between the mass properties and the hydrostat- alent to the amount a ship can grow in weight and/or ics of the submarine. So far in this chapter we have KG before hitting the limits, for a submarine the maremphasized that these must be treated separately in gins are physically in the design or on the boat in the our calculations and in our thought processes. But form of lead ballast. In other words, the lead ballast since they are both part of the overall solution, they in the boat is the margin. During design and conmust be brought together someplace. That place is struction, the lead ballast is normally divided into in the calculation of margins and ballast, as shown in Stability Lead, Trim Lead, and Future Growth Lead the center blocks in the gure. (service life margin). Once the boat is completed and delivered, all the lead ballast is considered available to compensate for future changes to the boat, though Relationship of weights, volumes and ballast for submarines some must be retained to ensure the stability limits Mass Properties Side Solution: Hydrostatics Side are met. Margin,
16.8.2
Stability and Trim Lead
Fixed Ballast (lead)
Displacement
Equilibrium Polygon (Variable Ballast)
Condition N (full load) Surface and Submerged
During the Detail Design phase, it is necessary to track the requirement to allocate lead to Trim Lead, Stability Lead, or both. Trim Lead is any lead used to balance the platform longitudinally, such that the submerged LCG (longitudinal center of gravity) can be mathematically moved into alignment with the LCB (longitudinal center of buoyancy). Stability Lead is any lead that is allocated, as required, to a location low in the ship to ensure that the platforms Vertical Center of Gravity can be moved suciently low to meet the required submerged (BG) and surfaced (GM ) stability criteria. When Stability Lead is required for this purpose, a platform is referred to as Stability Limited, as opposed to Trim Limited (when only Trim Lead is required). It is desirable to establish an initial design condition in which the platform has approximately X%
244
DR AF T
of A-1 Weight plus Loads as Trim Lead. This allows for uctuations over the course of the design without having to switch the Trim Lead accounting center from the forward to the aft end of the platform (which is necessary if the value for Trim Lead becomes negative). In a typical submarine, there is signicantly more room in which to locate lead in the forward main ballast tanks (MBTs) than in the aft MBTs. This makes the existence of Forward Trim Lead preferable to a condition in which Aft Trim Lead would be required.
ity requirement. When the lead is physically placed within the pressure hull and non-pressure hull, the actual calculated vertical center of the platform will be considerably lower, and the stability indexes (BG and GM ) will show corresponding increases. The theoretical lead center (prior to placement) serves as a trend forecasting tool for ship stability as margin is consumed during design. When this theoretical lead center is above the ships center of gravity, increases in ship weight will result in a decrease in the height of the lead. This eectively keeps the ships vertical center of gravity from rising, and strongly suggests that the platform will meet or exceed its stability reTrim Lead Centers quirements throughout the design stages. Conversely, Unless equipment is located in the MBTs in a manner a theoretical lead center below the ships vertical centhat would preclude this, prior to the establishment ter of gravity indicates that the ship stability could of a lead arrangement, forward trim lead should be become an issue during the design phases, and should assumed to be located at the longitudinal center of be closely monitored. the extents of the forward MBT. The aft trim lead should be located similarly relative to the aft MBT. Longitudinal Extents of the Stability Lead The vertical center of the trim lead should be assumed to remain at the main axis of the submarine. The longitudinal extents over which stability lead can While it would appear more likely that the lead in the be placed run from the aft edge of the forward end MBTs would be placed low in the non-pressure hull, closure to the forward edge of the aft end closure the existence of MBT ood grates makes this di- (within the pressure hull boundary). This range is cult in practice. Lead is placed in pie pan bins on typically used to ensure that the lead can be located transverse bulkheads and in rectangular box bins as low in the boat as possible. arranged radially within the frame bays. While it is In most cases, if the extents are considered to be likely that the actual vertical center is slightly lower, further into the end closures, the vertical center of the center is held at the main axis to ensure that stability lead will begin to rise, as the lead will have the actual arrangement does not result in a vertical to be placed in upward curving portions of the prescenter higher than that used in calculations to that sure hull and non-pressure hull. Additionally, the point. areas low in the end closures are typically utilized for On Trim Limited ships, the vertical center of mar- the forward and aft trim tanks (to gain as much mogin lead is moved upward to lower the submerged ment with these as possible). Not only is placement Vertical Center of Gravity to a location relative to of lead inside of these tanks usually unnecessary, but the VCB (Vertical Center of Buoyancy) such that the also results in diculty of access to the lead and, as resultant BG exactly meets the established require- mentioned, an increased vertical center of the stabilment. At times, particularly on hulls of greater than ity lead, decreasing its eectiveness. 36 ft diameter and non-circular hulls, the vertical location at which the margin lead is established can Additional Trim Lead on a Stability Limited be quite high, even to the point that it is above the platform extent of the hull. It is important to remember that, as discussed Additional Trim Lead should be added at its accountabove, this is purely a mathematical solution for the ing center (forward or aft at the main axis) as neclead location necessary to exactly meet the stabil- essary to provide any required longitudinal moment
16.9. EQUILIBRIUM
245
On occasions where large payloads or other signicant amounts of material are attached to the platform topside, it is possible that GM (instead of BG) become the limiting stability index. In this case, stability lead is allocated as necessary to lower the VCG to the required distance below the Transverse Metacenter (KMt ) in that condition.
16.9
Equilibrium
In our discussions thus far we have seen how a submarines weight and its displacement or volume are determined and how xed and variable ballast bridge the gap between weights and hydrostatics. The amount of xed ballast carried on paper during design and physically on the boat while in service determines the margin amounts for design changes and for future changes to the boat once delivered. The other part of the gap is lled with variable ballast. This is water that is brought on board or pumped o to compensate for load changes and water density changes. As we have repeated before, the object is to attain neutral buoyancy and zero trim. Assuming that the boat is properly ballasted to begin with (xed ballast), the variable ballast is there to handle changes that may be seen during a mission.
The load to submerge value is the amount of weight and longitudinal moment needed to submerge the 16.9.1 Equilibrium Conditions submarine and achieve neutral buoyancy and zero A complete listing of US Navy design equilibrium trim. A typical calculation sheet is shown in Table conditions can be found in [16], and an abbreviated 16.6 on page 247. one in Table 16.5 on page 247. Other navies have The load to submerge is the dierence between the similar requirements but dierent nomenclature. Condition A weight (light ship plus xed ballast) and
DR AF T
16.9.2 Load to Submerge
not already contributed by the Stability Lead having The titles are descriptive of the extreme loading been moved to its longitudinal extent. An interest- and density conditions that the boat was designed to ing/unfortunate mathematical eect of this account- meet: ing practice in this circumstance is that the addition NSC Normal Surface Condition or Condition of Trim Lead at the main axis (where it is held, as disN. This is the boat fully loaded in normal water cussed earlier) will raise the platforms VCG. Given density (64 lbs/ft3 ). the platform is Stability Limited, it is then necessary to reserve additional lead as Stability Lead to L-2 Light Number 2. This is at the end of reestablish adequate stability criteria. a prolonged patrol with all missiles, torpedoes, provisions, and general stores exhausted. Boat Surfaced Stability Limiting is in heavy density water (64.3 lbs/ft3 ).
H-1 Heavy Number 1. At the end of a fast, unsuccessful patrol. All fuel oil consumed but all weapons are on board. Boat is in light density water (63.6 lbs/ft3 ). H-2 Heavy Number 2. Fully loaded, WRT at required amount, boat is in light density water (63.6 lbs/ft3 ). HF-2 Heavy Forward Number 2. Early in the patrol with maximum probable forward moment. This condition is calculated for heavy and light density water. HA Heavy Aft. Early in the patrol with maximum probable aft moment. This condition is calculated for heavy and light density water.
Other equilibrium conditions can be established depending on the mission requirements of the design, however the intention is to show the normal condition along with the possible extreme conditions in order to determine the total amount of variable ballast required to enable the submarine to meet its mission requirements.
246
the submerged displacement. The load to submerge is calculated for all required water density extremes.
16.9.3
Variable Ballast Calculation
16.9.4
The common tool used to display the equilibrium conditions is called the Equilibrium Polygon. Figure 16.9 on page 249 shows a generic polygon and the equilibrium points that were calculated in Table 16.7.
DR AF T
The Equilibrium Polygon
Now that we know the design equilibrium conditions we need to meet, and have our load to submerge values for all design water densities, we can calculate the needed variable ballast to balance the boat for each condition. Table 16.7 on page 248 shows the summary of the calculations. The rst two columns are the weight and longitudinal moment for all the loads for the equilibrium condition. The next two contain the load to submerge weight and longitudinal moment. The dierence between the two equates to the required variable ballast for each equilibrium condition. For example, in the H-2 condition the boat will need 9 tons of variable water distributed among the variable ballast tanks in such a way as to provide 101 ft-tons of forward moment.
16.9. EQUILIBRIUM
247
Table 16.5: Abbreviated list of equilibrium loads. The complete load matrix can be found in [16]. The load variations represent extreme but possible loading conditions that will fulll mission requirements.
Table 16.6: Load to Submerge Calculation. The weight and longitudinal moment for Condition A (light ship plus xed ballast) are subtracted from the Submerged Displacements for three (or more) water densities. The remainder is the Load to Submerge for that water density.
DR AF T
Condition A Change in Condition A Present Condition A Wt 5830.00 0.00 5830.00 LCG/LCB -6.93 0 -6.93 L-Mom -40400 0 -40400 -70000 0 -70000 -70328 -69563 Submerged Displacement Change in Submerged Displacement Current Sub Displ 64 lbs/ft3 Current Sub Displ 64.3 lbs/ft3 Current Sub Displ 63.6 lbs/ft3 7000.00 0.00 7000.00 7032.81 6956.25 -10.00 0.00 -10.00 -10.00 -10.00 Present Load to Submerge 64 lbs/ft3 Present Load to Submerge 64.3 lbs/ft3 Present Load to Submerge 63.6 lbs/ft3 1170.00 1202.81 1126.25 -29600 -29928 -29163
Water Density (lbs/ft3 ) Fixed Loads Fresh Water Provisions General Stores Lube Oil Oil and Water in Comp Sys Torpedoes Waste Lube Oil WRT Tanks Water in Tubes
NSC 64 Normal Normal Normal Normal Normal Normal Normal None Normal None
L-2 64.3 Normal 50% None None 50% Normal None Normal Full Full
H-1 63.6 Normal Normal 50% 50% 50% Water Normal None Amt Reqd None
H-2 63.6 Normal Normal Normal Normal Normal Normal Normal None Amt Reqd None
HF-2 63.6/64.3 Normal 100-50% 75% 75% 75% Normal None Aft None Fwd Amt Reqd None
HA 63.6/64.3 Normal 100-50% 75% 75% 50-75% FO None Fwd None Aft Full Full
248
Table 16.7: Variable Ballast Calculation. The loads (weight and longitudinal moment) for each equilibrium condition are subtracted from the load to submerge for the appropriate density. The remainder is the amount of variable ballast water required for neutral buoyancy.
DR AF T
NSC L2 64.3 H-1 63.6 H-2 63.6 HF-2 63.6 HF-2 64.3 HA 63.6 HA 64.3 Load Wt 1120.00 1005.81 1108.25 1117.25 1093.81 1093.81 1073.81 1073.81 Load Mom -29000 -25720 -28948 -29062 -31230 -31230 -24962 -24962 LTS Wt 1170.00 1202.81 1126.25 1126.25 1126.25 1202.81 1126.25 1202.81 LTS Mom -29600 -29928 -29163 -29163 -29163 -29928 -29163 -29928 VB Wt 50 197 18 9 32 109 52 129
VB Mom -600 -4208 -215 -101 2067 1302 -4201 -4966
Equilibrium Polygon
L2
200
aft trim
16.9. EQUILIBRIUM
180
(-)fwd trim
160
aux 4
(-)aux 1
140
HA 64.3
120
(-)aux 2
HF-2 64.3
aux 3
100
(-)aux 3
80
aux 2
60
Weight of Variable Ballast (tons)
NSC
HA 63.6
aux 1
40
(-)aux 4
HF-2 63.6
20
H-1 63.6 H-2 63.6
fwd trim
(-)aft trim
-6000
-4000
-2000
2000
4000
6000
8000
10000
12000
DR AF T
Longitudinal moment (ft-tons; +fwd)
Figure 16.9: Generic Equilibrium Polygon.
249
250
CHAPTER 16. SUBMARINE WEIGHT CONTROL, EQUILIBRIUM, AND STABILITY The polygon is used in all phases of a submarines life, from design to disposal, and is the most important tool available to ensure that the submarine design can meet mission requirements and that the inservice boat can continue to perform those missions. It should also be noted that during initial design phases, the equilibrium polygon and conditions are important drivers for ship size. Any increases in variable ballast (polygon outline) that are deemed necessary result in increases to ship length or diameter with all the consequent impacts. Because of this, the variable ballast capacity is always greatly optimized in the paper ship, and unfortunately often is inadequate for in-service submarines. Needless to say, it is nearly impossible to increase variable ballast capacity once the submarine has been built. Therefore it is vitally important for the mass properties engineer or naval architect to ensure that the design equilibrium polygon and equilibrium conditions are precise, accurate, and will satisfy mission requirements.
The polygon itself, the solid outline, represents the total boundary or capability of the variable ballast system. Theoretically, if your calculated equilibrium condition falls within the equilibrium polygon, the variable ballast system will be able to compensate and the boat will be able to achieve neutral buoyancy and zero trim. The polygon is constructed by sequentially lling and emptying the variable ballast tanks and plotting the points. For example, starting at zero moment and zero weight, one lls the forward-most tank, in this case the Forward Trim Tank. The lled tank provides about 20 tons of water and about 2100 fttons of forward moment. From this point we next ll Auxiliary Tanks 1 and 2 and so on until all the tanks are lled. At the top of the polygon the sequence is the same but the amount of each tank is subtracted. This plots the lines going to the left until all the tanks are emptied and we are back at (0,0). Within the polygon the individual equilibrium condition points are plotted. As long as the points are inside, there is a solution for the needed variable ballast. The polygon does not show what tanks are used to produce the solution (as there are an innite number of solutions) but only indicates where the boat is in the polygon and whether a solution is possible. If a point lies outside of the polygon it means that a variable ballast solution is not present and that the variable ballast system is not capable of balancing the boat. If the point is below the lowest point of the polygon it means that there is insucient water on board to pump o to meet neutral buoyancy. In this case (assuming there are no other forces; i.e., hydrodynamic lift), the boat would sink. Conversely, if the point is above the highest point of the polygon, there is insucient volume in the variable ballast system to bring on water to balance the boat. In this case the boat will oat up to the surface. If the point is between the nadir and apex of the polygon but outside the boundary, then there is enough variable ballast to compensate for weight, but not moment. Again, assuming there are no other forces acting on the boat, this would mean that neutral buoyancy could be achieved but not zero trim; the boat could oat in the water layer but would have a forward or aft trim.
DR AF T
16.10 Stability
16.10.1
Equally as important as the equilibrium polygon, though less complicated, is the stability of the submarine. There are four areas of stability consideration for a modern navy submarine, three are general requirements and one is specic to the design. These are intact stability surfaced and submerged, stability while trimming down (or emerging), damaged stability (mainly longitudinal stability), and stability for ice breakthrough which is only applicable to Arctic capable submarines.
Surfaced Stability
While a submarine is on the surface, it is subject to the same kind of forces and environments as a surface ship, and the calculation of stability is similar to a surface ship. Figure 16.10 shows a typical submarine upright on the surface and the force lines of weight and buoyancy when the boat is heeled to starboard. What should be immediately apparent in this gure is that
16.10.
STABILITY
251
submarine. Our following discussion will mainly reect the latter. For a surface ship there are a number of stability criteria to apply to the design, the primary intact one is for the eect of wind and waves on the ship. The submarine surface stability criteria did, indeed, start out this way in the early days when the submarine where , theta, is the angle of inclination. For a was a submersible ship and spent most of its life on round hull form, this equation is a very close approx- the surface. imation throughout the range of stability3 . The advent of nuclear powered submarines and the use of body of revolution hull forms changed the criteria dramatically. Nuclear power meant that now the Surface Stability Criteria submarines spent most of their lives underwater and The question of sucient stability is important and thus would not be exposed to storms at sea. Also, the answer varies for the type of submarine in ques- the low prole of the submarines meant that there tion, its missions, and the environment for which it was less area on which the wind could exert a force. was designed. Naturally, the criteria or limits for Thus the surface ship criteria for high winds and seas a small, coastal, conventionally powered submarine could be relaxed. will dier from those for an ocean-going nuclear naval The body of revolution hull form changed the 2 It could also be argued that for a round hull the center shape of the righting arm curve. Figure 16.11 shows of gravity moves to the left and the center of buoyancy stays two generic righting arm curves for a surface ship where it is. Since we describe the center of buoyancy moving and a submarine. The surface ship curve rises to a for surface ships, we will use that description here. 3 This will depend on number and size of appendages and high maximum and then decreases sharply. The actual range of stability is less than is shown and is freeoods and how these interact with the waterplane.
DR AF T
M G
Z
the transverse metacenter (M in the gure) is signicantly lower than what would be seen in a typical surface ship. This is due to the geometry of the submarinethe circular cross-section. In the upright condition, the buoyant force acts upward and the weight acts downward, and the force lines are collinear. As the boat heels, the force lines separate creating a righting couple. In this case, the boat heels to starboard and the center of buoyancy moves to the right of the center of gravity2 . This creates a moment which is acting against the heeling force; a moment that is trying to restore the boat to its original upright equilibrium. Because of the low metacentric height and the relatively high center of gravity (G in the gure), the stability of a submarine like this one is relatively low, as indicated by the small moment arm created when the boat heels and represented in the gure by line GZ. As small as the initial stability is, it is positive and will remain positive as long as G falls below M . If G rises above M , then the moment created would work with the heeling forces and cause the boat to capsize. Typically, the measure of submarine surface stability is then GM t where the t indicates transverse. The righting arm (moment arm between G and B) is described by: RA = GM sin() (16.1)
Figure 16.10: Surfaced submarine stability diagram.
252

