Practical Applications of Design for Production

Darren Larkins, ShipConstructor Software Inc., Victoria/Canada,

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