Righting Arm Comparison
5
Surface Ship Righting Arm (ft) 3
Figure 16.11: Righting arm comparison of a typical surface ship and body of revolution hull submarine. Note that the submarines righting arm curve is ever-increasing to 90 while the surface ships peaks higher and decreases sharply.
normally a function of downooding areas or margin line immersion. For the submarine, the maximum is much less than the surface ships but the range of stability is far greater. The shape of a body of revolution hull form righting arm curve is essentially a sine curve (from Equation 16.1) which is ever-increasing to 90 and is positive to 179.9 . With this large range of stability, 9 the peak or maximum righting arm does not have to be as large as for surface ships. It follows that the GM t also doesnt have to be as large. For most naval submarines, the surface ship criteria is a GM limit of around 1 foot (0.3048 meter). Calculation of GM and BG
Table 16.8 shows the general way that the Condition N Surface and Condition N Submerged are calculated, including the calculation for GM and BG 16.10.2 Submerged Stability which are used to evaluate the submarines stability. What is not shown in the table is the sequence of A submerged submarine must also have stability and the calculation which is not exactly straightforward, a stability criteria to meet. With submergence the 4 On the other hand, for a boat in equilibrium and even though it follows our previous discussions on weight, volume and equilibrium. trim, the LCG and LCB submerged will be the same value
DR AF T
Submarine 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 Heel Angle (degrees)
Generally, the most of the values in the table are known (at least for weight and longitudinal moment) and are used to nd the value for variable ballast. That is, we have the submerged displacement and longitudinal center of buoyancy from the D&O curves (volume side); the Condition A (light ship) weight and centers (weight side); set values for loads, main ballast tank residual water, and MBT capacity. Subtracting the MBT water from the submerged displacement gives us the Condition N surface value. Subtract Condition A, loads, and residual water values from Condition N surface gives us the required variable ballast amount. This is also done for the required longitudinal moment for the variable ballast. Once the amount and longitudinal moment of the required variable ballast is known, the associated vertical moment and vertical moment of free surface is calculated and placed in the spreadsheet. Then the vertical moments are added down to nd the total moment for both the surface and submerged conditions. It should be noted that the submerged displacement in Table 16.8 has both a KG and a KB and they are not the same4 . The KG comes from the addition of weight moments while the KB is a hydrostatic property (like KM) that is determined from volume calculations. One must remember about the separation of weight and volume and understand that weight changes must be applied to the KG, and volume changes to the KB. This has been the cause of numerous errors in the calculation of BG. Table 16.8 includes columns for transverse center and transverse moment even though they are zero. In the past it was the belief that transverse centers and moments did not need to be calculated or tracked for submarines since they tended to be highly symmetrical. This is no longer the rule, and all submarines designs should include transverse information just like surface ships.
16.10.
STABILITY Weight 5830.00 300.00 50.00 20.00 6200.00 800.00 KG 15.84 12.00 5.00 5.00 15.54 17.26 V-Mom 92373 3600 250 100 96323 13808 FSM 0.00 100 180 30 310 0 LCG -6.93 50.00 -12.00 10.00 -9.00 -17.75 L-Mom -40400 -15000 -600 200 -55800 -14200 TCG 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 T-Mom 0 0 0 0 0 0
253
Condition A Variable Load Variable Ballast Residual Water Condition N Surf MBT Water Deduct Residual FSM Condition N Sub
DR AF T
7000.00 KM: FSa : KG: GM: 15.73 16.70 0.05 15.54 1.11 110131 (D&O) (-) (-) (=) -30 280 KB: FS: KG: BG: -10.00 16.67 0.04 15.73 0.90 -70000 (D&O) (-) (-) (=) 0.00
Table 16.8: Calculation of Condition N
a This
free surface correction is the total free surface moment divided by the Condition N displacement:
310/6200
= 0.05 ft
metacentric height disappears5 and the stability is measured simply by the distance between B and G: BGt . Figure 16.12 shows the forces acting on the submerged submarine. Notice that the buoyancy (B) has risen above the center of gravity (G) and now the righting arm is dened by the BG: RA = BGsin()
(16.2)
Just like in the surfaced condition, the righting arm curve is close to sinusoidal and provides a large range of positive stability. Submerged Stability Criteria
Since the only change to the boat between surfaced and submerged is the lling of the main ballast tanks (MBT), the value for the BG is directly related to the value for the GM . Though the boat is now isolated from most of the worst of the environment6 adequate BG is required to counter hydrodynamic eects from submerged maneuvering. This can be dicult
5 Since
Figure 16.12: Submerged submarine stability diagram.
the metacentric height is a function of the waterplane
geometry. 6 Though at periscope depth heavy seas will still produce heeling moments and rolls
to quantify and directly relate to a BG limit since a myriad of other forces come into play once the boat is moving through the water. Another thing that should be understood is that
254
CHAPTER 16. SUBMARINE WEIGHT CONTROL, EQUILIBRIUM, AND STABILITY This region would also be exacerbated by the hydrostatic properties of the hullform design in that the KM drops quickly as the draft increases. Criteria for Trimming Down Stability
7 The only real dierence being between the transverse free surface moments of the variable ballast tanks and the longitudinal free surface moments. 8 These were called saddle tanks and many pre-WWII and earlier boats were so designed.
DR AF T
Height (Ft ABL) 10.0 10.5 11.0 11.5 12.0 12.5 13.0
The criteria for this transition period stems from adverse experiences with the older submarines with the saddle tanks. Diving or surfacing in heavy weather could produce large rolls. Later submarines were designed to improve the stability of this region and generally would not allow the stability to become negative. Though the move to the body of revolution hullform and forward and aft main 16.10.3 Stability While Trimming ballast tanks improved this situation automatically, there is still usually a requirement for some positive Down stability limit for this region. Weve discussed surfaced stability, and submerged Figure 16.13 shows the stability characteristics for stability, but what about the period between those? an early US Navy submarine and Figure 16.14 shows This is the transition period and is called trimming this for a new, generic submarine with a round crossdown or, going the other way, emerging. section hull and forward and aft main ballast tanks. While a submarine is trimming down and going One can see that in the modern submarine the stabilfrom a surface ship to a submerged one, all the cen- ity actually improves in the same region that used to ters of gravity and buoyancy are moving and thus the have little to know stability. This is due to the main forces and how they are action on the boat are chang- ballast tank water which keeps the boats center of ing. Of most importance is how the vertical center gravity low during the transition, and the relatively of gravity and the vertical center of buoyancy are constant KM and KB due to the hullform. changing in relation to each other, and how quickly SS 302 Stability while Trimming Down the transverse metacenter disappears. From Figure 16.12 one can see that the center of buoyancy must rise above the center of gravity of the boat is to have positive submerged buoyancy. In KM early boats this transition caused a short period of low or negative stability. This was partly due to the KB conguration of the main ballast tanks which were Cond N GM wrapped around the hull8 . When these tanks were lling, the center of gravity of the boat would rise Min GM KG quickly even as the center of buoyancy was also rising. The KG would eventually drop again, but not before the boat had to pass through this low or negative 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 stability region. Draft (ft ABL)
for most approximations, the BGt equals the BGl . That is, the submerged transverse stability is about equal to the submerged longitudinal stability7 . Thus the BG must be sucient to counter both submerged rolling moments and pitching moments. In real life, often the BG limit is a consequence of the GM limit, and often one of the limits will protect the other. For instance, for some submarines the BG is always lower than the GM but the limit for both are the same. Thus the actual BG will approach the BG limit sooner than the GM will approach the GM limit. It is important when tracking ships that the correct limit is being watched.
Figure 16.13: SS 302 Stability while trimming down.
16.10.
STABILITY
SSN Stability while Trimming Down
255
17.0
M
KM 16.5 KB
Height (Ft ABL)
16.0
Cond N GM KG
Cond N BG
26
27
Figure 16.14: SSN Stability while trimming down.
16.10.4
As noted in the previous section on submerged stability, the submerged BGt approximates the BGl or longitudinal BG. Thus longitudinal stability usually connotes a surfaced submarine. Just like the transverse case, there is a longitudinal metacenter that is a function of the waterplane area and is normally far greater than the transverse metacenter (see Figure 16.15). This normally provides the required resistance to trimming moments due to the environment and surfaced maneuvering. Though the submarine has high initial longitudinal stability, it does have low reserve buoyancy and thus low freeboard. This, along with the highly faired hullform means that the waterplane area can change rapidly with draft and/or with trim changes. Generally, two scenarios are examined: 1) Damage to main ballast tanks which decreases reserve buoyancy (by loss of buoyancy) and increases trim; and 2) Immediately after the submarine has done an emergency ascent due to internal ooding. This decreases reserve buoyancy (by added weight) and increases trim. Normally the more severe conditions result from aft damage or ooding, but this is a function of the hull design. Figure 16.16 shows our generic submarine in the normal surface condition and with various degrees of
DR AF T
B1 B
28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 Draft (ft ABL)
15.0
15.5
Figure 16.15: Submarine Longitudinal Metacenter.
trim. One can see that even at a 5 trim angle, the waterplane area has been signicantly reduced which, in turn, reduces the longitudinal righting arm.
Longitudinal Stability
1 5
15
35
Figure 16.16: Submarine Longitudinal Stability.
Figure 16.17 shows an example of the shape of the longitudinal righting arm curve for a submarine. The shape shows that the initial stability is high but at around 5 to 7 the curve starts to atten out. This indicates that increases in trim angle past this point creates very little increase in righting arm. Thus if the trimming moment does not decrease, there is not enough restoring moment to keep the boat from experiencing very large trim angles from which it may
256

Submarine Longitudinal Righting Arms
Ice
1.5
Righting Arm (ft)
1.0
Figure 16.17: Submarine Longitudinal Righting Arms.
not be able to recover. This is termed a loss of longitudinal stability. The shape of the righting arm curve also indicates that the transition from positive to negative stability may be quite rapid and have few warning signs except for the increase in trim. Thought this is certainly a potential risk for a submarine, there are currently no documented cases of loss of longitudinal stability for a modern submarine, and no criteria has yet been established. However, limiting ooding water and/or damage to MBTs is known and used to calculate risk to the boat.
gous to a grounding situation in that the force acting on the sail from the ice (equal to the excess buoyancy) causes the vertical center of gravity of the boat to rise. It is possible to add enough buoyancy so that the center of gravity rises above the center of buoyancy, thereby causing a loss of transverse stability. 16.10.5 Stability Under Ice In order to prevent this from happening, most ArcStability under the ice is a unique criteria and is, tic capable submarines have limits of how much exobviously, only applicable to those submarines that cess buoyancy they can use to try to breakthrough. have been designed to operate in the Arctic and sur- These limits ensure that there is always positive staface through solid ice cover. bility while up against the ice. They also limit the In general, the ice-breakthrough evolution entails thickness of the ice that the submarine can break using positive buoyancy to rise up to the ice with through, and they are often used as a criteria for the enough velocity to crack it, then adding more buoy- structural design of the sail. ancy to shoulder up through the ice. The risk in this evolution is if the boat doesnt crack through the ice. In that case, the situation can 16.11 Service Life be something like that shown in Figure 16.18 where there is positive buoyancy and the sail or superstruc- Even more so than with a surface ship, it is vitally ture of the boat is up against the ice. This is analo- important that changes to a submarine be carefully
DR AF T
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 Trim Angle (degrees)
0.0
0.5
Figure 16.18: Stability Under Ice.
16.11.
SERVICE LIFE
257
DR AF T
tracked throughout its service life. These changes can be: known, authorized alterations which augment or upgrade systems; temporary alterations; load changes; unknown changes (e.g., ratpacking of crew eects and spare parts); and ballast changes due to new mission requirements. As discussed in Section 16.9, the lead ballast on board the submarine is used to ensure adequate stability (stability lead), but also represents the amount of growth possible for the life of the boat. In other words,
an SRA is a Selected Restricted Availability. This is usually a 60 to 90 day availability that usually includes a short dry-docking period. A DMP is a Depot Maintenance Period which usually indicates a nine to twelve month availability and a long dry-docking period. An ROH is a refueling overhaul and is usually longer than twelve months with a long dry-docking period. The type of availability is important for several reasons. Generally, the longer the availability, the greater number of alterations are being installed and more weight is being added to the boat. Since most of Lead Ballast = Service Lif e M argin the accessible lead ballast available for compensation is located in the main ballast tanks, the long dry= Growth P otential docking period within the availability readily allows Since the weight and displacement of a submarine for lead removal and relocation. must always remain in balance, any weight added to Shorter availabilities can create scheduling probthe boat must be compensated for by the removal lems due to short dry-docking periods and interferof lead ballast (or equipment). It follows that any ence between other MBT work and lead ballast revolume added to the boat must be compensated by moval. the addition of lead ballast (if the displacement of For availabilities that do not have a dry-docking, that volume is greater than its weightif it oats, there are several options for reballasting: lead would have to be added, if it sinks, then lead Use internal lead this is the easiest option would have to be removed). though it is limited in practicality due to relIn actuality, small changes to the submarine can atively low amounts of accessible internal lead9 usually be accommodated with variable ballast. Genand interference with other work being done on erally there is some room in the equilibrium polygon the boat during the availability. before the boundary is reached, and small changes between regular maintenance periods can be accepted Pre-stage internal lead this requires the relocaand compensation deferred until later. tion of external, MBT lead to internal locations Whether the change is small or large, it must be where it is removed during the waterborne availrecorded and eventually compensated for. Keeping ability as needed. This requires signicant pretrack of these changes is a challenge for any weight enplanning and also has the interference problems. gineer. Management of the weight and displacement changes is part of the normal maintenance process Restrict ship loads this is not a palatable opand includes experiments to re-set baselines, rebaltion for the operators but it is a cost-eective lastings to re-balance the submarines, and reports to way of accommodating changes without removdocument all the changes. ing lead ballast. This section will sketch out the general process In addition to adjusting lead ballast for known alterused by the U.S. Navy. ations that are being installed during the availability, ballasting must also take into account known changes 16.11.1 Availabilities that have happened outside of availabilities (pierside) The maintenance periods for submarines are called 9 Most internal lead is installed in the early stages of conavailabilities and have a slew of acronyms denoting struction and is placed low in the boat where it is relatively the type and duration of the period. For example, inaccessible but will have the greatest benet to stability.
258
CHAPTER 16. SUBMARINE WEIGHT CONTROL, EQUILIBRIUM, AND STABILITY Like the inclining experiment, the trim dive requires a full ship inventory at the time of the dive including a water sample. The dive itself requires that the submarine dive to a depth where it is relatively free from surface wave and current action and fully within a density layer10 . Once at the right depth, the boat is slowed as close as possible to zero speed through the water and the variable ballast tanks are adjusted to achieve neutral buoyancy and zero trim. A water sample is taken and the temperature and density recorded. The submarine then returns to port where water is metered into the variable ballast tanks to precisely determine the amount11 . The data from the trim dive provides the exact load to submerge at that time, with that loading, and oating in that particular density water. This data is corrected back to standard water and loads, and is combined with the inclining experiment data (if one was done) to complete the new weight and stability baseline for the submarine. Generally, the trim dive is performed prior to major availabilities, prior to some minor availabilities, after major availabilities (to conrm the weight and ballast changes), and anytime the boat feels that their ballasting is not correct. This trim dive should not be confused with periodic trim dives that are accomplished by the crew to ensure that their variable ballast condition is accurate. This trim dive is normally performed at a low speed and does not include an inventory or water sample and is not used to evaluate the permanent ballasting of the boat. Often the term, all stop trim dive, is used to distinguish the naval architects (or weight engineers) experiment from the ships procedure. The trim dive is performed much more frequently than the inclining experiment. In general, an inclining experiment is only done at delivery and when large weight and displacement alterations are installed which greatly aect the hydrostatic charac10 It is possible for the submarine to oat on an interface between water layers of dierent densities due to temperature or salinity or both. This normally invalidates the experiment. 11 The onboard tank level indicators (TLI) or the totalizers are generally not considered accurate enough for this experiment.
Inclining Experiment
The inclining experiment for a submarine is very similar to one for a surface ship described in Chapter 13, with a few unique requirements. Just like the surface ship experiment, the purpose of the submarine inclining is to determine the vertical and longitudinal centers of gravity of the ship and thereby determine whether the stability is adequate. Figure 16.19 shows a cartoon of the inclining experiment calculations and setup. Due to the close quarters in a submarine, generally an external track or a set of foundations are used to hold the inclining weights. Also because of the internal arrangements, pendulums are not practical and usually some type of inclinometer is used instead. The inventory of the boat is conducted in a similar manner to a surface ship. Prior to reading the drafts on a submarine, a low-pressure blow is initiated to ensure that all the MBTsare blown down to the known residual water level. After the drafts are read, weights are moved and angle tangent readings are taken to produce a plot of tangents. From the inventory, the draft mark readings, and the plot of tangents, a new light ship condition is calculated including a new light ship KG. It should be noted that this is only one half of the new baseline for the submarine. The submerged displacement and the longitudinal center of gravity (submerged) must be determined with a trim dive. Trim Dive
The idea behind the trim dive is to precisely determine the load to submerge weight and longitudinal moment.
DR AF T
as well as unaccounted for changes that have not been documented. For major availabilities such as overhauls, it is common to try to re-establish submarine weight and stability baselines by quantifying these other changes. This is done by performing inclining experiments and trim dives prior to the start of the availability and during sea trials after the availability.
16.11.
SERVICE LIFE
259
Figure 16.19: Submarine Inclining Experiment calculation.
16.11.2
Reporting requirements for in-service submarines vary for the type of submarine and the particular Navys procedures. Commercial submarines are relatively rare and Inclining Experiment Part II This report contains all the data from the trim dive experiment and uses the results from Part I to calculate the U.S. Navy Submarines Condition N (full load) Surface and Submerged For U.S. Navy submarines, the in-service weight reconditions and the equilibrium polygon points. porting process is well structured and includes the Data sheets include: Load to Submerge Deterfollowing types of reports: mination; Condition A KG Calculation; Summary of Permanent Ballast; Details of PermaInclining Experiment Part I This report connent Ballast; Changes to Condition A During tains all the data from the inclining experiment the Availability; Details of Loads on board durand the calculations used to determine the light ing the Trim Dive; Condition A, N, and N Sub-
DR
Reporting Requirements
teristics of the submarine. Trim dives, on the other hand, are done periodically to ensure that the equilibrium conditions are within the polygon.
AF
ship weight and centers of gravity of the submarine. Data sheets include: Condition A and A-1; Ship As-Inclined Condition; Summary of Permanent Ballast; Details of Permanent Ballast; Details of Weight to Deduct; Details of Weight to Complete; Details of Weight to Relocate; Free Surface Moment at time of Inclining; Weight Movements; Plot of Tangents; and General Notes.
260
Reballasting Report This report is used to propose ballast changes for an upcoming availability. This report is often combined with the trim dive report and should contain most of the data sheets shown for Part II.
Final Stability Report This report is compiled after an availability and reects the new baseline of the boat with all known changes, all ballast changes, and all unknown weight changes that were identied from the incoming and outgoing (if applicable) trim dive experiments. Essentially, this report presents the new weight and stability baseline for the boat as it comes out of the availability. Future calculations will use this report as their basis. This report should contain all the same data sheets as a Part II.
12 This calculation is normally done only for the delivery report.
DR AF T
merged pages showing stability and draft calcu- Sea Trial Loads and Variable Ballast Report This is a special report that is submitted at lations; Variable Ballast in Condition N; Sumthe end of major availabilities to calculate the mary of Condition N Loads; Details of Conanticipated variable ballast needed to submerge dition N Loads; Details of Main Ballast Tank the boat during the rst sea trial. Typically, a Capacities; Details of Residual Water Amounts; submarine going out on sea trials will be lightly Variable Ballast Tank Capacities; Equilibrium loaded (few weapons, stores, etc. ) and this Polygon; Details of Equilibrium Polygon Loads; report is used to ensure that it will be able to Fixed Loads for Equilibrium Conditions; Misdive successfully. The report is normally based cellaneous Load Calculations; Stability While upon a displacement check experiment which Trimming Down12 ; and General Notes. is similar to an inclining experiment but which Trim Dive Report This report contains the data does not entail weight movements. The load to from the trim dive experiment and calculates submerge is calculated from the inventory and the Condition N, N submerged, and equilibrium draft mark readings. The report also includes polygon for the current boat without including a calculation of load to submerge based on any future changes. The report is abbreviated the incoming condition of the boat and all the from Part II and generally contains: Load to known changes during the availability. Submerge Determination; Condition A KG CalData sheets for this report include: Calculations culation; Summary of Permanent Ballast; Deof Variable Ballast by Two Methods; Details of tails of Permanent Ballast; Details of Loads on Loads during Displacement Check; Details of board during the Trim Dive; Condition A, N, Anticipated Sea Trial Loads; Changes During and N Submerged pages showing stability and Availability; Equilibrium Polygon showing the draft calculations; Variable Ballast in Condition two calculated points; and General Notes. N; Summary of Condition N Loads; Equilibrium Polygon; Details of Equilibrium Polygon Loads; Fixed Loads for Equilibrium Conditions; Miscellaneous Load Calculations; and General Notes.
16.12.
EXAMPLE PROBLEMS
261
16.12
16.12.1
Example Problems
Eect of Added Weight on the Equilibrium Polygon
This example shows how to visualize and calculate the eect of an added permanent weight to a submarines position in the equilibrium polygon. Problem:
A ship alteration is to be installed on the submarine with the initial conditions as shown in the table. The added weight is 8.42 tons at a height of 16.23 feet above the keel, 80.34 feet fwd of midships, and on centerline. The longitudinal reference is midships, with aft positive. a) Determine the general eect of the weight on the equilibrium polygon by inspection. b) Calculate the new H-2 and NSC points and plot them on the polygon. c) Determine the amount and location of lead ballast to remove to compensate for the added weight (lead is available in MBT 2 at 136.25 feet forward and MBT 4 at 118.30 feet aft). Initial Conditions Description Weight Long. Condition A 5830.00 Condition N Sub 7000.00 NSC Loads 1120.00 H-2 Loads 1117.25
Process
Since this is an added weight that is internal to the hull, we dont need to worry about a volume change or a change to the known hydrostatics of the submarine. In other words, the submerged displacement of the submarine will not change. This is a ship alteration which means that it is a permanent change to the ship. Therefore the weight and moments need to be added to (Condition A) to determine a new Condition A. After that, a new load to submerge can be calculated. The dierence between the new load to submerge and the loads for NSC and H-2 will equal the new weight and moment of the variable ballast water, or the location of the new equilibrium polygon points. First one should look at the current polygon and determine, by inspection, about where the new points will be. This will aid in making sure signs are correct in the subsequent calculation. Finally, a calculation is performed for the amount of lead ballast removed from main ballast tanks to compensate for the weight change and bring the equilibrium points back to where they were. Visualization
The initial equilibrium polygon is shown in Figure 16.20. Weight is being added to the submarine, which means that it will require less variable ballast water to achieve neutral buoyancy. This means that the equilibrium points will move down.
DR AF T
Mom. -40400 -70000 -29000 -29062
Table 16.9: Initial Conditions
262
Equilibrium Polygon
200 180 (-)fwd trim aux 4
L2
aft trim
DR AF T
160 140 120 100 (-)aux 1
HA 64.3
(-)aux 2
HF-2 64.3
aux 3
(-)aux 3
80 60 40 20 0
aux 2
NSC
HA 63.6
aux 1
(-)aux 4
HF-2 63.6
H-1 63.6 H-2 63.6
fwd trim
(-)aft trim
-6000
-4000
-2000
2000
4000
6000
8000
10000
12000
The weight will be added forward of midships. This means that the submarine will need less variable water forward of midships. Thus the points will also move aft in the polygon. The two gures below may help in visualizing how points move when weight is added or removed. Direction points move d d d Added Wt Added Wt Fwd Aft Removed Wt Removed Wt Fwd Aft s d d d Direction points move
So based on this we would expect that the points will move down and aft in the polygon.
Figure 16.20: Initial equilibrium polygon
16.12.
EXAMPLE PROBLEMS
263
Calculating the new Condition A Calculating the new Condition A is simply a matter of adding the weights and moments of the alteration to the old Condition A. Since we are only dealing with the equilibrium polygon, the only moment we are interested in is the longitudinal one.13 The easiest way to calculate these changes is to use a spreadsheet-like table: 1 2 3 4
Notice that the new longitudinal center was found by adding the column of moments and then dividing the total longitudinal moment by the weight of the new Condition A. Centers of gravity must never be directly added or subtracted. Calculating the Load to Submerge
Now that we have our new Condition A, we can calculate the new Loads to Submerge. Remember that the load to submerge is the dierence between the submerged displacement and Condition A for each water density needed. Here we will calculate it for all three water densities by rst multiplying the submerged displacement by the ratio of the water densities: sub@64 = 7000.00 (16.3) (16.4)
DR AF T
Condition A Alteration New Condition A
Table 16.10: Calculation of New Condition A
b Weight 5830.00 8.42 5838.42
c KG
d V-Mom
e LCG -6.93 -80.34 -7.04
f L-Mom -40400 -676 -41076
g TCG
h T-Mom
sub@63.6 = 7000.00 = 6956.25
63.6 64
sub@64.3 = 7000.00 = 7032.81
64.3 64
(16.5)
And then subtracting the Condition A from each submerged displacement as shown in Table 16.11. Calculating New Equilibrium Points
Next we can calculate the new equilibrium points H-2 and NSC by using the new loads to submerge and subtracting the loads for each condition that were given (see Table 16.12. Finally we plot these new points on the equilibrium polygon. The squares are the new points and the lines indicate the movement from the original position. Notice that the points did move down and aft as we predicted when we rst looked at the polygon.
13 Normally this kind of calculation would appear in a stability report and the vertical and transverse moments would be calculated as well.
264
a 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Condition A Alteration New Condition A
DR AF T
Submerged Displ @ 64 lb/f t3 Submerged Displ @ 63.6 lb/f t3 Submerged Displ @ 64.3 lb/f t3 LTS @ 64 lb/f t3 LTS @ 63.6 lb/f t3 LTS @ 64.3 lb/f t3 7000.00 6956.25 7032.81 -10.00 -10.00 -10.00 -70000 -69563 -70328 1161.58 1117.83 1194.39 -28924 -28487 -29252
Table 16.11: Calculating new loads to submerge
b Weight 5830.00 8.42 5838.42
c KG
d V-Mom
e LCG -6.93 -80.34 -7.04
f L-Mom -40400 -676 -41076
g TCG
h T-Mom
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
Condition A Alteration New Condition A
b Weight 5830.00 8.42 5838.42 7000.00 6956.25 7032.81
c KG
d V-Mom
e LCG -6.93 -80.34 -7.04 -10.00 -10.00 -10.00
f L-Mom -40400 -676 -41076 -70000 -69563 -70328
g TCG
h T-Mom
Submerged Displ @ 64 lb/f t3 Submerged Displ @ 63.6 lb/f t3 Submerged Displ @ 64.3 lb/f t3 LTS @ 64 lb/f t3 LTS @ 63.6 lb/f t3 LTS @ 64.3 lb/f t3 NSC Load New NSC Point H-2 Load New H-2 Point
1161.58 1117.83 1194.39
-28924 -28487 -29252
1120.00 41.58
-29000 76
1117.25 0.58
-29062 575
Table 16.12: Calculating new equilibrium points
16.12.
EXAMPLE PROBLEMS
265
200 180
160 140 120 100 80 60 40 20 0
DR AF T
Equilibrium Polygon
L2
aft trim
(-)fwd trim
aux 4
(-)aux 1
HA 64.3
(-)aux 2
HF-2 64.3
aux 3
(-)aux 3
aux 2
NSC
HA 63.6
aux 1
(-)aux 4
HF-2 63.6
H-1 63.6 H-2 63.6
fwd trim
(-)aft trim
-6000
-4000
-2000
2000
4000
6000
8000
10000
12000
Figure 16.21: New equilibrium polygon
266
Lead Ballast Compensation Since the new H-2 point is outside the boundary of the equilibrium polygon, permanent ballast should be removed to compensate for the added weight of the shipalt. How much ballast is removed and from where will depend on the amount and locations for the current permanent ballast on board. In this case it was stated that lead is available in MBT 2 at 136.25 feet forward and MBT 4 at 118.3 feet aft. A rst estimate of lead to remove can be calculated by equating the amount and moment of the lead to the weight increase14 :
DR AF T
P bwt = Altwt (1.0) P bwt = 8.42 (1.0) P bwt = 8.42 tons P bmom = 1 (Altwt Altlmom ) P bmom = 1 (8.42 80.34) P bmom = 676 foot-tons Let x = MBT2, y = MBT4 x + y = P bwt x + y = 8.42 y = x 8.42 136.25 x 118.30 y = P bmom 136.25x 118.30y = 676 136.25x 118.30(x 8.42) = 676 136.25x (118.30x 996) = 676 254.55x + 996 = 676 254.55x = 1672 x = 6.57 tons y = x 8.42 y = 1.85 tons
(16.6)
(16.7)
And then calculate how much lead will come out of each MBT by using two equations and two unknowns and substitution:
(16.8)
(16.9)
14 Note that the actual weight of lead ballast removed will have to take into account the change in main ballast tank water that the lead displaces. Normally one needs to remove about 10% more lead than the weight of the alteration. For a rst cut, using the same weight is okay
16.12.
EXAMPLE PROBLEMS
267
So our rst cut is to remove 6.57 tons of lead from MBT 2 and 1.85 tons from MBT 4. Since we are dealing with weight removal and the reference point for longitudinal moments is midship, it is always best to check the results as it is easy to confuse signs.15 (136.25 6.57) (118.30 1.85) = 676 ft-tons This checks. For a real reballasting, the values would be further rened based on actual lead bin arrangements and actual alteration return weights. After that, a new baseline would be developed including the weights and all moments of the alteration and lead ballast changes.
15 Many
ship designs now use the forward perpendicular as the reference point to reduce sign errors.
DR AF T
268
DR AF T
Chapter 17
Other Applications of Mass Properties Engineering

17.1 Oshore Units
by Andy Breuer
DR
269
This generic term applies to any vessel aected to the exploration and production of mineral resources at sea. Unless specially indicated, the mineral resource is Oil. Oshore operations provide about 7% of the 80 million barrels of oils produced worldwide. All oshore units and oating installations are subject to the same weight control standards applicable to conventional vessels. The dierent nature of their service, hull form, and sequence of construction required modied procedures to provide the same level of reliability to the weight control on these unique structures These units can be classied in one of three groups: 1. Service
2. Drilling
3. Production
Many of the service vessels are ship-shaped and weight control is similar to that of conventional merchant vessels. This section is mostly focused on oshore units that have unusual hulls or are subject to frequent weight changes and such weight growth cannot be veried by way of light ship survey or stability tests. Oshore units oer a number of special challenges to weight control. Some of these unique aspects are:
AF
Unusual hull form.
High light ship weight / displacement ratio.
Extended service life; many of those built in the 60s and most of those built in the 70s or more recent, remain in operation. Frequent changes of industrial equipment onboard. The technology of the industrial operations to which these units are aected evolves rapidly and changes are made to maintain competitive Very high service rate. Most drilling units are hired on the basis of a day-rate. Because this can range from 40, 000 to 400, 000 per day, withdrawing a unit from service for a light ship survey is only done under compelling circumstances. Mooring or supported by the sea bed for extended periods. Because light ship surveys must be with the hull oating freely, the availability for such a survey is not frequent Large number of onboard equipment that do not t well into the denition of those that are part (or not) of the light ship. The most signicant of these is the position mooring lines. A drillship or a column stabilized unit can be tted with 8 to 12 mooring lines, each several thousand feet long made of that can add to several thousand tons
270
CHAPTER 17. OTHER APPLICATIONS OF MASS PROPERTIES ENGINEERING in weight. All this equipment must be identied and it normal position established.
17.1.1
Unusual hull forms
1. Column Stabilized 2. Self-elevating 3. Surface type
17.1.2
Column stabilized units, also known as semisubmersibles are usually the most sensitive to accurate determination of the light ship weight and center of gravity. These units are composed by two or more lower hullsoften called pontoonswith four or more columns. These units, as most drilling and production units, oer three modes of operation; Transit, Normal Operations, and Storm Survival. Usually, semi-submersibles are assigned drafts for each of the three modes of operation. The transit draft (see Figure 17.1) is selected at the lightest loading condition to allow fast and economical towing to location possible. Most often, this draft allows the hull to oat on the pontoon and the columns and the pontoon deck remain above the waterplane. The Normal operations draft (see Figure 17.2) is selected with the deck relatively close to the water and is selected to give the unit the best motion characteristic to secure ecient operations. The storm survival draft is selected to ensure that the highest expected wave will pass with clearance between the wave crest and the deck. The draft changes between modes of operation are mostly achieved by way of ballast. Because these units have water planes that change drastically as the draft changes, the ballasting/de-ballasting process is closely monitored. Frequently, such units change from a highly stable condition in the transit mode to a very precarious one as the pontoon deck is submerged. Most designs follow the stability criteria
DR AF T
Column Stabilized
Based on the hull shape, oshore units are classied in three groups:
Figure 17.1: A semi-submersible in transit draft. Fig. 0- A semi-
submersible in transit mode
Figure 17.2: A semi-submersible at operating draft. Fig. 0 Semi-submersible at
operating draft
17.1. OFFSHORE UNITS
271
Weight Control Just as any other vessel, Owners incorporate a large number of tools, spare and supplies after the unit is delivered. The control and record of this weight growth is particularly important in semi-submersibles. Almost without exception, the weight growth is centered above Given the characteristics above, stability tests the deck at the drill oor. This increase of weight must be carried at carefully selected drafts, in has a double eect on the often limiting stability: way of the columns, to avoid sudden changes in the waterplane as the unit is inclined. Often, 1. The weight is incorporated above the center the selected waterplane is at a deep draft that of gravity and, demands an unusually big water depth. This often forces the test to be carried out oshore or 2. The increase in weight is done at the exat the hole under a dry-dock. pense of less ballast placed in the lower tanks in the hull. Draft readings Because the test is carried out with the waterline on the columns, the conventional Given the high sensitivity to weight growth and series of ve or more draft readings along the the signicance of VDL, most statutes, such length of the hull is not possible. Fortunately, as the provincial Petroleum Boards in Canada, these units do not sag or hog and the small the IMO MODU Code and the UK Health and waterplane secures an accurate determination Safety Executive require that the weight change
DR
Semi-submersible hulls are composed by a number of bodies connected with tubular braces. These bodies and the braces create discontinuities that cause sudden waterplane property changes as the draft increases.
AF
dictated by the regulatory agencies. Frequently, the of the displacement. Despite these favorable GM expectation is very low and such designs often features, multiple readings remain necessary to operate at a very low initial stability. compensate for often rough waters and to allow the determination of a reliable waterplane The commercial value of a semi-submersible is diby way of least square methods. rectly related to the magnitude of the Variable Deck Load (VDL). The amount of equipment and supplies that can be carried on deck often establishes the day- Displacement Semi-Submersible units are surveyed and inclined at a high displacement, often near, rate that the unit will command. Because of this, or at, the operating weight. Such heavy condithese units are usually loaded to the limiting draft tion requires large inclining weights to attain a and stability. Given the especial design and operation reliable shift of the pendulums. This complicaof semi-submersibles, an accurate measurement of the tion is aggravated by the lack of space to t the light ship weight and center of gravity is paramount inclining weights and, the obstructions found on to the safety aoat. deck often complicate the transfer of test weights between positions. Because of this, it often is Lightship Survey and Stability Test necessary to accept angles of inclinations of 1 degree and compensate with longer values. When There are a number of aspects that must be consolid weights are not practical, inclining by way sidered when executing these tests on a columnof water transfer may be chosen. This method, stabilized unit. while apparently simple, often fails due to poor Draft must be selected such that the waterplane repreparation and execution. mains constant at the extreme angles of inclination. Because the unusually high GM (50 to Direction of inclination Many semi-submersibles have comparable length and breadth. This of100 meters) with waterplane below the pontoon ten allows a choice of inclining the hull about a deck, inclining tests must be done with the pontransverse axis. toons submerged.
272
CHAPTER 17. OTHER APPLICATIONS OF MASS PROPERTIES ENGINEERING
of the legs (B), contact with the sea bed and pre-load (C), the elevation of the platform above the crest of the highest wave (D), and the drilling operation from the extended cantilever(E). Weight control for these units is a special case as it has an eect on the stability and the structural tness of the unit. A reliable weight is important for almost any mode of operation. Weight growth is also common in this type of unit. These units have a light ship weight that is very close to the full displacement. Typically, the VDL on a jack-up drilling unit is not more than 20% of the total displacement. Because the legs comprise a large part (40% to 50%) of the
DR
log on semi-submersible units be conrmed by light ship weight, the center of gravity is high above way of a Lightship Survey at every other ve- the platform deck. The distribution and center of year special survey. gravity of the VDL is almost constant and usually below or at the main deck. The combination of these two characteristics make the eect weight growth on 17.1.3 Self-elevating the center of gravity almost negligible. While there is little or no concern on the eect that Self-elevating units are the most frequent type of age and weight growth has on stability, some strucoshore units and mostly used for drilling service. Those not designed to drill are mostly dedicated to tural aspects add to the importance of an accurate servicing oshore installations and unlike the drilling determination and control of the weight. Given the various functionalities and relative posiunit, they are mostly self-propelled. tion of the main component, the weight and center of These units, often called Jack-up, operate in the elevated mode. Figure 17.3 shows the typical se- gravity must be broken-up into the various compoquence of the unit in transit aoat (A), the lowering nents, hull, legs, cantilever beams, and substructure. Substructure This component has the ability to move transversely to align the drilling rig with the position of the well. The accurate determination of the load on each of the two cantilever beams can only be done with a reliable weight and center of gravity. Usually this is determined by way of weight take-o or with the use of load cells. Cantilever Beams These structures, often built of high strength steel, must carry the weight of the substructure, and the load of the drill-string. The accuracy in the determination of this weight
AF
Figure 17.3: Jack-up unit sequence of operation. (A) is the transit aoat, (B) is the lowering of the legs, (C) is contact with the sea bed and pre-load, (D) is the elevation of the platform above the crest of the highest wave, and (E) is the drilling operation from the extended cantilever
17.1. OFFSHORE UNITS
273 lem, it is frequent to used the ability to move the cantilever beam to create the necessary inclinations. When the cantilever beams is used as the inclining weight, the accuracy of the weight determination is paramount to the determination of the vertical position of the Center of Gravity.. Platform The elevating system used to lower the legs and to elevate the platform, is a rugged piece of equipment. Notwithstanding, they are designed to a nominal working load and operators are compelled not to exceed the capacity to avoid early fatigue and excessive ware. To ensure work within the limits, an accurate determination of the platform, cantilever, and substructure is needed. Legs There are various reasons to establish an accurate value of the leg weight: 1. Restrictions in the shipyard, and operational needs, the stability test is often carried out before the full length of legs is installed. The very high position of the legs, demand that an accurate or a conservative weight value be used. 2. Many modern rigs use the ability to lower the legs to adjust the height of the center of gravity of the unit. By doing so, a jack-up ca modify its stability performance to set the unit in the storm survival mode. Because the lowering of legs is to the detriment of the towing characteristics of the hull, some designs specify towing with the legs shortened and the removed leg sections be stored on deck or transported separately. Regardless of reasons, the leg weight must be a reliable value.
Figure 17.4: Jack-Up Unit Under Tow
considerations lead builders to me as accurate as possible.
The maximum load on the derrick is usually limited by the strength of the cantilever beams. Operators are supplied with a chart of maximum loads depending on the relative position of the well center. The farther loads and more eccentric loads are often restricted to half of the capacity of the derrick. A reliable weight on the cantilever allows the optimization of the cantilever load chart. Stability Test As mentioned above, the test has special challenges, most due to the high characBecause the stability test on jack-up is with exteristics of the waterplane; large area and high tremely large metacentric height, a large amount metacentric height. of inclining weight is needed. Just as in semisubmersibles, the room for all the inclining weights is not available. To resolve this probThe relatively high error potentially caused by the large waterplane area can be mitigated by
DR
Fig. 0 A Jack-up under tow may be of relatively low signicance but other
AF
274
punching draft reading reference marks while vessels. Despite the similarities they have a number the platform is elevated. It is also a good prac- of characteristics that are worth mentioning. tice to make multiple readings along the length Large amounts of equipment that can or cannot be of the shell and inside the leg-wells considered part of the light ship must be identied Given that the probable error in determining the and placed so it can be accurately accounted for in vertical position of the center of gravity is pro- the loading conditions. These ships have relatively low deck variable load portional to the magnitude of the metacentric when compared with the full load displacement. The height, an overall eort to minimize errors is mandatory. Taking advantage of the possibility stability test on these units is often carried out at draft close to the full displacement. This results in of long pendulums is highly recommended. large inclining weights and a limited number of areas To achieve acceptably large inclinations, the use where the weights can be placed. When the use of of the cantilever-substructure package is frequent solid weights is not possible, the use of an onboard practice; the inclining of the hull is by trimming piece of equipment may suce. Equipment such as a the hull. As indicated above, the inclining weight BOP (Blowout Preventer) or sections of marine riser must be measured carefully and specialized conhave been used successfully. In all cases the weight tractors are highly recommended. must be certied. When solid weights cannot be used, When the full leg of length of legs have been the use of water as the inclining weight is sometimes installed, special care must be taken to avoid unavoidable but can lead to errors due to the frethe motion of the legs within their constraints quent failures in the handling and accounting of the (usually the elevating equipment). One common inclining water. and accepted practice is to maintain the trim in These units are frequently tted with thrusters one direction only. that can be raised for storage or lowered for dynamic Most modern jack-up are tted with large foot- positioning. Care must be taken into the way the ings at the lower end of the legs. These large weight and buoyancy is accounted for in the analysis compartments are watertight but are designed and conclusions of the stability test. to allow ooding when they are submerged to equalize the internal and external pressure. Expeditionary Fighting Some designs include valves and piping systems 17.2 to empty these spud-cans. Much care must Vehicle (EFV) be taken in establishing how much water is contained in these structures and if they are truly by Dan Dolan watertight. Because the shape of the spud cans is The Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle, or EFV, is an mostly by-conical, the waterplane varies strongly armored, fully tracked, self-deploying, high speed amwith the draft. In addition to contemplating (or not) the spud-cans as part of the buoyant hull, phibious combat vehicle capable of seamlessly transthe legs should be lowered such that they do not porting Marines from Naval ships located beyond the aect the waterplane as the hull is inclined. The visual horizon to inland objectives. The U.S. Navy and Marine Corps concept of position of the leg must be recorded to make the operation, Operational Maneuver From The Sea correct adjustment to the position of the center (OMFTS), is based on the ability to launch forces of gravity. from over-the-horizon (OTH) to avoid enemy shore batteries, maintain the element of surprise, and ex17.1.4 Surface Type (Drillships) ploit weaknesses in coastal defenses. At the time of the stability test or a light ship survey, The EFV is a critical asset in that it enables these vessels are not very dierent from conventional the Marine Corps to conduct its signature mission
DR AF T
17.2. EXPEDITIONARY FIGHTING VEHICLE (EFV) Expeditionary Maneuver Warfareby providing a mobile, lethal and survivable platform from which to conduct ship to objective maneuver (STOM) operations. The EFV is an armored combat vehicle that is
275
Survivability - survivability is greatly enhanced from the previous vehicle using the integration of a lightweight modular armor, spall liner, seats with mine blast protection and an NBC protection system. Carry - the EFV is designed to carry a reinforced rie squad of 17 combat equipped Marines. The EFV utilizes various Environmental, Safety and Health (ESH) upgrades including individual padded seats with seat belts, sealed engine compartment, environmental control systems, and active suspension to reduce fatigue on embarked infantry and crew. Communicate - the EFV has incorporated innovative C2 Systems as well as state of the art communications in voice and data along with digital map displays.
Figure 17.5: Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle (EFV) under weigh.
The EFV uses oceans, seas, lakes, rivers and other bodies of water as avenues of approach for maneuveroperated and maintained by a crew of three Marines ing forces. The EFV possesses the ability to launch and has a troop capacity of 17 Combat Equipped forces from amphibious assault ships 20 to 25 nautical Marines. miles out to sea and transport them to shore at speeds The EFV provides a signicant improvement in opup to 25 knots. The EFVs ability to plane at these erational capability as compared to the current famspeeds is accomplished by using twin 23 inch waterjet ily of Amphibious Assault Vehicles (AAV7A1). Mapropulsors. These waterjets provide enough thrust to jor Enhancements to the operation capability of the allow a fully loaded vehicle of approximately 77,000 EFV are as follows: pounds to maintain stability and maneuverability at seas up to Sea State 3. Lethality - provides superior lethality through The EFVs land mobility characteristics are equal the employment of the MK46 30mm Weapon to or greater than the Marine Corps main battle Station. The MK46 consists of a two-man ar- tank, the M1A1 Abrams tank. With a 12 cylinmored turret containing all weather, day/night, der MTU diesel engine, the EFV has a top speed full solution, fully stabilized, digital re control. of approximately 45 mph and has the ability to traThe main armament includes the MK44 30mm verse the same cross-country terrain features as the automatic gun and a coaxial mounted 7.62mm Abrams tank. machine gun. In addition to being the infantrys primary mobility asset, the EFVs repower will enable stabilized Mobility - the EFV utilizes a 2700 HP diesel direct re support to disembarked troops. dual-use (land and water) engine. This engine, The repower, mobility, survivability and adcoupled with counter-rotating water jets, has en- vanced design features make the EFV the most lethal, abled the vehicle to achieve water speeds up to survivable and capable armored troop carrier on the 25 knots and land speeds up to 45 mph. battleeld.
DR AF T
17.2.1 Mission
276
17.2.2
Weight Control
17.2.3
The mass properties of the EFV aect performance both in the sea as well as on land. Sea performance depends principally on the total loaded vehicle weight, location of the center of gravity (CG), and moment of inertia. Land performance depends on these same parameters as well as on the ration of sprung to unsprung mass for both transition mode and land mode. Mass properties management was critical to the attainment of an acceptable performance of the EFVs systems over both waterborne and land operation scenarios. Assessment and control of the vehicles mass properties, weight, CG and inertia was necessary through all phases of the acquisition process to production of the last vehicle to ensure the vehicle will function properly under all operational scenarios and loading conditions. From the early stages of the design, designers and vendors had to meet strict weight budgets for each of the vehicles IPT (Integrated Process Team) disciplines (i.e. Mobility, Hull Suspension, Firepower, etc.). Each IPT had to manage weight and center of gravity for the design, development and build processes of the vehicle. If adverse weight and moment trends were identied or signicant weight increases occurred, a corrective action response was immediately initiated to reduce or minimize the impact. To help control weight growth, all components and parts purchased were weighed when they were received through a receiving/inspection process. These items included piece parts that could weigh as little as ounces to full assemblies weighing thousands of pounds. All subcontractor designed components and Government furnished parts and equipment were weighed individually. If estimated vehicle weights started an uphill turn, weight reduction initiatives that had been proposed and evaluated by each of the IPTs were reviewed and implemented. Reducing the vehicles uncertainty margin by using actual weights of parts and components also helped to reduce weight growth.
Mass Properties Measurement of the EFV
DR AF T
17.2.4
To determine the actual weight and CG measurement of the EFV it was suspended from its lifting eyes by a single point (i.e., the hook of a crane with a tension load cell), and then was inclined in such a way that the center of gravity of the vehicle lay directly below. The vehicles LCG and VCG were measured by hanging the vehicle numerous times with straps of dierent lengthscausing a nose down conguration followed by a nose up congurationand shooting intersecting lines with two theodolites.
Figure 17.6: Measuring EFV Mass Properties.
EFV Specication
17.2. EXPEDITIONARY FIGHTING VEHICLE (EFV)
277
Weight: Empty Vehicle (Less Fuel, Ammo, Crew, Infantry) Fully Loaded Vehicle (Full Fuel, Ammo, Crew, Infantry) Centers of Gravity: Longitudinal: Vertical:
Draft: Mean Transition Sea Water Draft: Mean High Speed Congured Draft: Reserve Buoyancy: Freeboard at Bow: Freeboard at Stern:
Table 17.1: EFV Specications.
DR AF T
66,250 pounds 77,100 pounds 126.6 Inches Aft of Final Drive 21.2 Inches above Final Drive 80 Inches (approx.) 58 Inches (approx.) 30% 16 Inches (approx.) 14 Inches (approx.)
278
17.3
Small Craft Weight Management
New section. 8-24-06 Tellet wrp Bowles
Whether the vessel is a slow merchant ship, a highspeed naval vessel, or a recreational craft, the key to naval architectural success is weight management. The weight and center of gravity have signicant effects on all aspects of the naval architecture of a vessel. For instance, they dene the orientation of a vessel in the water (aesthetics), whether the vessel will remain upright (static stability), and dene its Figure 17.7: Sportsherman oating at its design waterspeed or performance (dynamic stability or carrying line. Note the continuously rising covering boards and capability). Therefore, it is critical to have a rm sheer line. understanding of the weight and center of gravity of the vessel before any other element of design begins. A good example of this is the appearance of an old sportshing vessel returning to the dock light on fuel 17.3.1 Factors to Consider after a long day of shing. The fuel under the cockpit has been consumed and the stern is sitting higher Static Waterline in the water, showing more bottom paint near the For pleasure craft, one of the most important ele- transom than normal, and the rubrail is drooping as ments of design is its appearance above the static it runs forward. While this is acceptable and underwaterlineif the vessel is lacking in the aesthetics stood, it is not a common appearance for the vessel department, it may be dicult to market no matter in the design condition. how well it performs. The reason that many sportsherman take on this There are two key elements in the aesthetics of a appearance is they have fuel tanks located under the vessel: superstructure styling and hull lines. Both of cockpit and the longitudinal center of gravity (LCG) these elements vary from manufacturer to manufac- has moved forward signicantly as the fuel load was turer, and from model to model. However, there is burned o. As the LCG has moved forward, the hull a single element dening both of these components has rotated in the water until its longitudinal centhat plays a signicant factor in the appearance of a ter of buoyancy (LCB) is coincident with the LCG, thus satisfying the requirement for static equilibrium. vessel: the sheer line. To avoid these situations, the relationship of the Sheer lines are seen as the dening element to the aesthetics of a vessel as they dene the joint between sheer line to the static waterline must be considered the deckhouse and the hulland they are usually ac- during the design process. Therefore, it is important centuated by a dark colored rub rail that instantly to have an accurate estimate of the LCG in both the attracts the eyes attention. While sheer lines come design full load and minimum operating conditions. in all dierent shapes and sizes such as thick, thin, With an accurate LCG value, the hull lines can be continuous or broken; there is a common thread developed so that a bow-down appearance is minimized or avoided and the desired orientation of the they generally rise as they go forward.
DR AF T
by Jerey Bowles Excerpts of the original version of this section was previously published as [28] and is reprinted here with their permission.
17.3. SMALL CRAFT WEIGHT MANAGEMENT sheer line can be achieved through rotation of the hull bottom. At the beginning of the design process, preliminary hull lines are developed and the prole of the sheer is modeled to represent the outboard prole (A) (See Figure 17.8). Once the preliminary hull lines are developed, the weight estimate can be updated. If the revised weight estimate results in a dierent LCG than original estimates, the vessels sheer line will be oriented dierently (B).
279 Besides aesthetics, the static trim of a vessel has another important eect on a vesselthe longitudinal slope of both interior and exterior decks. If the LCG ends up farther forward than the design value, then the decks may end up level rather than sloping aft. Not only does this feel unnatural to most boaters, but can cause water to puddle in the forward end of the cockpit, and increase the possibility of water leaking into the machinery space or down stairs into the accommodation area. Further, an accurate estimate of the displacement of a vessel is just as signicant to the appearance of a vessel as its LCG. If a vessel turns out to be heavier than the design condition, its freeboard may be reduced signicantly enough such that its appearance suers. For example, feature chines may be submerged or hydrodynamic chines may rise above the waterline too far forward along the length of the vessel. Also, not concerning aesthetics, if the vessel is overweight, the desired operational draft may not be achieved. On the other hand, the weight of a vessel may also be overestimated. In this situation, the amount of freeboard may be too great such that handling sh over the side becomes a challenge (See Figure 17.9). In a worse case scenario, the aesthetics of a vessel may be impacted if the hydrodynamic chines never enter the water.
Figure 17.8: Hull Bottom Rotation to Accommodate a Change in LCG. (Note the change in freeboard at the transom, bow, and covering board angle, relative to the full load waterline.)
At this point, the hull depth from the chine to the sheer can be modied such that the LCB of the hull is coincident with the new LCG. In this operation, the sheer line and the hull bottom geometry (below the chines) are kept constant. The hull bottom is rotated to shift the LCB such that it represents (C) and the hull sides are modied to account for the change in height from the chine to the sheer (D). In this manner, the orientation of the sheer line in that static condition will not be a surprise, and the use of ballast to correct any design issues will be eliminated (or at least minimized).
DR AF T
Static Transverse Stability
A measure of the transverse stability of a vessel is its metacentric height (GM), which is a function of two main elementsthe waterline beam and the vertical center of gravity. Because GM is an important factor when assessing the seakeeping qualities of a vessel, designers generally calculate vessel GM for comparison to some form of requirements or references. Recall from the laws of hydrostatics that:
280
CHAPTER 17. OTHER APPLICATIONS OF MASS PROPERTIES ENGINEERING from other similar size vessels. Also, a good estimate of KM can be determined with any hydrostatics model of hull with similar proportions. In this manner, the designer will have a good feel for the stability of a vessel before the hull lines are completed. It can then be determined quickly whether the vessel has a stability problemeither too little or too much. Most often, the stability issues that develop are where a vessel has too little stability. When this occurs, the vessel may have long roll periods or large roll amplitudes that may be uncomfortable to passengers, or more importantly the vessel may not pass regulatory requirements. On the other hand, stability problems can also arise when a vessel has too much GM. This scenario usually occurs from having a small length to beam ratio (large waterline beam for the length of the vessel), rather than a VCG that is too low. The result of this arrangement is that the vessel has a very quick roll period that can actually toss passengers from side to side as the vessel sits in a seaway. Too much stability also has negative eects while the vessel is underway. The tendency for a monohull vessel to heel into a turn at high speeds may be reduced, which creates an uneasy feeling for the passengers. As a general rule, larger craft should not be designed with much more GM than is required for safe stability to avoid having the vessel be too sti. On the other hand, the operators of small craft prefer relatively sti boats, as a passenger is a live load that comprises a large portion of the total vessel weight, and movement can produce large responses. The amount of GM a vessel has aects the roll period of the vessel, which is as important a factor to passenger comfort as roll amplitude. The roll period is the time it takes for the vessel to roll through one complete cycle. If roll periods are short, roll accelerations experienced by the passenger may be high, especially if they are located far from the center of gravity (i.e. tuna tower). On the other hand, roll periods that are too long may also aect passenger comfort. A vessel with a long roll period that tends to hang at the maximum roll angle and creates an uncomfortable feeling for passengers. Figure 17.10 can be used as a reference for typical roll periods for various types of vessels.
Figure 17.9: Vessel with an As-Built LCG Further Forward than the Design LCG
Where:
In the above equation, KM is primarily a function of waterline beam and is therefore controlled by the hull lines. The other variable in the equation is KG, which is commonly referred to as the vertical center of gravity (VCG). Most often, the beam of a vessel is set by performance or arrangement requirements, so the main element in controlling the static stability of a vessel is the VCG, and therefore it is necessary to have an appreciation for where the VCG will end up in the beginning stages of the design process. Once a rm estimate of the VCG and waterline beam exists, an estimate of stability may be made from comparing these two parameters with those
DR AF T
GM = KM KG (17.1) GM = Metacentric height above the center of gravity KG = Height of the center of gravity above the keel KM = Metacentric height above the keel
17.3. SMALL CRAFT WEIGHT MANAGEMENT

18 VERY TENDER 16
281 (See Figure 17.11): Ap (17.2)
14
CARGO PASSENGER SHIPS MILITARY SHIPS
2 3
12
ROLL PERIOD (SEC)
COMMERCIAL FISHING VESSELS 10 RESEARCH VESSELS PATROL CRAFT
0 0 5
Figure 17.10: Typical Roll Period versus Waterline Beam for Various Vessel Types.
For both the safety reasons and passenger comfort issues mentioned above, it is advantageous to have an accurate estimate of the VCG prior to developing Figure 17.11: Outline of hard chine vessel dening hull the hull lines. Besides the stability reason identied, particulars there are other reasons to have a good estimate of the weight and center of gravity before hull lines are This qualitative check is easily applied prior to the developed. development of the hull lines once the displacement, length and beam of the vessel are known. An estimate of the planing area can be easily obtained by the following equation: Hydrodynamic Performance For planing vessels, the weight of the vessel has the largest inuence on speed predictions. Given a heavy vessel and a light vessel with the same hull dimensions, the heavier vessel does not rise out of the water as much as lighter one. Therefore, the heavier vessel will have more wetted surface area and thus frictional resistance, limiting its speed potential. One way of qualitatively predicting whether or not a vessel will be a good performer is to look at its hull bottom loading. The following hull bottom loading coecient is a non-dimensional coecient used to qualitatively dene how heavily the hull is loaded Ap 0.83 LP BP X (17.3)
DR AF T
PLEASURE CRAFT VERY STIFF 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 WATERLINE BEAM (FT)
Where: Ap = Projected planing area (area bounded by the chines and the transom) = Volume of displacement
Where: LP = Projected chine length BP X = Maximum chine beam
As mentioned above, a vessel that has too much weight for its hull bottom area may be a poor performer when it comes to speed, since insucient lifting surface area exists for the vessels displacement. The boats agility will be reduced and its acceleration time will be increased. On the other hand, a vessel
282
CHAPTER 17. OTHER APPLICATIONS OF MASS PROPERTIES ENGINEERING Fundamentally, stability depends on the location of the center of gravity of the vessel and the locations of the centers of eect of all forces (both hydrostatic and hydrodynamic) acting on the hull. Dynamic instabilities tend to occur when hydrodynamic forces begin to dominate hydrostatic forces, generally during operation above 25 knots. Figure 17.12 depicts the spectrum of instabilities possible with increasing (17.4) speed.
that is loaded too lightly may also exhibit poor performance at speed. A vessel that is loaded too lightly may experience poor ride quality from increased vertical accelerations. Recall from physics that Newtons rst law states: F = Ma
Where:
Also recalling the phrase what goes up must comes down, as a vessel launches into the air o of a wave, it must come back down and contact the waters surface. The hydrodynamic impact forces that are generated when the vessels hull bottom contacts the water increase with increased bottom area. Therefore, as the mass relative to the bottom area of the vessel decreases, the resulting accelerations increase. It should be noted that these vertical accelerations have been determined to be most inuential with regard to passenger and crew prociency and fatigue. Large vertical accelerations can require speed reduction or a change in heading or both. Not only does the displacement of a planing hull have a signicant eect on performance, but perhaps more important is the LCG. Improper LCG location can result in one of many performance issues, including dynamic instabilities.
Semi-planing boats are most susceptible to a loss of roll stability or roll induced yaw instability. However, non-oscillatory trim, broach phenomena, or bow steering may also be experienced. Most semi-displacement dynamic instabilities occur when non-symmetrical, negative pressures form around the forward portion of the hull. Negative pressures are developed by the bending of the water ow around convex curvatures in the hull bottom or sides, generally located forward in the hull shape. Dynamic Stability The ow streamlines experience a local increase in One aspect of high-speed vessel design is maintaining velocity and, according to Bernoullis Equation, an vessel stability at high speed. Regardless of the hull associated reduction in pressure. A simple comparison can be made from the buttype, the hull must be controllable and must have a predictable response in all sea conditions. Dynamic tocks of a typical planing hull to a wing shape, as instabilities may be dened as a reduction in stabil- shown in Figure 17.13. As the ow velocity over the ity during high-speed operation that might be mani- buttock line or wing section increases, dynamic forces fested as violent or extreme craft motions about the begin to govern. Both positive and negative dynamic roll, pitch, or yaw axis characterized by the loss of pressures can be developed, creating large forces that running trim, increasing heel angle, or bow steering. radically aect the attitude of the vessel.
DR AF T
F = Sum of the forces exerted on an object M = Object Mass a = Acceleration
Figure 17.12: General Types of Dynamic Instabilities.
283 order to minimize the probability of dynamic instabilities.

LIMITS OF DYNAMIC STABILITY 3
APPLIES TO HARD CHINE CRAFT OPERATING AT SPEEDS GREATER THAN 25 KNOTS
HEAVY DISPL.
4
DYNAMIC TRANSVERSE INSTABILITY PROBABLE
DR AF T
5
2/3
REGION FOR MINIMUM HULL RESISTANCE
LP/BPX 2 3 4 5 6.5
AP/
LIGHT DISPL.
DYNAMIC TRANSVERSE INSTABILITY UNLIKELY
THRESHOLD OF DYNAMIC TRANSVERSE INSTABILITY
6.0%
5.0%
4.0%
3.0%
2.0%
1.0%
0.0%
-1.0%
-2.0%
Figure 17.13: Wing Analogy of Buttock Shape.
(CAP-LCG)/L P (%)
Further aggravation occurs when the vessel experiences a change in trim angle or heel angle (e.g., from maneuvering or from wave interaction), and the submerged portion of the hull changes shape. Likewise the pressure distribution changes, often becoming non-symmetrical. The unequal pressure distributions will cause the vessel to heel to one side or yaw, submerging more surface on one side of the hulls bottom than on the other. The higher portion of a crafts hull sides and the forward portion of the hull bottom usually are areas of increased curvature, resulting in a further increase in suction force. The result is an instability that increases in magnitude with speed and usually cannot be resolved until the vessel reduces its speed to less than 25 knots. Low running trim angles and heavy hull loading increase the tendency of dynamic instabilities to occur. A hull with a low trim angle or heavy hull loading has a greater amount of the curved, forward portions of the buttocks in the water. It should be noted that the running trim of dynamically supported vessels is sensitive to the LCG of the vessel. A forward LCG results in reduced dynamic trim angle and thus increases the probability of dynamic instabilities. Figure 17.14 is a design chart relating LCG position, length to beam ratio, and hull loading developed to examine loading conditions in
Figure 17.14: Limits of Dynamic Stability for Hard Chine Planing Craft.
Very fast, hard-chine planing hulls may experience the chine walking, porpoising or corkscrew oscillatory motions shown to the right side of Figure 17.14. A vessel may begin to exhibit these types of instabilities without excitation from the operator or from waves, and they generally start with low amplitudes of oscillation that gradually increase, at both constant speed or with either increasing speed. Porpoising generally occurs when the vessel is traveling fast enough so that the mean wetted length of the vessel (forward of the transom) is reduced such that it is shorter than the distance from the transom to the LCG. When this occurs, the center of dynamic lift is located aft of the LCG, and a large bow down moment is created. As the vessel trims down, the wetted length increases and the center of lift moved forward rapidly, creating a bow up moment and causing the vessel to trim up again. It can almost be described as if the vessel is hunting for its optimum trim angle. If porpoising develops on a vessel, it most likely can be mitigated by using trim tabs to reduce the running trim angle. However, porpoising is a well understood phenomenon and design charts developed over the years have successfully eliminated
284
DR AF T
The Weight Estimate
it for occurring excessively is all but the fastest, most dicult to control craft. On the other hand, chine walking is a phenomenon that it not well understood, but is generally associated with vessels which operate at speed high enough to lift the chines at the transom from the water. While this type of instability may have more severe motions and less controllability than porpoising, it is much less common.
= k LOA2.3 Where:
(17.5)
= Vessel weight, pounds k = Coecient depending on estimate (6.6 for full load, 4.5 for lightship) LOA = Length overall, feet
New footnote. 9-13-06, Tellet
Repower or Hull Modications
Weights must also be considered carefully when looking at the possibility of repowering or modifying an existing vessel. First and foremost, a set of hull lines that performs well at one design speed may not be suitable for higher design speeds. With regard to lengthening a hull form, changing the hull lines (extending transom or adding mid-body) without changing the center of gravity may result in a vessel that is dynamically unstable or exhibits poor handling and maneuvering characteristics. Finally, a simple repowering where gasoline engines are replaced with diesel engines may result in a large increase in displacement and shift in center of gravity. In order to eliminate the possibility of these issues to occur, an accurate weight estimate should be developed for the vessel prior to beginning any modications or procuring any new machinery components.
17.3.2
General Guesstimate
Before the weight estimate is even started, there are several tools available to develop a ballpark gure for the lightship, full load weight, and full load longitudinal center of gravity. These estimates are easy and provide useful targets and warning ags for constant reference during the development of the weight estimate. As a rst estimate tool, the following equation can be used to develop a ball park gure for lightship and full load weight:
In the above equation, the generic values identied for k can be replaced with values that are builder specic.1 A manufacturer can use the above equation to back-out coecients that refer to their specic convertibles, express boats, or cabin cruisers. A second guesstimate of the full load and lightship weight are the boat test reports found in most yachting and boating magazines. A sample of weights published for other vessels of similar size and conguration can be averaged to provide a reasonable target weight. Care should be taken when using these data, as manufacturers may not clearly identify the reported boat weights: full load weight, lightship weight, and weight as tested. Often the reports indicate the specic dynamic loads on the vessel included in the weight, such as fuel, water, people, and test gear. If this information is published, it is useful to try and develop a weight for both full load and lightship. Once these estimates are determined, they can be averaged (exceptionally high or low numbers should be discounted) to provide a target weight for developing the weight estimate. With regard to full load LCG, most vessels have it located at 37.5% of LOA forward the transom. Again, this percentage will vary with vessel typea very high speed boat will have the LCG much farther aft, whereas an aft cabin motor yacht may have the LCG a bit farther forward. Once a general idea of the boats weight and LCG has been obtained, it is then time to develop a detailed list of the dynamic and static loads.
1 The values 6.6 and 4.5 are derived from regression analysis of designs by Donald L. Blount and Associates Inc. and from boat test articles.
285
Typical Sportfisherman
22%
600 ESWBS 100
LicketySplit Sportfisherman
15%
600
36%
Itemized Weight Estimate
New gure (B&W), 9-13-06, Tellet
A structured weight breakdown system is the rst thing that should be dened when starting a weight estimate, and should be learned like a second language. A good knowledge of the weight breakdown system makes tracking weights less challenging. While designers and builders usually have their own specic way of doing this, two standard breakdowns have been developed, one by the Maritime Administration (MARAD) and one by the U.S. Navy. The Navy standard, referred to as the Expanded Ship Work Breakdown System (ESWBS), was developed to provide a standard link between the weight estimate and the actual components on the vessel. (See Chapter 6 and Appendix B and C.) With the help of a weight grouping system, the weight of a vessel can be represented by a pie chart with full load corresponding to 100% (See Figure 17.15). In this manner, the contribution of each weight group to the full load displacement can be calculated as a percentage and compared against a database of other ESWBS weight estimates that exist. In creating a comparison, there are two points that should be noted. First, any comparisons should be made between like vessels, sportsherman with
DR AF T
2% 11% 1% 4%
500 400 300
8%
35%
500 400 300 ESWBS 100
7%
200
200
26%
33%
Figure 17.15: Weight Breakdown Comparison.
sportsherman and center consoles with center consoles. Second, because dynamic loads also vary from manufacture to manufacturer, comparisons can also be made between lightship weights. In developing the line-by-line weight estimate, perhaps the most useful tool is a marine supplier catalog. The catalogs list product shipping weights rather than exact component weights, but these are suitable as there are certainly nuts, bolts, and hose clamps that are inevitably installed with the component. Catalog weights can be used for all miscellaneous items such as rub rails, electronics, are kits, anchors, etc. For weights of major components such as air conditioners, propellers, or engines, manufacturer supplied data is best. Rules of thumb can also be used for items such as aluminum fuel tanks (1 pound per gallon works well). The U.S. Navy and other design oces have developed algorithms to provide rough order of magnitude weight estimates for both group weights and sub-system weights. These algorithms are developed from regression analyses performed on planing hulls to generalize the weight of sub-systems and components for use in weight estimating (machinery ventilation systems, propulsion control systems, electrical foundations, etc.). While these weight algorithms and databases are handy tools, they should be used
286
CHAPTER 17. OTHER APPLICATIONS OF MASS PROPERTIES ENGINEERING multiple margins for the same purpose. Special attention should be made to avoid using design margins to correct or make allowances for inadequate design definition or design for production considerations as well as inadequate contract construction specications or weak enforcement of contract requirements. However, one should be careful when using margins in the design all vessels. Excessive margins should be reduced and double-counted margins should be eliminated. A simple 10% power margin increases capital cost and may result in an increase in vessel length, beam, and displacement thereby decreasing eciency and increasing lifecycle fuel costs.
Weight Margins
The last items worth mentioning are weight margins. Weight margins are useful tools, but should not be used as a catch-all. There are two specic areas where margins should be applied. First, a 3-5% margin should be applied to the hull structural weight (the majority of Group 100). This margin is used to account for overlap on a berglass boat, epoxy on a wooden boat, or weld ller material on a metal boat. The weight of the margin should be centered at the center of gravity of the hull structure. The second margin that should be used is a builders margin and should be applied to the lightship weight, at the lightship center of gravity. This margin accounts for extra screws, wire terminals, caulking, etc, as well as any other items that were changed between the design process and the construction process. Finally, it is not uncommon to apply an LCG or VCG margin during the preliminary design stage as a margin for performance or stability requirements. Successful high-performance marine craft require, from the very beginning of a program, that a margin management process be carefully crafted and executed. Care must be taken to avoid cumulative or
DR AF T
17.3.3
with caution as the regression may be have been developed from old technology (marine technology has come a long way since the 1980s) or they may be specic to a particular vessel type. When developing a weight estimate, it is useful to keep track of the accuracy of the weight entries, i.e., is the line item an estimated, calculated, or actual value. Once the relative percentages of are known, a sense of accuracy of the overall weight estimate can be developed (if less than 75% of the line items are actual or calculated values, it may be deemed benecial to rene the weight estimate some more before the design process continues). It should also be noted that the itemized weight estimate indicates to the builder the assumed location of components. This information is important to the builder as the components of the vessel must be placed accordingly to achieve the design center of gravity of the vessel (both longitudinal and transverse).
Managing the Weight Estimate
Once the weight estimate is complete, and the designer and builder agree that the estimated lightship is achievable, the rest of the design process can begin. Hull lines are developed, arrangements are nalized, hull scantlings are sized, and shaft line arrangements are completed. Now, it is time to re-visit the weight estimate and update the preliminary gures, as most of them will have changed. One additional layer of berglass on the hull bottom or hull sides or a slight change in engine location can have a large eect on both weight and LCG. At this point the design is complete and the build process beginsagain, it is time to review the weight estimate. The weight estimate is a live, working drawing, just like the interior arrangements and joinery layout. Just as as-built drawings are completed after the job is done, it is necessary to create an as-built weight estimate, except with one dierence. The dierence between an as-built weight estimate and an as-built drawing is that the weight estimate must be updated during the construction process, not afterwards. In this manner, and changes that may have negative eects on stability, performance, or aesthetics may be addressed as soon as possible. As the build process continues and the weight estimate is revised, margins are consumed. For example, on a berglass boat, when the hull is nished, weighed, and updated in the weight estimate, any margin that was originally included for fabric overlap should be removed. The following table provides
287
17.3.4
Verication
Once all is said and done, it is time to put the boat in the water. Because of all the eort that has gone into the weight estimate, there is no need to pray or cross your ngersbut the work is not yet done. Now it is time to provide feedback to the design department. An accurate weight and LCG of the vessel in the lightship condition can be determined from many independent methods. The preferred method is to record waterline measurements and use hydrostatic tables or a hydrostatics computer program to back out a weight and LCG. A second method is to use
DR AF T
an example as to how the weight margins are reduced a Synchrolift platform, though this is generally rethrough the design and construction phases. served for larger yachts. Another method, which is perhaps the most common, is to use load cells on Vessel Status Weight Margin a travel lift or a three-point lift from a xed crane. Conceptual Design Phase 10% of light ship While this method is the easiest, the accuracy of the Preliminary Design Phase 8% of light ship results is often the worst of the three methods idenDetail Design Phase 4% of light ship tied. Vessel Construction 4% of detail design An additional form of feedback to designers is the Mission Modules/Loads 0% nal location of machinery and components. This Service Life Margin 1% of detail design information is useful for correcting center of gravity issues, as well as a reference for future designs as to On projects with the highest sensitivity to weight the preferred arrangement method of the builder (i.e., or LCG, such as high-speed megayachts worth mil- do the batteries generally get located at the forward lions of dollars, it is common to impose weight- or aft end of the engine room). monitoring methods that are used in the aircraft inOther experiments that can be conducted to produstry. In this arrangement, the vessel is actually vide information on designs in the as-built condition built on load cells so that its weight and LCG may are inclining experiments and roll period tests. The be tracked on a weekly (or daily) basis. Along with inclining experiment is used to determine VCG and weighing the vessel often, every item that is carried is required to verify that a sucient static stability onboard is weighed and tracked by weight control margin was achieved during construction. The roll personnel. period test identies the roll period of the vessel and Each item, whether it is a temporary item such provides data with regard to both stability and pasas deck protection or a permanent item such as a senger comfort. propeller, is weighed, assigned a number, and entered Final weight and stability is very useful to designinto a weight logif a box of bolts goes on with a ers since they can incorporate data into future deworker, the box is weighed when it comes o, and signs. Most of all, it lets them know how well they the delta is recorded as a weight item, entered into did with the simple, but extremely important, science the weight estimate. While these methods may be of weight estimating. a bit extreme for the common production boat, it indicates that taking the time to weigh each hull or deck as it comes out of the mold (or is turned over), may be benecial.
288
17.3.5
Example Problems
Example 1. Motoryacht Preliminary Weight Estimate This example shows how to use boat test data to arrive at a preliminary weight estimate for a 35 foot motoryacht.
Problem:
Revised example. 9-1306, Tellet
A preliminary weight estimate is needed for a 35 foot motoryacht. 1. Determine the light ship, full load, and test displacements of boats from three manufactures from provided boat test data. 2. Compare the results to the value from Equation 17.5.
Vessel weight (lbs) Fuel capacity (gal) Water capacity (gal) Passengers Test condition: weight passengers test gear (lbs) fuel water Additional Items for full load (lbs)
Boat Test Data Manufacturer A Manufacturer B 17000 25000 285 300 125 150 6 6 N/A 3 50 1/2 1/2 1000 N/A 2 100 full none 1000
For estimate purposes, fuel weighs 7 pounds per gallon, water 8 pounds per gallon, and passengers weight 175 pounds each.
Analysis
Manufacturer A: The published weight is much less than the value from the formula and therefore probably represents the light ship weight. You can calculate a reasonable estimate of the full load weight by adding the weight of fuel, water, passengers, and stores.
DR A
Manufacturer C N/A 26 75 6 22500 4 50 full full 1000
Given:
17.3. SMALL CRAFT WEIGHT MANAGEMENT Cap. Light Ship Fuel Water Passengers Stores Full load Light Ship Fuel Water Passengers Stores Test gear Test condition 285 125 6 Wt. per 7 8 175 = = = = 142.5 62.5 3 7 8 175 = = = Wt 17000 1995 1000 1050 1000 22045 17000 998 500 525 0 50 19073
289
Cap. Full load Fuel Water Passengers Stores Light ship Light Ship Fuel Water Passengers Stores Test gear Test condition -300 -150 -6
Wt. per 7 8 175
300 0 2
7 8 175
Manufacturer C: The only weight given by this manufacturer is the test condition. To estimate the light ship, subtract the load items included in the test condition. Add the weight of the load items to the light ship to estimate the full load displacement.
DR A
= = = = = = = = Wt 25000 -2100 -1200 -1050 -1000 19650 19650 2100 0 350 0 100 22200
Manufacturer B: The published weight closely matches the value from the formula. Subtract the load items to estimate the light ship.
290
CHAPTER 17. OTHER APPLICATIONS OF MASS PROPERTIES ENGINEERING Cap. Test condition Fuel Water Passengers Test gear Light ship Light Ship Fuel Water Passengers Stores Full load -265 -75 -4 Wt. per 7 8 175 = = = = Wt 22500 -1855 -600 -700 -50 19295 19295 1855 600 1050 1000 23800
Preliminary value from formula: For full load,
Results
The table below shows the estimates of the light ship, full load, and test displacements of the three boats and the full load value from Equation 17.5. Results Manufacturer A 17000 23491 22045 19073
Light Ship Displ (lbs) Full Load Displ (lbs) Test Displ (lbs)
When comparing these values, bear in mind that boat displacements dened by the test condition may vary greatly and have a large inuence on test data. Nevertheless, it appears that the value produced by the equation falls within the expected range of full load displacements and can probably be used for the initial weight estimate.
DR AF T
265 75 6 7 8 175 = = = = Using Equation 17.5: Full load = 6.6 LOA2.3 = 6.6 352.3 = 23491 pounds Formula Manufacturer B 19650 25000 22200
Manufacturer C 19295 23800 22500
DR AF T
Appendices
291
DR AF T
Glossary
As with most specialized elds of engineering, the marine industry has its own terms and acronyms that may be unfamiliar to some readers of this textbook. The following glossary is intended to help dene some of the terms used in later chapters. Also included are some physical constants that are used in the marine eld. As-Inclined refers to the condition of the ship at the time of the inclining experiment, prior to correction to a standard condition. Aft perpendicular is generally a vertical datum line passing through the ships rudder stock or at the after end of the rudder post. For submarines this is normally the after end of the propeller. Aft trim tank is the aftermost variable ballast tank. Often this is the only variable ballast tank that is aft of the longitudinal center of gravity of the submarine and therefore it is often one of the largest of the variable ballast tanks. Amidships is at or near the longitudinal middle of the ship. Athwartship is the term for something that runs across the ship at right angles to the fore and aft centerline. Auxiliary tanks are variable ballast tanks located inside the pressure hull of a submarine. Ballast is any solid or liquid weight placed in the ship to increase the draft, change the trim, or regulate stability. For submarines, ballast is used for trim, stability, and to maintain equilibrium. Baseline is a level, horizontal line at the bottom of the ship from which all vertical heights are measured. See Figure A. Beam, deck is an athwartship horizontal structural member supporting a deck or at. Beam, moulded is the maximum breadth of the hull measured between the inboard surfaces of the side shell plating of ush-plated ships, or between the inboard surfaces of the inside strakes of lap seamplated vessels. For submarines, this is the maximum breadth measured from the outside of the hull plating. Below is a term for below a deck or decks (corresponds to downstairs). 293
DR
AF
Appendix A
294
APPENDIX A. GLOSSARY
Bilge is the curved section between the bottom and the side of a ship. Also the bottom recesses into which all water drains. Bilge Keel is a long longitudinal n tted on the outside of a ship at the turn of the bilge to reduce rolling. Body Plan is a drawing showing the shapes of the frames as they contact the moulded surface of the shell, and showing the waterlines and buttocks as straight lines. Brow is a portable bridge or ramp between the ship and the wharf, pier, or dock.
Bubble is an indication of the hull angle of a submarine with respect to the horizontal plane of the waters surface. Bulkhead is a term for the vertical partition walls which subdivide the interior of a ship into compartments or rooms. Bulkhead Deck is the uppermost deck up to which the transverse watertight bulkheads and shell are carried. Bulwark is the fore and aft vertical plating immediately above the upper edge of the sheer strake. Buttock is a vertical plane running parallel to and at specied distances from the centerline of the ship. Camber is the transverse curvature or roundup (crown). It is the dierence in height between the deck at the side and the deck at the centerline. See Figure A. Canning Plate is a steel plate used as a cover over a compartment or bin containing lead ballast (or lead shielding).
Centerline is a straight line running from bow to stern midway between the sides of the ship, from which all transverse horizontal measurements are taken. Chain Locker is a compartment in the forward portion of the ship in which anchor chain is stowed. Coerdam is a narrow vacant space between two bulkheads. A double watertight bulkhead. Collision Bulkhead is the watertight bulkhead nearest the bow of a ship; forepeak bulkhead. Compensation is, in a submarine, the process of transferring water ballast between the variable ballast tanks and the sea, to eect the desired equilibrium and trim. Condition A is the light ship condition with the addition of lead or permanent ballast. This condition includes all the permanent parts of the ship and all normal operating liquids but without any variable loads such as fuel, food, or personnel.
DR
Center of Buoyancy Archimedes Principle states that the sum of the vertical components of the hydrostatic pressure on the immersed surface of a oating body is equal to the weight of the uid displaced by that oating body. For practical reasons these forces can be treated as a single force acting through the center of gravity (in a vertical plane) of the displaced water and this center of gravity is known as the center of buoyancy B.
AF
295 Condition A-1 is the light ship condition without lead or permanent ballast. This condition includes all the permanent parts of the ship and all normal operating liquids but without any variable loads such as fuel, food, or personnel. Condition N is the full load condition for a submarine in diving trim. This is Condition A plus all the variable loads. It is also sometimes called Normal Surface Condition (NSC). COR is the acronym for the Circular of Requirements document.
The CrossCurves of Stability To facilitate the design of a new ship, designers calculate a series of righting arms for various angles of inclination at dierent displacements. A plot is then made of righting moment arm (vertical scale) vs. displacement (horizontal scale) at dierent angles of list. Since this approach assumes that the center of gravity lies on the centerline of the ship, corrections should be made for oset center of gravitys where they exist. Dead Rise is the rise of the bottom of the ship at midship from the half siding to a given height at the side line. See Figure A. Deadweight, Deadweight Tonnage is the dierence between a ships loaded and light displacement. Total deadweight refers to carrying capacity of a ship; cargo deadweight is the total deadweight minus fuel, water, stores, dunnage and other items required for the voyage Depth is the height of the ship at the midship section from the baseline to the moulded line of deck. See gure.
Tumblehome
DR
Moulded Depth
Displacement is the total weight of the ship when aoat expressed in tons of sea water (weight of sea water the ship displaces).
AF
Flare Camber Freeboard Design Waterline 1/2 of moulded breadth Molded Draft Design Draft Deadrise Moulded Baseline Bottom of Keel
296
Diving trim is that condition in which the submarine is so compensated (with loads and variable ballast) that completely ooding the main ballast tanks will cause the ship to submerge with neutral buoyancy and zero trim. Draft Marks are numerical markings on the ships hull indicating the depth or draft of the ship at that point. Surface ships generally have forward, aft, and midship draft marks; submarines have forward and aft marks. Equilibrium is, for submarines, the state where the weight of the boat exactly equals the water displaced; the boat is submerged with neutral buoyancy. Equilibrium Polygon is a graphical representation of the capabilities of a submarines variable ballast system.
Fast Cruise is a period, usually prior to initial sea trials, for crew training alongside the dock with no shipyard work going on and with no shipyard personnel on board. Flare is the spreading out of the hull form from the central vertical plane, with increasing rapidity as it rises from the waterline to the rail. See Figure A. Forepeak is the watertight compartment at the extreme forward end of a ship. Forefoot is the part of the keel which curves and rises to meet the stem. Forward is near, at, or toward the bow (front) of the ship.
Forward trim tank is the forward-most variable ballast tank in a submarine. Foundations are supports for boilers, engines, auxiliary, and other machinery. Frame is a term used to designate one of the transverse members that make up the rib-like part of the skeleton of a ship. The frames act as stieners, holding the outside plating in shape and maintaining the transverse form of the ship. Frame Spacing is the fore and aft distance of adjacent transverse frames. Freeboard is the distance from the waterline to the upper surface of the freeboard deck at the side. Free Surface Eect is the eect caused by the free surface of a liquid in a partially lled tank. The liquid is free to shift within the tank boundaries in the direction of the roll or pitch of the vessel. This shifts the center of gravity of the vessel toward the list and therefore reduces the righting arm. See section 2.7. Garboard Strake is the course of plates next to the keel of a ship.
DR
Forward perpendicular is a vertical datum line passing through the intersection of the ships stem (or bow) with the waterline. For submarines this is normally the very forward-most point of the hull.
AF
Fairwater is the sail of a submarine (also called the n (UK)). Also any casting or plating tted to the hull or appendages to streamline the parts.
297 Heel is the inclination of a vessel to one side due to a temporary source. Diers from List which is a constant inclination due to o-center loading or ooding. Heeling Arm is a moment arm between forces that induce a heel to a vessel. E.g., the eect of wind on a ship is described in terms of a wind heeling arm for particular angles of ship heel. The heeling arm is measured against the Righting Arm to assess a ships stability. See gure.
Righting and Heeling Arms
5
Righting Arm Righting Arm (ft) 3
Hog is the straining of the ship that tends to make the bow and stern lower than the middle portion. Opposite of Sag. Hull is the body of a ship or submarine, including shell plating, framing, decks, and bulkheads. ICD is the acronym for the Initial Capabilities Document.
Inboard connotes toward or nearer to the centerline of the ship. Inboard Prole is a drawing of the longitudinal section at the centerline of the ship. Intercostal is a term for between frames or beams. Also something made in separate parts. Also the opposite of continuous as in decks, girders, or beams. Inclinometer is a mechanical or electrical instrument that measures either the heel angle or the tangent of the heel angle. IPT/IPPT is the acronym for an Integrated Process [Product] Team. Keel is the principle fore and aft member of a ships frame. The keel runs along the bottom connecting the stem and stern, and to it are attached the frames of the ship. Keel Blocks are heavy wood or concrete blocks on which a ship rests during drydocking. Knot is a unit of speed equalling one nautical mile per hour (6076.1 ft, 1852 meters). 1 knot = 1.15 mi/hr, 1.852 km/hr. Knuckle is an abrupt change in direction of the plating, frames, keel, deck, or other structure of a ship.
DR
AF
Heeling Arm 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 Heel Angle (degrees)
298
Length Between Perpendiculars (LBP) is the length of a ship measured from the forward perpendicular to the aft perpendicular. Length Overall (LOA) is the total length of a ship, measured from the extreme aft to the extreme forward points of the hull.
LCF is the Longitudinal Center of Floatation. This is read from the Displacement and Other Curves (D&O) drawing and is the longitudinal point about which a ship trims forward or aft when on the surface. LCG is the longitudinal center of gravity. This is measured in feet from either the forward perpendicular or midships. Lightening Hole a hole cut in a structural member to reduce its weight.
Limber Hole is a small hole or slot in a frame or plate for the purpose of preventing water or oil from collecting; a drain hole. Lines the form of a ship as represented by its moulded surface.
List is a constant transverse inclination of a vessel due to o-center loading or ooding. Diers from Heel which is a transitory inclination commonly caused by environment or ship handling. Main Ballast Tanks (MBT) are tanks external to the pressure hull which allow the submarine to submerge and surface. The size of the tanks equals the reserve buoyancy of the ship on the surface. Tanks are generally fully empty (blown; on the surface) or completely lled (vented; submerged). Main Deck is the uppermost complete deck of a ship, except in aircraft carriers. Metacenter Normally the force of buoyancy acts vertically upwards through the center of gravity. If the ship starts to list, the shape of the submerged portion changes, thereby moving the center of buoyancy from directly beneath the center of gravity. For angles of list up to about 10 the lines of action of the buoyant forces will all pass near a single point M called the Metacenter. If the ship is to have positive stability, the metacenter must be above the center of gravity G. The metacenter may be determined as follows: Pass a line through G and the original center of buoyancy B. Then with the ship heeled over a small angle (less than 10 ) pass a line through the new center of buoyancy B perpendicular to the water line. The metacenter is the point of intersection of these two lines.
Metacentric Height (GM ) is the distance from the VCG, or KG, to the KM. This is a basic measurement of the ships initial stability. Midships is at near the middle point of a ships length. This is commonly shown on drawings with this or symbol: l Midship Section is a cross-section through the ship, midway between the forward and after perpendiculars, showing typical structural details. Often used to develop initial weight estimates for the entire ship.
DR
AF
LCB is the Longitudinal Center of Buoyancy. This is measured in feet from either the forward perpendicular or midships.
299 Moulded Lines or Surfaces is the inside surface of the skin, or plating, of a ship. For a submarine, it is the outside surface. Also moulded. MT1 is the Moment to Trim 1 inch. This is read from the D&O curves and indicates the moment required to trim the ship forward or aft one inch. Non-pressure hull is the part of a submarines hull that does not see full submergence pressure. The part of the hull containing main ballast tanks, appendages, bow sonar dome etc. Osets is a term used for the coordinates of a ships form, deck heights, etc. Parallel Midbody is the straight part at the center of the ship where the waterlines and buttocks have no curvature; that is, where all the fore and aft lines are parallel. Plimsoll Mark is a mark scribed and painted on the side of a commercial vessel designating the depth to which the ship may be loaded. Port is the left hand side of the ship while looking forward. Pressure hull is the people tank of a submarine that is designed to withstand full submergence pressure. Contains all living, operations, and propulsion systems including variable ballast tanks.
Reballasting is the permanent adding, subtracting, or relocating weights in a submarine necessitated by permanent weight changes as a result of design alterations or equipment changes.
Reserve buoyancy is the volume of the watertight portion of the ship from the waterline up to the main deck (i.e., hull watertight envelope). This is a key indicator of the ships ability to survive ooding. See gure and Section 2.4.
Reserve Buoyancy
Waterline
Design Waterline
Bottom of Keel
Righting Arm is a moment arm Mbetween weight and buoyant forces. A measurement of stability. The B perpendicular distance from the center of gravity G to the line BM (point z). This can be seen to be equal to the distance GM sin for small angles of heel. Also termed GZ as in the following gure.
DR A
Freeboard Draft
Prole is a drawing view looking at the side of the ship. The lines plan shows buttock lines as curved lines where they contact the moulded surface. The prole view also shows the sheer of the deck.
300
Righting Arm Curve is a plot of righting arms against angles of heel. Also called a GZ (G-Zed) curve. Rollback angle, equilibrium angle, maximum righting arm and downood angle are predicated on the ship design and stability criteria used. Areas A1 and A2 are often used in stability criteria. Figure is an example of a ship righting arm curve and a wind heeling curve.
Righting and Heeling Arm Curves
DR
1
Wind Heeling Curve Area A2
Arm (ft)
AF
5
Max RA
-1
Rollback Angle
-2
Equilibrium Angle RA = HA
-20
-10
10
20
30
Heel Angle (degrees)
Righting Moment is the weight of the ship, W times GM sin . Sag is the straining of the ship that tends to make the middle portion lower than the bow and stern. Opposite of hog. Scantlings are the dimensions of various shapes or the ship itself. Sea Chest is an opening for supplying seawater to condensers, pumps, etc., and for discharging water from the ships water systems to the sea. It is a cast or built-up structure located in the hull below the waterline and attached to internal piping.
T
Z
Area A1
Downood Angle
40
50
60
70
80
90
301 Sheer is the longitudinal curve of a ships decks in a vertical plane, the usual reference being to the ships side. Due to sheer, a vessels deck height above the baseline is higher at the ends than amidships. Shell Expansion is a drawing showing the seams and butts, thickness, and associated welding or riveting of all plates comprising the shell plating, framing, etc. The plan shows the shell plating as if attened out onto the paperthis drawing should not be confused with an outboard prole.
Stability is that property of a oating body which causes it, when disturbed from a condition of equilibrium, to develop forces or moments which tend to restore the body to its original condition. Stable Ship A ship is stable when it has a positive distance GM (i.e. M above G). Increasing GM will result in a stier ship, one that resists inclining and returns to an upright position quickly.
Strength Deck is the deck that is designed as the uppermost part of the main hull longitudinal strength girder. The bottom shell plating forms the lowermost part of this girder. SUBSAFE is a US Navy program providing for certication and supporting documents to the eect that all submarine systems and components are of sound construction and capable of withstanding deep submergence pressures. Superstructure is a decked-over structure above the upper deck, the outboard sides of which are formed by the shell plating. For a submarine this is usually any non-pressure hull plating extending above the pressure hull. SWATH stands for Small Waterplane Area Twin Hull which is a unique ship catamaran type ship designed to be less aected by sea states than regular hull forms.
TCG is the Transverse Center of Gravity. This is measured in feet from the main axis of the ship to port (left) or starboard (right) while looking forward. Ton is the standard weight measure. In American shipbuilding (with some exceptions1 ), ton and long ton are equivalent terms and equate to 2240 pounds. Tonnage : Gross and net tonnage are measures of vessel volume or cubic capacities converted to tonnage units and are certied by the government or a recognized measurement authority. Under the Suez Canal rules and U. S. domestic (Regulatory) tonnage rules, a ton is equivalent to 100 cubic feet. Gross and net tonnage is used as bases for application of law, service fees, custom duties and canal tools. Gross tonnage is based on the total volume within the enclosed portion of a ships structure, including deckhouse, with certain exception. Net tonnage is intended to be a measure of a vessels earning capacity, such as space available for passengers and cargo and excludes spaces used for propulsion, fuel, crew, operation of a vessel that do not contribute to the earning capacity. There is no mathematical correlation between the gross and net tonnage and displacement tonnage of a ship. Displacement tonnage is a measure of vessel weight usually in long tons (2240 pounds).
1 Ships
built for US Great Lakes service generally use short tons of 2000 pounds.
DR
TCB is the Transverse Center of Buoyancy. This is measured in feet from the main axis of the ship to port (left) or starboard (right) while looking forward.
AF
Starboard is the right hand side of the ship while looking forward.
Shell Plating are the plates forming the outer skin of the hull.
302 Tonne is a metric ton or 1000 kilograms. This equates to 2204.6 pounds.
Trim is the dierence between the draft forward and the draft aft. If the draft forward is the greater, the ship is said to trim by the head. If the aft draft is greater, the ship is trimming by the stern. Trim may also be expressed in degrees by the stern or by the bow.
Ullage is the measurement of a tank expressed in terms of emptiness.
VCB is the Vertical Center of Buoyancy. This is measured in feet from the baseline of the ship. When the baseline of the ship is the keel (as it is for submarines), then it is referred to as the KB. This is essentially the center of gravity of the chunk of water that the ship is displacing. VCG is the Vertical Center of Gravity. This is measured in feet from the baseline of the ship. When the baseline of the ship is the keel (as it is for submarines), then it is referred to as the KG. Waterline is any one of certain lines of a ship parallel with(and at various heights above) the baseline. In half-breadth plans the waterlines are smooth curves showing the shape of the ship; in prole plans they are projected as straight lines.
DR AF T
Tumblehome is the inboard slope of a ships side, usually above the designed waterline. Opposite of Flare. See Figure A.
ESWBS
DR AF T
303
Appendix B
304
APPENDIX B. ESWBS Table B.1: Expanded Ship Work Breakdown Structure (ESWBS) Three Digit Summaries ESWBS 1 100 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 149 150 151 Title GROUP 1 HULL STRUCTURE HULL STRUCTURE, GENERAL SHELL AND SUPPORTING STRUCTURE SHELL PLATING, SURFACE SHIP AND SUBMARINE PRESSURE HULL SHELL PLATING, SUBMARINE NONPRESSURE HULL INNER BOTTOM SHELL APPENDAGES STANCHIONS LONGIT. FRAMING, SURF SHIP AND SUBMARINE PRESSURE HULL TRANSV. FRAMING, SURFACE SHIP AND SUBMARINE PRESSURE HULL LONGITUDINAL AND TRANSVERSE SUBMARINE NONPRESSURE HULL LIFT SYSTEM FLEXIBLE SKIRTS AND SEALS HULL STRUCTURAL BULKHEADS LONGITUDINAL STRUCTURAL BULKHEADS TRANSVERSE STRUCTURAL BULKHEADS TRUNKS AND ENCLOSURES BULKHEADS IN TORPEDO PROTECTION SYSTEM SUBMARINE HARD TANKS SUBMARINE SOFT TANKS HULL DECKS MAIN DECK 2ND DECK 3RD DECK 4TH DECK 5TH DECK AND DECKS BELOW 01 HULL DECK (FORECASTLE AND POOP DECKS) 02 HULL DECK 03 HULL DECK 04 HULL DECK AND HULL DECKS ABOVE HULL PLATFORMS AND FLATS 1ST PLATFORM 2ND PLATFORM 3RD PLATFORM 4TH PLATFORM 5TH PLATFORM FLATS DECK HOUSE STRUCTURE DECKHOUSE STRUCTURE TO FIRST LEVEL
DR AF T
Continued on next page
305 ESWBS 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 190 191 192 195 198 199 2 200 210 211 212 Title 1ST DECKHOUSE LEVEL 2ND DECKHOUSE LEVEL 3RD DECKHOUSE LEVEL 4TH DECKHOUSE LEVEL 5TH DECKHOUSE LEVEL 6TH DECKHOUSE LEVEL 7TH DECKHOUSE LEVEL 8TH DECKHOUSE LEVEL AND ABOVE SPECIAL STRUCTURES STRUCTURAL CASTINGS, FORGINGS, AND EQUIV. WELDMENTS SEA CHESTS BALLISTIC PLATING SONAR DOMES SPONSONS HULL STRUCTURAL CLOSURES DECKHOUSE STRUCTURAL CLOSURES SPECIAL PURPOSE CLOSURES AND STRUCTURES MASTS, KINGPOSTS, AND SERVICE PLATFORMS MASTS, TOWERS, TETRAPODS KINGPOSTS AND SUPPORT FRAMES SERVICE PLATFORMS FOUNDATIONS HULL STRUCTURE FOUNDATIONS PROPULSION PLANT FOUNDATIONS ELECTRIC PLANT FOUNDATIONS COMMAND AND SURVEILLANCE FOUNDATIONS AUXILIARY SYSTEMS FOUNDATIONS OUTFIT AND FURNISHINGS FOUNDATIONS ARMAMENT FOUNDATIONS SPECIAL PURPOSE SYSTEMS BALLAST, FIXED OR FLUID, AND BUOYANCY UNITS COMPARTMENT TESTING ERECTION OF SUB SECTIONS (PROGRESS REPORT ONLY) FREE FLOODING LIQUIDS HULL REPAIR PARTS AND SPECIAL TOOLS GROUP 2 PROPULSION PLANT PROPULSION PLANT, GENERAL ENERGY GENERATING SYSTEMS (NUCLEAR) (RESERVED) NUCLEAR STEAM GENERATOR
DR AF T
306 ESWBS 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 Title
APPENDIX B. ESWBS
REACTORS REACTOR COOLANT SYSTEM REACTOR COOLANT SERVICE SYSTEMS REACTOR PLANT AUXILIARY SYSTEMS NUCLEAR POWER CONTROL AND INSTRUMENTATION RADIATION SHIELDING (PRIMARY) RADIATION SHIELDING (SECONDARY) ENERGY GENERATING SYSTEMS (NONNUCLEAR) PROPULSION BOILERS GAS GENERATORS MAIN PROPULSION BATTERIES MAIN PROPULSION FUEL CELLS PROPULSION UNITS PROPULSION STEAM TURBINES PROPULSION STEAM ENGINES PROPULSION INTERNAL COMBUSTION ENGINES PROPULSION GAS TURBINES ELECTRIC PROPULSION SELFCONTAINED PROPULSION SYSTEMS AUXILIARY PROPULSION DEVICES SECONDARY PROPULSION EMERGENCY PROPULSION TRANSMISSION AND PROPULSOR SYSTEMS PROPULSION REDUCTION GEARS PROPULSION CLUTCHES AND COUPLINGS PROPULSION SHAFTING PROPULSION SHAFT BEARINGS PROPULSORS PROPULSOR SHROUDS AND DUCTS WATER JET PROPULSORS LIFT SYSTEM FANS AND DUCTING PROPULSION SUPPORT SYSTEMS (EXCEPT FUEL/LUBE) COMBUSTION AIR SYSTEM PROPULSION CONTROL SYSTEM MAIN STEAM PIPING SYSTEM CONDENSERS AND AIR EJECTORS FEED AND CONDENSATE SYSTEM CIRCULATING AND COOLING SEA WATER SYSTEM RESERVE FEED AND TRANSFER SYSTEM HP STEAM DRAIN SYSTEM UPTAKES (INNER CASING)
DR AF T
307 ESWBS 260 261 262 263 264 290 298 299 3 300 310 311 312 313 314 320 321 322 323 324 325 330 331 332 340 341 342 343 390 398 399 4 400 410 411 412 413 414 415 Title PROPULSION SUPPORT SYSTEMS (FUEL AND LUBE OIL) FUEL SERVICE SYSTEM MAIN PROPULSION LUBE OIL SYSTEM SHAFT LUBE OIL SYSTEM (SUBMARINES) LUBE OIL FILL, TRANSFER, AND PURIFICATION SPECIAL PURPOSE SYSTEMS PROPULSION PLANT OPERATING FLUIDS PROPULSION PLANT REPAIR PARTS AND SPECIAL TOOLS GROUP 3 ELECTRIC PLANT ELECTRIC PLANT, GENERAL ELECTRIC POWER GENERATION SHIP SERVICE POWER GENERATION EMERGENCY GENERATORS BATTERIES AND SERVICE FACILITIES POWER CONVERSION EQUIPMENT POWER DISTRIBUTION SYSTEMS SHIP SERVICE POWER CABLE EMERGENCY POWER CABLE SYSTEM CASUALTY POWER CABLE SYSTEM SWITCHGEAR AND PANELS ARC FAULT DETECTOR (AFD) SYSTEMS LIGHTING SYSTEM LIGHTING DISTRIBUTION LIGHTING FIXTURES POWER GENERATION SUPPORT SYSTEMS SSTG LUBE OIL DIESEL SUPPORT SYSTEMS TURBINE SUPPORT SYSTEMS SPECIAL PURPOSE SYSTEMS ELECTRIC PLANT OPERATING FLUIDS ELECTRIC PLANT REPAIR PARTS AND SPECIAL TOOLS GROUP 4 COMMAND & SURVEILLANCE COMMAND AND SURVEILLANCE, GENERAL COMMAND AND CONTROL SYSTEMS DATA DISPLAY GROUP DATA PROCESSING GROUP DIGITAL DATA SWITCHBOARDS INTERFACE EQUIPMENT DIGITAL DATA COMMUNICATIONS
DR AF T
308 ESWBS 417 420 421 422 423 424 425 426 427 428 430 431 432 433 434 435 436 437 438 439 440 441 442 443 444 445 446 450 451 452 453 454 455 456 457 458 459 460 461 462 463 Title
APPENDIX B. ESWBS
COMMAND AND CONTROL ANALOG SWITCHBOARDS NAVIGATION SYSTEMS NONELECTRICAL/NONELECTRONIC NAVIGATION AIDS ELECTRICAL NAVIGATION AIDS (INCL NAVIG. LIGHTS) ELECTRONIC NAVIGATION SYSTEMS ELECTRONIC NAVIGATION SYSTEMS, ACOUSTICAL PERISCOPES ELECTRICAL NAVIGATION SYSTEMS INERTIAL NAVIGATION SYSTEMS NAVIGATION CONTROL MONITORING INTERIOR COMMUNICATIONS SWITCHBOARDS FOR INTERIOR COMMUNICATION SYSTEMS TELEPHONE SYSTEMS ANNOUNCING SYSTEMS ENTERTAINMENT AND TRAINING SYSTEMS VOICE TUBES AND MESSAGE PASSING SYSTEMS ALARM, SAFETY, AND WARNING SYSTEMS INDICATING, ORDER, AND METERING SYSTEMS CONSOLIDATED CONTROL AND DISPLAY SYSTEMS RECORDING AND TELEVISION SYSTEMS EXTERIOR COMMUNICATIONS RADIO SYSTEMS UNDERWATER SYSTEMS VISUAL AND AUDIBLE COMMUNICATION SYSTEMS TELEMETRY SYSTEMS TELETYPE AND FACSIMILE SYSTEMS SECURITY EQUIPMENT SYSTEMS SURVEILLANCE SYSTEMS, SURFACE AND AIR SURFACE SURVEILLANCE RADAR SYSTEMS 2D AIR RADAR SYSTEMS 3D AIR RADAR SYSTEMS AIRCRAFT CONTROL RADAR SYSTEMS IDENTIFICATION SYSTEMS MULTIFUNCTION RADAR SYSTEMS INFRARED SURVEILLANCE AND TRACKING SYSTEMS AUTOMATIC DETECTION AND TRACKING SYSTEMS SPACE VEHICLE ELECTRONIC TRACKING SURVEILLANCE SYSTEMS (UNDERWATER) ACTIVE SURVEILLANCE SONAR PASSIVE SURVEILLANCE SONAR MULTIPLE MODE SURVEILLANCE SONAR
DR AF T
309 ESWBS 464 465 466 468 469 470 471 472 473 474 475 476 480 481 482 483 484 489 490 491 492 493 494 495 498 499 5 500 510 511 512 513 514 515 516 517 520 521 522 523 Title ACOUSTIC ANALYSIS SYSTEMS BATHYTHERMOGRAPH AIRBORNE MULTIPURPOSE SHIP EQUIPMENT SYSTEMS SURFACE SHIP COMBAT SYSTEMS SUBMARINE COMBAT SYSTEMS COUNTERMEASURE SYSTEMS ACTIVE EW (INCL COMBINATION ACTIVE/PASSIVE) PASSIVE ECM UNDERWATER COUNTERMEASURES DECOY SYSTEMS DEGAUSSING SYSTEMS MINE COUNTERMEASURE SYSTEMS FIRE CONTROL SYSTEMS GUN FIRE CONTROL SYSTEMS MISSILE FIRE CONTROL SYSTEMS UNDERWATER FIRE CONTROL SYSTEMS INTEGRATED FIRE CONTROL SYSTEMS WEAPON SYSTEMS SWITCHBOARDS SPECIAL PURPOSE SYSTEMS ELECTRONIC TEST, CHECKOUT, AND MONITORING EQUIPMENT FLIGHT CONTROL AND INSTRUMENT LANDING SYSTEMS AUTOMATED DATA PROCESSING SYSTEMS (NONCOMBAT) METEOROLOGICAL SYSTEMS SPECIAL PURPOSE INTELLIGENCE SYSTEMS COMMAND AND SURVEILLANCE OPERATING FLUIDS COMMAND AND SURV. REPAIR PARTS AND SPECIAL TOOLS GROUP 5 AUXILIARY SYSTEMS AUXILIARY SYSTEMS, GENERAL CLIMATE CONTROL COMPARTMENT HEATING SYSTEM VENTILATION SYSTEM MACHINERY SPACE VENTILATION SYSTEM AIR CONDITIONING SYSTEM AIR REVITALIZATION SYSTEMS (SUBMARINES) REFRIGERATION SYSTEM AUXILIARY BOILERS AND OTHER HEAT SOURCES SEA WATER SYSTEMS FIREMAIN AND FLUSHING (SEA WATER) SYSTEM SPRINKLER SYSTEM WASHDOWN SYSTEM
DR AF T
310 ESWBS 524 526 527 528 529 530 531 532 533 534 535 536 540 541 542 543 544 545 546 549 550 551 552 553 554 555 556 557 558 560 561 562 563 564 565 566 567 568 570 571 572 Title
APPENDIX B. ESWBS
AUXILIARY SEA WATER SYSTEM SCUPPERS AND DECK DRAINS FIREMAIN ACTUATED SERVICES OTHER PLUMBING DRAINAGE DRAINAGE AND BALLASTING SYSTEM FRESH WATER SYSTEMS DISTILLING PLANT COOLING WATER POTABLE WATER AUXILIARY STEAM AND DRAINS WITHIN MACHINERY BOX AUXILIARY STEAM AND DRAINS OUTSIDE MACHINERY BOX AUXILIARY FRESH WATER COOLING FUELS AND LUBRICANTS, HANDLING AND STORAGE SHIP FUEL AND FUEL COMPENSATING SYSTEM AVIATION AND GENERAL PURPOSE FUELS AVIATION AND GENERAL PURPOSE LUBRICATING OIL LIQUID CARGO TANK HEATING AUXILIARY LUBRICATION SYSTEMS SPECIAL FUEL AND LUBRICANTS, HANDLING AND STOWAGE AIR, GAS, AND MISCELLANEOUS FLUID SYSTEMS COMPRESSED AIR SYSTEMS COMPRESSED GASES O2 N2 SYSTEM MAIN BALLAST TANK BLOW AND LIST CONTROL SYSTEM FIRE EXTINGUISHING SYSTEMS HYDRAULIC FLUID SYSTEM LIQUID GASES, CARGO SPECIAL PIPING SYSTEMS SHIP CONTROL SYSTEMS STEERING AND DIVING CONTROL SYSTEMS RUDDER HOVERING AND DEPTH CONTROL (SUBMARINE) TRIM AND DRAIN SYSTEMS (SUBMARINES) TRIM AND HEEL SYSTEMS (SURFACE SHIPS) DIVING PLANES AND STABILIZING FINS (SUBMARINES) STRUT AND FOIL SYSTEMS MANEUVERING SYSTEMS REPLENISHMENT SYSTEMS REPLENISHMENTATSEA SYSTEMS SHIP STORES AND EQUIPMENT HANDLING SYSTEMS
DR AF T
311 ESWBS 573 574 575 580 581 582 583 584 585 586 587 588 589 590 591 592 593 594 595 596 597 598 599 6 600 610 611 612 613 620 621 622 623 624 625 630 631 632 633 634 Title CARGO HANDLING SYSTEMS VERTICAL REPLENISHMENT SYSTEMS VEHICLE HANDLING AND STOWAGE SYSTEMS MECHANICAL HANDLING SYSTEMS ANCHOR HANDLING AND STOWAGE SYSTEMS MOORING AND TOWING SYSTEMS BOATS, BOAT HANDLING AND STOWAGE SYSTEMS LANDING CRAFT HANDLING AND STOWAGE SYSTEMS ELEVATING AND RETRACTING GEAR AIRCRAFT RECOVERY SUPPORT SYSTEMS AIRCRAFT LAUNCH SUPPORT SYSTEMS AIRCRAFT HANDLING, SERVICING AND STOWAGE MISCELLANEOUS MECHANICAL HANDLING SYSTEMS SPECIAL PURPOSE SYSTEMS SCIENTIFIC AND OCEAN ENGINEERING SYSTEMS SWIMMER AND DIVER SUPPORT AND PROTECTION SYSTEMS ENVIRONMENTAL POLLUTION CONTROL SYSTEMS SUBMARINE RESCUE, SALVAGE, AND SURVIVAL SYSTEMS TOWING, LAUNCHING AND HANDLING FOR UNDERWATER SYS. HANDLING SYS. FOR DIVER AND SUBMERSIBLE VEHICLES SALVAGE SUPPORT SYSTEMS AUXILIARY SYSTEMS OPERATING FLUIDS AUXILIARY SYSTEMS REPAIR PARTS AND TOOLS GROUP 6 OUTFIT & FURNISHINGS OUTFIT AND FURNISHINGS, GENERAL SHIP FITTINGS HULL FITTINGS RAILS, STANCHIONS, AND LIFELINES RIGGING AND CANVAS HULL COMPARTMENTATION NONSTRUCTURAL BULKHEADS FLOOR PLATES AND GRATINGS LADDERS NONSTRUCTURAL CLOSURES AIRPORTS, FIXED PORTLIGHTS, AND WINDOWS PRESERVATIVES AND COVERINGS PAINTING ZINC AND METALLIC COATINGS CATHODIC PROTECTION DECK COVERING
DR AF T
312 ESWBS 635 636 637 638 639 640 641 642 643 644 645 650 651 652 653 654 655 656 660 661 662 663 664 665 670 671 672 673 690 691 698 699 7 700 710 711 712 713 720 721 Title
APPENDIX B. ESWBS
DR AF T
GROUP 7 ARMAMENT ARMAMENT, GENERAL GUNS AND AMMUNITION GUNS AMMUNITION HANDLING AMMUNITION STOWAGE MISSILES AND ROCKETS LAUNCHING DEVICES (MISSILES AND ROCKETS)
HULL INSULATION HULL DAMPING SHEATHING REFRIGERATED SPACES RADIATION SHIELDING LIVING SPACES OFFICER BERTHING AND MESSING SPACES NONCOMMISSIONED OFFICER BERTHING AND MESSING SPACES ENLISTED PERSONNEL BERTHING AND MESSING SPACES SANITARY SPACES AND FIXTURES LEISURE AND COMMUNITY SPACES SERVICE SPACES COMMISSARY SPACES MEDICAL SPACES DENTAL SPACES UTILITY SPACES LAUNDRY SPACES TRASH DISPOSAL SPACES WORKING SPACES OFFICES MACHINERY CONTROL CENTERS FURNISHINGS ELECTRONICS CONTROL CENTERS FURNISHINGS DAMAGE CONTROL STATIONS WORKSHOPS, LABS, TEST AREAS (INCL PORTABLE TOOLS, EQUIP) STOWAGE SPACES LOCKERS AND SPECIAL STOWAGE STOREROOMS AND ISSUE ROOMS CARGO STOWAGE SPECIAL PURPOSE SYSTEM TRANSMISSION LOSS TREATMENT OUTFIT AND FURNISHINGS OPERATING FLUIDS OUTFIT AND FURNISH. REPAIR PARTS AND SPECIAL TOOLS
313 ESWBS 722 723 724 725 726 727 728 729 730 731 732 733 740 741 742 743 750 751 752 753 754 755 760 761 762 763 770 772 773 780 782 783 784 785 786 790 792 793 797 798 799 Title MISSILE, ROCKET, AND GUIDANCE CAPSULE HANDLING SYS. MISSILE AND ROCKET STOWAGE MISSILE HYDRAULICS MISSILE GAS MISSILE COMPENSATING MISSILE LAUNCHER CONTROL MISSILE HEATING, COOLING, TEMPERATURE CONTROL MISSILE MONITORING, TEST AND ALIGNMENT MINES MINE LAUNCHING DEVICES MINE HANDLING MINE STOWAGE DEPTH CHARGES DEPTH CHARGE LAUNCHING DEVICES DEPTH CHARGE HANDLING DEPTH CHARGE STOWAGE TORPEDOES TORPEDO TUBES TORPEDO HANDLING TORPEDO STOWAGE SUBMARINE TORPEDO EJECTION TORPEDO SUPPORT, TEST AND ALIGNMENT SMALL ARMS AND PYROTECHNICS SMALL ARMS AND PYROTECHNIC LAUNCHING DEVICES SMALL ARMS AND PYROTECHNIC HANDLING SMALL ARMS AND PYROTECHNIC STOWAGE CARGO MUNITIONS CARGO MUNITIONS HANDLING CARGO MUNITIONS STOWAGE AIRCRAFT RELATED WEAPONS AIRCRAFT RELATED WEAPONS HANDLING AIRCRAFT RELATED WEAPONS STOWAGE AIRCRAFT RELATED WEAPONS ELEVATORS, UPPER STAGES AIRCRAFT RELATED WEAPONS ELEVATORS, LOWER STAGES AIRCRAFT RELATED WEAPONS, HYDRAULICS SPECIAL PURPOSE SYSTEMS SPECIAL WEAPONS HANDLING SPECIAL WEAPONS STOWAGE MISCELLANEOUS ORDNANCE SPACES ARMAMENT OPERATING FLUIDS ARMAMENT REPAIR PARTS AND SPECIAL TOOLS
DR AF T
314 ESWBS Title
APPENDIX B. ESWBS
F F00 F10 F11 F12 F13 F14 F15 F16 F19 F20 F21 F22 F23 F24 F25 F26 F29 F30 F31 F32 F33 F39 F40 F41 F42 F43 F44 F45 F46 F49 F50 F51 F52 F53 F54 F55 F56 F59 F60
GROUP F FULL LOAD, LOADS LOADS (FULL LOAD CONDITION) SHIPS FORCE, AMPHIB. FORCE, TROOPS AND PASSENGERS SHIPS OFFICERS SHIPS NONCOMMISSIONED OFFICERS SHIPS ENLISTED MEN MARINES TROOPS AIR WING PERSONNEL OTHER PERSONNEL MISSION RELATED EXPENDABLES AND SYSTEMS SHIP AMMUNITION (FOR USE BY SHIP ON WHICH STOWED) ORDNANCE DELIVERY SYSTEMS AMMUNITION ORDNANCE DELIVERY SYSTEMS ORDNANCE REPAIR PARTS (SHIP AMMO) ORDNANCE REPAIR PARTS (ORDNANCE DELIVERY SYS. AMMO) ORDNANCE DELIVERY SYSTEMS SUPPORT EQUIPMENT SPECIAL MISSION RELATED SYSTEMS AND EXPENDABLES STORES PROVISIONS AND PERSONNEL STORES GENERAL STORES MARINES STORES (FOR SHIPS COMPLEMENT) SPECIAL STORES FUELS AND LUBRICANTS DIESEL FUEL JP5 GASOLINE DISTILLATE FUEL NAVY STANDARD FUEL OIL (NSFO) LUBRICATING OIL SPECIAL FUELS AND LUBRICANTS LIQUIDS AND GASES (NON FUEL TYPE) SEA WATER FRESH WATER RESERVE FEED WATER HYDRAULIC FLUID SANITARY TANK LIQUID GAS (NON FUEL TYPE) MISCELLANEOUS LIQUIDS (NON FUEL TYPE) CARGO
DR AF T
315 ESWBS F61 F62 F63 F64 F65 F66 F67 F69 F70 F71 F72 F73 M M00 M10 M11 M12 M20 M21 M22 M23 M24 M25 M26 M27 M30 M31 M32 M33 M34 M35 M36 M37 M40 M41 M42 M43 M44 M45 M46 Title CARGO, ORDNANCE AND ORDNANCE DELIVERY SYSTEMS CARGO, STORES CARGO, FUELS AND LUBRICANTS CARGO, LIQUIDS (NON FUEL TYPE) CARGO, CRYOGENIC AND LIQUIFIED GAS CARGO, AMPHIBIOUS ASSAULT SYSTEMS CARGO, GASES CARGO, MISCELLANEOUS SEA WATER BALLAST (SUBMARINES) MAIN BALLAST WATER (SUBMARINES) VARIABLE BALLAST WATER (SUBMARINES) RESIDUAL WATER (SUBMARINES)
DR AF T
GROUP M ACQUISITION MARGINS MARGINS CONTRACTOR CONTROLLED MARGINS DESIGN AND BUILDING MARGIN BUILDING MARGIN (RESERVED) GOVERNMENT CONTROLLED MARGIN (SURFACE SHIP) PRELIMINARY DESIGN MARGIN (SURFACE SHIP) CONTRACT DESIGN MARGIN (SURFACE SHIP) CONTRACT MODIFICATION MARGIN (SURFACE SHIP) GEM MARGIN (SURFACE SHIP) FUTURE GROWTH MARGIN (SURFACE SHIP) SERVICE LIFE MARGIN (SURFACE SHIP) NUCLEAR MACHINERY MARGIN (SURFACE SHIP) GOVERNMENT CONTROLLED MARGIN STATUS (SUBMARINES) PRELIMINARY DESIGN MARGIN (SUBMARINE) CONTRACT DESIGN MARGIN (SUBMARINE) NAVSHIPS DEVELOPMENT MARGIN (SUBMARINE) NUCLEAR MACHINERY MARGIN (SUBMARINE) FUTURE GROWTH MARGIN (SUBMARINE) STABILITY LEAD STATUS (SUBMARINE) TRIMMING LEAD STATUS (SUBMARINE) BALLAST STATUS (SUBMARINE) LEAD, INTERNAL (SUBMARINE) LEAD, EXTERNAL (SUBMARINE) LEAD, MET (SUBMARINE) STEEL, INTERNAL (SUBMARINE) STEEL, EXTERNAL (SUBMARINE) STEEL, MBT (SUBMARINE) Continued on next page
316 ESWBS M47 M48 Title LEAD CORRECTION, MET (SUBMARINE) LEAD CORRECTION, OTHER THEN MET (SUBMARINE)
APPENDIX B. ESWBS
DR AF T
MARAD
DR AF T
317
Appendix C
318
APPENDIX C. MARAD Table C.1: Maritime Administration weight classication listing -
Hull Structure
Code Item Forgings and Castings Stem casting Stern frame casting Boss casting Shaft struts Misc. Hull Castings Code Item Pillars and Girders Pillars and Girders
DR AF T
0-0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 5-0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Shell Plating Hull Miscellaneous 1-0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Flat Plate Keel Shell Plating Bulwarks Bilge Keels Boss Plating Rubbing Strips and Fenders Sea Chests/Skin Coolers Skegs Thruster Tunnels/Wells Framing 6-0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Foundations 2-0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Center Vertical Keel Trans. Framing in I.B. Long. Framing in I.B. Framing in Peaks Transom and Cants Web Frames Longl Girder Ring Longl Stringer Ring 7-0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Continued on next page
Inner Bottom Plating Platform Deck Sponsons Cantilevers Coerdam Flats & Floors Helicopter Platform Miscellaneous Flats and Floors Stability Column Support Legs Protective Covers/Barriers
Main Engine Foundations Boiler Foundations Auxiliary Machine Fdns Shaft Stools Fdns Miscellaneous Foundations Cryogenic/Chemical Fnds
319 Code Item Deck Plating and Beams 3-0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 8-0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Code Item Superstructures
4-0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
DR AF T
Bulkheads and Trunks Miscellaneous Houses Stack Enclosure Riveting and Welding Riveting and Welding Welding Mill Tolerance Main Trans W.T. Bhds Trans. W.T. and O.T. Bhds Long. W.T. and O.T. Bhds Structural N.W.T. Bhds Nonstructural Bhds Trunks, Structural Trunks, Nonstructural Stair Enclosures Hatch Coamings Drill Wells/Leg Wells 9-0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
320 Table C.2: MARAD weight classication listing Code Item Structure Steel in Outt Steel Masts, Kingposts, etc. Steel Booms Steel Hatch Covers and Beams Steel Stairways Steel Sheet Metal Work Drill Derricks Self-Unloading Booms Code
APPENDIX C. MARAD
Outt
Item Deck Outt Anchors, Chains, Lines Boats and Boat Handling Rigging and Blocks Canvas Work Miscellaneous Deck Outt Underwater Support Equipment Exterior Paint Interior Paint Tank Paint Special Coatings Stewards Outt/Defense Galley and Pantry Equipment Utility Space Equipment Stewards Outt
DR AF T
Hull Attachments 11-0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Deck Castings, Mooring Fittings Mast and Spar Forgings Rails and Stanchions Ladders Miscellaneous Hull Fittings Ratproong Guide Struc./Lashings Prim. Cryogenic Contain. Sec. Cryogenic Contain. Tug/Barge Connections Lights, Door Hatches, Ramps 16-0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 National Defense Hull Engineering 12-0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Sliding W.T. Doors Hinged W.T. Doors Manholes and Scuttles Airports, Windows, and Lights Hatches and Ports O.T. or W.T. N.W.T. Steel Doors Skylights and Companions Movable Ramps 17-0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Continued on next page
10-0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
15-0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Fire Det. and Ext. System Heating System Ventilation System Ventilation Mechanical Refrigeration Systems Plumbing Fixtures and Drains
321 Code Item Carpenter Work and Decking 13-0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Wooden Masts and Spars Wood Hatch Covers Hold Ceiling and Sparring Miscellaneous Carpenter Work Wood Decks Wood Houses Composition Deck Covering Sheet/Block Deck Tile Cement and Misc. Coverings Joiner Work 18-0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Code Item Piping
14-0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
DR AF T
Interior Jointer Work Furniture Joiner Decks Decorative Joiner Work Accommodation Ladder Special Insulation Insulation in Quarters Fire Insulation 19-0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Bilge and Ballast System Cargo Oil System Deck Steam and Ex. System Fire Mains San. And Fresh Water System Fuel Oil Transfer System Vents, Soundings and Overows Cryogenic/Chem. Cargo Sys. Inert/Nitrogen System Hydraulic System Miscellaneous Machinery Deck Machinery Steer. Gear and Rudder Communication System Electric Plant Dumb Waiters and Elevators Auxiliary Boiler Distiller Plant (Ship Use) Stabilizers Thrusters Bulk Unloading
322 Table C.3: MARAD weight classication listing -
APPENDIX C. MARAD
Machinery
Code Item Main Propulsion Units Main Propulsion Turbine Drain and Leako System Main Reduction Gears Main Condenser Main Air Ejector Main Circulating System Code Item Boilers and E.O. System Boilers Fuel Oil Burners
DR AF T
20-0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 26-0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Feed and Condensate Equip. Steam Piping 21-0 1 2 3 4 5 Feed Heaters Feed and Condensate System 27-0 1 2 3 4 5 Evaporator System Miscellaneous 22-0 1 2 3 4 5 6 Makeup Feed System Contaminated System Salt Water Evap. System 28-0 1 2 3 4 5 6 Shafting and Propellers 23-0 1 2 3 4 Shafting Bearings and Stern Tube Propellers Miscellaneous Shafting Parts Shafting and Propeller Spares Continued on next page 29-0 1 2 3 4
Soot Blowers Boiler Draft System Automatic Combustion Control Stacks and Uptakes F.O. Service System LNG Boil O System
Main Steam Piping Auxiliary Steam Piping Exhaust and Escape Piping Steam Drain System Whistles
Access Work Shop Lifting and Handling Gear Machinery Space Ventilation Machinery Space Fixtures Spare Parts Misc. Instruments and Gages Liquids in Machinery Liquids in Machinery (Gr. 1219) Water (Gr. 2028) Oil (Gr. 2028)
323 Code Item Lubricating Oil System 24-0 1 2 3 4 Lube Oil System Misc. Engine Oil Tanks Code Item
25-0
DR AF T
Air System 1 2 3 4 Service Compressed Air Serv. Sys. Starting Air System Scavenger Air System
324APPENDIX C. MARAD
DR AF T
Useful Weight Tables
DR AF T
325
Appendix D
326 Material Steel Aluminum Brass Concrete Copper Lead Polyurethane Rubber - Bulk Polyethylene Asbestos Asphaltum (gilsonite) Lead Ballast Iron Ballast Concrete Ballast Brick, re Cement, Portland Cement, Portland and sand Cement, Portland and sand Cement, Portland and sand Coal, anthracite Coal, bituminous, aboard ship Concrete (plain), cured Cork, compressed Glass Granite Ice Marble Sand, dry Sand, wet Tar, bituminous
lbs/ft3
APPENDIX D. USEFUL WEIGHT TABLES

gm/cm3
Remarks
DR AF T
Minimum Density Minimum Density Minimum Density Proportions 1:1 Proportions 1:2 Proportions 1:3
Table D.1: Weights of Common Shipbuilding Materials.
490.00 165.00 538.00 145.00 547.00 710.00 57.43 76.00 54.41 153.90 81.90 700.00 425.00 200.00 130.00 100.00 136.50 134.20 133.80 52.00 53.30 150.00 14.40 165.00 165.00 57.20 170.00 98.00 121.00 62.40
7.85 2.64 8.62 2.32 8.76 11.37 0.92 1.22 0.87 2.47 1.31 11.21 6.81 3.20 2.08 1.60 2.19 2.15 2.14 0.83 0.85 2.40 0.23 2.64 2.64 0.92 2.72 1.57 1.94 1.00
327
Table D.2: Weights of steel plate by nominal thickness (1.275 pounds per 1/32 of an inch thickness).
DR AF T
Thickness inch 1/32 1/16 3/32 1/8 5/32 3/16 7/32 1/4 9/32 5/16 11/32 3/8 13/32 7/16 15/32 1/2 17/32 9/16 19/32 5/8 21/32 11/16 23/32 3/4 25/32 13/16 27/32 7/8 29/32 15/16 31/32 1
Weight lbs/f t2 1.275 2.550 3.825 5.100 6.375 7.650 8.925 10.200 11.475 12.750 14.025 15.300 16.575 17.850 19.125 20.400 21.675 22.950 24.225 25.500 26.775 28.050 29.325 30.600 31.875 33.150 34.425 35.700 36.975 38.250 39.525 40.800
Thickness inch 1 1/32 1 1/16 1 3/32 1 1/8 1 5/32 1 3/16 1 7/32 1 1/4 1 9/32 1 5/16 1 11/32 1 3/8 1 13/32 1 7/16 1 15/32 1 1/2 1 17/32 1 9/16 1 19/32 1 5/8 1 21/32 1 11/16 1 23/32 1 3/4 1 25/32 1 13/16 1 27/32 1 7/8 1 29/32 1 15/16 1 31/32 2
Weight lbs/f t2 42.075 43.350 44.625 45.900 47.175 48.450 49.725 51.000 52.275 53.550 54.825 56.100 57.375 58.650 59.925 61.200 62.475 63.750 65.025 66.300 67.575 68.850 70.125 71.400 72.675 73.950 75.225 76.500 77.775 79.050 80.325 81.600
Thickness inch 2 1/32 2 1/16 2 3/32 2 1/8 2 5/32 2 3/16 2 7/32 2 1/4 2 9/32 2 5/16 2 11/32 2 3/8 2 13/32 2 7/16 2 15/32 2 1/2 2 17/32 2 9/16 2 19/32 2 5/8 2 21/32 2 11/16 2 23/32 2 3/4 2 25/32 2 13/16 2 27/32 2 7/8 2 29/32 2 15/16 2 31/32 3
Weight lbs/f t2 82.875 84.150 85.424 86.700 87.975 89.250 90.525 91.800 93.075 94.350 95.625 96.900 98.175 99.450 100.725 102.000 103.275 104.550 105.825 107.100 108.375 109.650 110.925 112.200 113.475 114.750 116.025 117.300 118.575 119.850 121.125 122.400
328
DR AF T
Gage No. Thickness (inch) Sheet Steel Galvanized Sheet 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 0.1685 0.1532 0.1379 0.1225 0.1072 0.0919 0.0766 0.0689 0.0613 0.0550 0.0490 0.0429 0.0368 0.0337 0.0306 0.0276 0.0245 0.0214 0.0184 0.0169 0.0153 0.0138 0.0123 6.8750 6.2500 5.6250 5.000 4.3750 3.7500 3.1250 2.8120 2.5000 2.2500 2.000 1.7500 1.5000 1.3750 1.2500 1.1250 1.0000 0.8750 0.7500 0.6880 0.6250 0.5620 0.5000 7.0310 6.4060 5.7810 4.5156 4.5310 3.9060 3.2810 2.9690 2.6560 2.4066 2.1560 1.9060 1.6560 1.5310 1.4060 1.2810 1.1560 1.0310 0.9060 0.8444 0.7810 0.7190 0.6560 Stainless Straight Chrome Alloys 7.0810 6.4380 5.7940 5.1500 4.5060 3.8620 3.2190 2.8970 2.5750 2.3180 2.0600 1.8020 1.5450 1.4160 1.2880 1.1590 1.0300 0.9010 0.7720 0.7080 0.6440 0.5790 0.5150
Table D.3: Weights of steel sheet in
lbs./ft2 .
Stainless Chrome Nickel Alloys 7.219 6.563 5.906 5.250 4.594 3.938 3.281 2.953 2.625 2.362 2.100 1.838 1.575 1.444 1.312 1.181 1.050 0.919 0.788 0.722 0.656 0.591 0.525
329
Table D.4: Weights of common compressed gases (Hydrogen, Nitrogen, Air, Oxygen) at 68 F in the weight per volume of gas at a pressure is PSIA Factor = (PSI Gage + 14.7) Factor.
DR AF T
= = = = = = Drams 0.03657 1.0 16.0 256.0 512000.0 573440.0 = = = = = = Ounces 0.002286 0.0625 1.0 16.0 32000.0 35840.0 = = = = = = Pounds 0.000143 0.003906 0.0625 1.0 2000.0 2240.0 = = = = = = Tons 0.0000000714 0.00000195 0.00003125 0.0005 1.0 1.12 = = = = = =
Table D.5: Weight conversion table for avoirdupois weights.
PSIG Factor: 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600 1700 1800 1900 2000 2100 2200 2300 2400 2500
Hydro. 0.000356 0.04 0.08 0.11 0.15 0.18 0.22 0.25 0.29 0.33 0.36 0.40 0.43 0.47 0.50 0.54 0.57 0.61 0.65 0.68 0.72 0.75 0.79 0.82 0.86 0.90
N2 0.00495 0.57 1.06 1.56 2.05 2.55 3.04 3.54 4.03 4.53 5.02 5.52 6.01 6.51 7.00 7.50 7.99 8.49 8.98 9.48 9.97 10.47 10.96 11.46 11.95 12.45
Air 0.005117 0.59 1.10 1.61 2.12 2.63 3.15 3.66 4.17 4.68 5.19 5.70 6.22 6.73 7.24 7.75 8.26 8.77 9.29 9.80 10.31 10.82 11.33 11.84 12.36 12.87
O2 0.005656 0.65 1.21 1.78 2.35 2.91 3.48 4.04 4.61 5.17 5.74 6.30 6.87 7.44 8.00 8.57 9.13 9.70 10.26 10.83 11.40 11.96 12.53 13.09 13.66 14.22
PSIG Factor: 2600 2700 2800 2900 3000 3100 3200 3300 3400 3500 3600 3700 3700 3800 3900 4000 4100 4200 4300 4400 4500 4600 4700 4800 4900 5000
Hydro. 0.000356 0.93 0.97 1.00 1.04 1.07 1.11 1.14 1.18 1.22 1.25 1.29 1.32 1.32 1.36 1.39 1.43 1.46 1.50 1.54 1.57 1.61 1.64 1.68 1.71 1.75 1.79
N2 0.00495 12.94 13.44 13.93 14.43 14.92 15.42 15.91 16.41 16.90 17.40 17.89 18.39 18.39 18.88 19.38 19.87 20.37 20.86 21.36 21.85 22.35 22.84 23.34 23.83 24.33 24.82
Air 0.005117 13.38 13.89 14.40 14.91 15.43 15.94 16.45 16.96 17.47 17.98 18.50 19.01 19.01 19.52 20.03 20.54 21.05 21.57 22.08 22.59 23.10 23.61 24.13 24.64 25.25 25.66
O2 0.005656 14.79 15.35 15.92 16.49 17.05 17.62 18.18 18.75 19.31 19.88 20.44 21.01 21.01 21.58 22.14 22.71 23.27 23.84 24.40 24.97 25.54 26.10 26.67 27.23 27.80 28.36
lbs/f t3 .
Formula for
Grains 1.0 27.34375 437.5 7000.0 14000000.0 15680000.0
LTons 0.000000063839286 0.00000174375 0.000027901786 0.00044642857 0.89285714 1.0
330
DR AF T
Standard Densities* Equivalent Densities* Metric Units US Units
tonne/m3 Lbs/ft3 ft3/ton
Liquid
gal/ton Sea Water 0.9755 1.0252 64.00 35.00 261.8 Fresh Water 1.0033 0.9967 62.22 36.00 269.3 NSFO 1.0591 0.9442 59.00 38.00 284.0 Hydraulic Oil 1.0730 0.9320 58.18 38.5 288.0 Lube Oil (Ship) 1.0869 0.9200 57.50 39.0 291.4 Lube Oil (Aviation) 1.1120 0.8993 56.18 39.9 298.7 Navy Distillate Fuel 1.1789 0.8482 52.97 42.3 316.4 Diesel Oil 1.1984 0.8344 52.04 43.0 322.0 JP-5 1.2291 0.8136 50.80 44.1 329.9 Alcohol 1.2374 0.8081 50.50 44.4 331.8 Gasoline (Auto) 1.3768 0.7263 45.37 49.4 369.5 Gasoline (Aviation) 1.4269 0.7008 43.75 51.2 383.0 Ice 1.1110 0.9000 56.20 39.9 N/A 1 ton = 2240 lbs 1 gal = 231 in3 1 ft3 = 1728 in3 1 ft3 = 7.48 gal *Note: Equivalent densities may be used in lieu of the precise conversion from the Standard values provided it is applied consistent with the unit system and throughout the vessel design and documentation.
Specic Gravity 1.029 1.000 0.947 0.035 0.923 0.902 0.851 0.837 0.816 0.811 0.729 0.703 0.900
m3/tonne
Table D.6: Unit weights of liquids.
[1] Standard Practice for Use of SI (Metric) Units in Maritime Applications. ASTM No. F1332 93.
[3] John P. Comstock, editor. Principles of Naval Architecture. Society of Naval Architects and Marine Engineers, 1986. [4] Society of Allied Weight Engineers. Recommended Practice 12c, Weight Control Technical Requirements for Surface Ships, May 2002. [5] NAVSEA. NAVSEA Instruction 9096.6B, Policy for Weight and Vertical Center of Gravity Above Bottom of Keel (KG) Margin for Surface Ships, January 2000. [6] Society of Allied Weight Engineers. Recommended Practice 15, Vendor Weight Control for the Marine Industry, May 2004.
[8] MARAD, Department of Transportation. Maritime Administration Classication of Merchant Ship Weights, January 1985. [9] Society of Allied Weight Engineers. Recommended Practice 13, Standard Coordinated System for Reporting Mass Properties of Surface Ships and Submarines, June 1996. [10] Society of Allied Weight Engineers. Recommended Practice 14, Weight Estimating and Margin Manual for Marine Vehicles, May 2001. [11] American Bureau of Shipping (ABS) Naval Vessel Rules, U.S.C.G. Appendix, Part 0, Chapter 10, March 2005. [12] ASTM website: www.astm.org.
[13] E.K. Straubinger, W.C. Curran, and V.L. Fighera. Fundamentals of naval surface ship weight estimating. In Society of Allied Weight Engineers Conference, 1983. Paper No. 1533. [14] SAWE Members. Weight Engineers Handbook. Society of Allied Weight Engineers, 2002. 331
DR
[7] NAVSEA. Expanded Ship Work Breakdown Structure for all Ships and Ship/Combat Systems, February 1985. S9040-AA-IDX-010/SWBS 5D and S9040-AA-IDX-020/SWBS 5D (Volumes I and II).
AF
[2] NAVSEA. Weight Control of Naval Ships, Volume 1, S9096-AA-WCM-010/(U)WT CNTRL, February 1985.
References
332
REFERENCES
[15] M.A. Redmond. Ship weight estimates using computerized ratiocination. In Society of Allied Weight Engineers Conference, 1984. Paper No. 1602. [16] Naval Ship Technical Manual S9086-C6-STM-000, Chapter 096 Weights and Stability, October 2005. Revision 2.
[18] D. Cimino and M. Redmond. Naval ships weight moment of inertia ( a comparative analysis). In Society of Allied Weight Engineers Conference, May 1991. Paper No. 2013. [19] National Type Evaluation Program in compliance with NIST Handbook 44, 2199.
[20] NAVSEA. NAVSEA Instruction 9096.3E, Weight and Moment Compensation and Limiting Drafts for Naval Surface Ships, September 2004. [21] David Menna. A ship design application of quality function deployment techniques in weight reduction decision-making. In 61st Annual Conference of the Society of Allied Weight Engineers, May 2002. SAWE Paper no. 3278. [22] C. J. Berlew and R.H. Homan. Special features of the ddg-51 weight control program. In American Society of Naval Engineers, September 1992. [23] Kelvin H. Klink. The weight improvement process as an element of weight control. In 48th Annual Conference of the Society of Allied Weight Engineers, May 1989. SAWE Paper 1878. [24] American Society for Testing and Materials. ASTM F1321-92, Standard Guide for Conducting a Stability Test (Lightship Survey and Inclining Experiment) to Determine the Light Ship Displacement and Centers of Gravity of a Vessel. [25] John E. Ayers. The value of a pound. In Society of Aeronautical Weight Engineers Conference, April 1942. SAWE Paper No. 23. [26] Jan Paul Hope and Vernon E. Stortz. Warships and cost constraints. Naval Engineers Journal, March 1986. [27] US Navy, Naval Sea Systems Command. 2005 Cost Estimating Handbook, 2005. [28] J. Bowles. Weight watcher. Professional Boatbuilder, February 2005.
DR AF T
[17] W.A.G. Hogg and D. Cimino. Methodology to qualify and quantify preliminary ship design weight estimates. In Society of Allied Weight Engineers Conference, 1977. Paper No. 1192.
Index
ABS, 75 ABWE, 37, 39, 242 accuracy, 156 acquisition DOD, 20 acquisition phases, 28 AIAA, 182 allowance list, 45 aluminum, 183 American Bureau of Shipping, 204 amidships, 293 ANSI, 154 AoA, 30 appendages, 111, 125, 131, 192, 236, 237, 251, 296, 299 Archimedes, 5, 233, 234, 243, 294 armament, 102 As-Inclined, 293 ASNE, 75 astm, 76 athwartship, 293 award fee, 38 AWE, 3739, 45, 172, see weight estimate, accepted, 174, 183, 242 axes, 9 rotational, 125 axis, 9 ballast, 293 Submarine, 236 variable, 243, 293 baseline, 123, 293 method, 123 batten, 193 beam deck, 293 moulded, 293 Bernoulli, 282 bidder, 38 bilge, 294 BIWE, 37, 38 body of revolution, 251 body plan, 294 bodyplan, 238 bottom up method, 124 brow, 294 bubble, 294 bulkhead, 182, 294 collision, 294 bulkhead deck, 294 bulwark, 294 bulwarks, 183 buoyancy center of, 294 reserve, 14, 14, 237, 299 buttock, 294 cable low smoke, 183 CAD, 36, 41, 134 calibration, 154, 158 camber, 294 capsize, 251 CDWE, 36 centerline, 294 CFE, 184 chain locker, 294 chine, 281 chine walking, 284 chines, 279 classication, 69 coerdam, 194, 294 compensation, 294 Condition A, 294
DR
AF
333
334 Condition A-1, 242, 295 Condition N, 190, 245, 252, 253, 259, 295 contract modication, 42 coordinate system European, 10 U.S., 10 COR, 31, 295 criteria stability, 36 cross curves, 295 cruiser, 182 cubic number, 107 method, 107 dead rise, 295 deadweight, 295 density fraction, 123 water, 195 depth, 295 design concept, 172 concept formulation, 24 contract, 25 detail, 27, 37 functional, 35 design history, 92 design spiral, 30, 30 destroyer, 182 Det Norske Veritas, 76 displacement, 295 Submarine, 235 displacement check, 260 displacement curves, 241 Diving Trim, 296 DMP, 257 DNV, see Det Norske Veritas downooding, 252 draft mark, 193, 193 draft marks, 296 drawing detail, 135 dunnage, 153 dynamometer, 156 EFV, 275, 276 endurance, 2 equilibrium, 296 equilibrium polygon, 246, 249, 250, 296 ESWBS, 69, 70, 130, 173, 285 factoring methods, 125 fairwater, 296 Fast Cruise, 296 remain, 182 are, 296 forefoot, 296 forepeak, 296 form, component weight, 156 forward, 296 foundations, 296 fraction method, 124 frame, 296 frame spacing, 296 free surface, 204, 296 freeboard, 14, 193, 195, 279, 296 freesurface, 17 Full Load, 38, 8587, 114, 126 full load, 33 GFE, 162, 169, 184 GFM, 37, 38, 42, 84, 154 GM, 280, 298 graduations, 156 gyradii, 127 gyradius, 125, 126 GZ, 15, 300 hangers duct, 183 heel, 297 heeling arm, 297 hog, 297 honeycomb, 182 HTS, 183 hull, 297 hydrodynamic, 253 ICD, 30, 297 inboard, 297 inboard prole, 125, 297 incentive performance, 38
INDEX
DR
AF
INDEX incentives, 83 inclining, 189, 190, 204 inclining experiment, 258 submarine, 259 inclinometer, 197, 297 inertia, 125 weight moment of, 125, 126 Ingalls Shipbuilding, 182 intercostal, 297 IPT, 33, 297 isometric view, 238 jack-up, 272, 273 keel, 297 bilge, 294 keel blocks, 297 KG Allowable, 33, 34 knot, 297 knuckle, 297 LBP, 298 LCB, 279, 298 LCF, 17, 298 LCG, 9, 278, 298 lead stability, 243, 257 trim, 243 length overall, 298 light ship, 12, 258 lightening hole, 298 limber hole, 298 limits KG, 243 naval architexture, 91 lines, 298 moulded, 299 liquidated damages, 83 list, 298 LOA, 298 load line marks, 14, 14 load to submerge, 245 loads variable, 33 main deck, 298 MARAD, 70, 285 margin acquisition, 33 build, 173 contract modication, 83 design, 83, 173 contract, 83 detail, 83 preliminary, 83 margin line, 252 mark Plimsoll, 299 maturity index, 35 MBT, 253, 258, 298 metacenter, 298 submarine longitudinal, 255 metacentric height, 253, 298 metric, 1 midbody parallel, 299 midship extrapolation method, 124 midship section, 298 midships, 298 moulded lines, 299 MT1, 299 MTI, 17 not to exceed, see NTE NTE, 37, 38, 83, 166 osets, 299 origin, 10 origin, referenced, 10 PABWE, 33, 37, 242 PDBWE, 33 pendulum, 193, 196 perpendicular aft, 10, 293 forward, 10, 11, 296 mid, 10, 11 perpendiculars length between, 298
335
main ballast tanks, see MBT
DR
AF
336 plate, 43 canning, 294 Plimsoll Mark, 299 Plimsoll mark, 14, 14 plot of tangents, 196 port, 299 post-inclining, 44 Preliminary Design, 81 product model, 134 prole, 299 quadratic method, 107 quality assurance, 156 ratiocination, 105, 110, 113, 114 reballasting, 299 regression, 123 repair parts, 45 requirements, 22 reserve buoyancy, see buoyancy, reserve, see buoyancy, reserve righting arm, 15, 15, 300 submarine comparison, 252 righting arm curve, 300 righting moment, 300 ROH, 257 roll period, 280, 281 rub rail, 278 SAE, 182 sag, 300 salinometer, 195 sally, 196 SAWE, i, 73, 182 scale, 153 oor, 157 platform, 157 scales, 43 scantlings, 300 sea chest, 300 sea trials, 44 seakeeping, 2, 3, 177, 178, 180 semi-submersible, 270 service life allowances, 79 sheer, 301 sheer lines, 278 shell expansion, 301 shell plating, 301 SLA, 46, 79, 80, 87 sname, 74 speed, 2 sportsherman, 278, 278 SRA, 257 SSBN, 193 stability, 6, 15, 301 criteria, 15 dynamic, 282, 283 status, 87 submarine longitudinal, 255, 255, 256 submarine submerged, 253 submarine surfaced, 251 submarine under ice, 256 starboard, 301 steel high strength, see HTS HY-80, see HY-80 strake garboard, 296 strength, 2, 4, 5, 7, 30, 38, 82, 86, 171 strength deck, 301 subdivision, 82, 86, 125 SUBSAFE, 301 superstructure, 301 supplier, see vendor SWATH, 85, 301 synthesis programs, 124 tank compensating, 12 tanks auxiliary, 293 TCB, 301 TCG, 9, 301 tolerance mill, 43, 130 paint, 43 ton, 301 tonne, 302 tonnes, 1 top down method, 124 torpedoes, 245 TOTS, 183
INDEX
DR
AF
INDEX tradeo, 182 trim, 302 trim dive, 198, 258 Trim Limited, 244 trim tank forward, 296 trimming down, 254, 254, 255 tumblehome, 302 U-tube, 197 ullage, 302 uptakes, 182 variable deck load, 271 VCG, 9, 302 VDL, 271 vendor, 156, 175 void, 194 waterline, 302 static, 278 waterlines, 239 weighing mobile, 157 weight classication system, 69 component, 156 fraction, 123 weighed, 153 weight control, 92 vendor, 161, 169 weight control plan, 43, 47, 166, 171 weight estimate accepted, 172, 183 weight estimating, 92 weight monitoring, 41 weight percentage, 35 weight report nal, 39, 44 quarterly, 39 weights vendor, 155 weldments, 156 wetted surface area, 281 Work Breakdown Structures, 69
337
DR
AF

Textbookrevcsmall

Încărcat de

Informații document

Descriere originală:

Titlu original

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Textbookrevcsmall

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

MARINE VEHICLE WEIGHT ENGINEERING

MARINE VEHICLE WEIGHT ENGINEERING

2005, 2006 by the Society of Allied Weight Engineers (SAWE Inc.)

The Society is not responsible for statements or opinions in this text.

Revised 8-29-06, Tellet

Revised 8-29-06, Tellet

Notes for Textbook Committee and Authors:

revised preface (this will probably be revised again)

revised reference section

91 . 91 . 91 . 91 . 92 . 92 . 92 . 92 . 92 . 92 . 92 . 95 . 95 . 95 . 100 . 101 . 101

D Useful Weight Tables References Index

Calculation of New Condition A . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 142 Calculation of New Condition D . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 143

New sentence 8-29-06, Tellet New sentence 8-29-06, Tellet

Revised 8-29-06, Tellet

New sentence 8-29-06, Tellet

Importance of Weight Engineering

Revised, 829-06, Tellet

6 wetted surface, and waterline length and breadth is determined.

Impact on Ship Operation

Revised, 829-06, Tellet

1.9. CAREERS IN WEIGHT ENGINEERING

Power (% of design SHP)

10% Weight Growth

2% Speed Design +10% growth

Design Speed Speed

New sentence, 8-29-06, Tellet

Weight Engineering Education

U.S. Customary Station 0 at FP

New footnote, 8-29-06, Tellet

CHAPTER 2. NAVAL ARCHITECTURE

Figure 2.2: Referenced origins.

European Customary Station 0 at AP

Revised formats 8-29-06, Tellet

CHAPTER 2. NAVAL ARCHITECTURE

Figure 2.3: Example of Lightship condition format.

2.3. STANDARD LOADING CONDITIONS

Figure 2.4: Example of Full Load Condition format.

CHAPTER 2. NAVAL ARCHITECTURE

Wind Heeling Curve

Heel Angle (degrees)

Eects of Weight Changes

Where: w = added weight z = vertical distance w is moved in relation to the original KG

GM new = GM old KGchange

Where: w = added weight

New section, Tellet, 8-1706

CHAPTER 2. NAVAL ARCHITECTURE

End of new section

Ship Acquisition Process

CHAPTER 3. SHIP ACQUISITION PROCESS

Figure 3.1: Defense Acquisition Management Framework.

Early Requirements Development and Planning

3.3. CONCEPT REFINEMENT

A owchart for a typical concept formulation eort shown in Figure 3.2.

CHAPTER 3. SHIP ACQUISITION PROCESS

Requirement (Strategic Studies)

Figure 3.2: One example of a denition of requirements process owchart.

3.4. PRELIMINARY AND CONTRACT DESIGN

Preliminary and Contract Design

Assess that ship performance is achievable within cost constraints.

CHAPTER 3. SHIP ACQUISITION PROCESS

Synthesis of Potential Design (Specic Ship Design Analysis) Feasibility Study

Figure 3.3: One example of a concept formulation process owchart.