Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
12
Mass Properties
William Boze
12.1
INTRODUCTION
The use of the term mass properties by the shipbuilding industry when referring to the weight engineering process is
now commonplace. In modern shipbuilding, mass properties engineering as a discipline encompasses all of the functions previously grouped under the more traditional generic
term weight estimating. A variety of terms such as weight
engineering, weight control, and others, continue to be used
interchangeably with, and mean essentially the same as,
weight estimating even though they are different. Weight
estimating is the derivation of the weight of a ship during
design whereas weight control is broader and includes the
management of the weight of a ship during design and production. Similarly, the term weight report is routinely used
interchangeably with the more generic term weight estimate.
However, the term mass properties is the appropriate
term to use because by denition it includes technical aspects of moments, center of gravity, and other relevant physical and geometric properties of both individual parts and
of the whole ship. Nevertheless, traditional terminology is
still a part of the shipbuilding lexicon and as such for convenience has been retained in this text and is in various
forms interspersed throughout the chapter. In this regard,
any such use of traditional terminology should be interpreted as meaning mass properties in that the intent is to
address not just weight, but weight and center of gravity, as
well as mass moments of inertia.
Reliable initial determination and diligent oversight of
a ships mass properties are crucial to successful ship de-
overall cost,
hull proportions and lines,
draft, trim and list,
hull girder strength,
reserve buoyancy
intact and damage stability,
dynamic stability,
powering,
maneuverability, and
seakeeping.
12-1
12-2
During the course of the typical surface combatants useful life it is likely to experience several signicant upgrades
to its key systems. In addition to conversion and upgrades,
experience has shown that naval ship weight and vertical
center of gravity grows over its life due to unauthorized
growth. In fact, substantial weight and vertical center of
gravity increases have been observed in U.S. naval ships due
to this unauthorized growth, not to authorized ship alterations. To accommodate this, the U.S. Navy requires the
service life allowances specied in NAVSEA Instruction
9096.6B (5). It is important to note that available service
life allowance at delivery is a key indicator of how well the
ship meets contract requirements. This is why service life
allowances must be monitored continuously and accounted
for as an integral part of the mass properties engineering
process.
Assigning acquisition margins or allowances during design and construction will not, in and of itself, ensure a satisfactory ship. The monitoring and reporting of acquisition
margin consumption as design and construction progresses
must be an integral part of an effective weight and center
of gravity control program. This is undeniably true for military ships and although the actual process of weight and
center of gravity control may be less stringent, it is true for
commercial ships as well. The typical military shipbuilding program requires that the ships weight and vertical,
longitudinal, and transverse coordinates of the center of
gravity be monitored and reported on throughout all stages
of the design and construction process. Contractors involved
in typical U.S. Navy new ship programs are in more and
more cases resorting to the use of goal-setting techniques,
technical performance measurements and trend charting as
a means of preserving the ships mass properties characteristics. Activities of this type support the early detection
of undesirable trends, which in turn facilitates timely corrective action.
When the vessel is substantially complete, for both commercial and military vessels, an inclining experiment and
deadweight survey is conducted that establishes the weight
and vertical, longitudinal and transverse coordinates of the
centers of gravity of the lightship. The inclining experiment
and deadweight survey is described in detail in reference 6.
The value in maintaining a reliable weight and center of
gravity control process is readily apparent when the results
of the inclining experiment and deadweight survey become
available. Ideally, the values for lightship weight and center of gravity predicted by the weight control process will
closely match those obtained by the inclining experiment
and deadweight survey. This being the case, a high level of
condence can be placed in the nal lightship values used
to prepare the various delivery documents. By the same
12-3
12.2
weight,
centers of gravity and moments,
moments of inertia, and
radius of gyration (gyradius).
12-4
12.3
12-5
kroll =
Ixx / W
kpitch =
Iyy / W
kyaw =
Izz / W
ESWBS
Description
Hull Structure
Propulsion Plant
where
Electric Plant
Auxiliary Systems
Outtting Systems
Armament
Margins, Acquisition
Loads, Departure
MARAD Classication
Description
00 to 99
Hull Structure
100 to 199
Outtting
200 to 299
Machinery
The weight moment of inertia in these equations is expressed in units of weight times length squared.
Cimino and Redmond (10) developed rule-of-thumb values for the gyradius of different ship types, which are shown
in Table 12.III. These rule-of-thumb values may be used in
the early stages of design when lack of detail or system definition precludes more detailed analysis. However, care
should be taken with these values when applying them to
unconventional ships or hull forms. In these cases, it is recommended that some form of independent validation be
used if available. A method for calculating the weight mo-
Pitch
Yaw
% Beam
Tolerance
(% Beam)
% Length
Tolerance
(% Length)
% Length
Tolerance
(% Length)
Conventional Monohull
37.8
1.5
24.9
0.4
24.8
0.4
39.4
5.7
27.2
3.3
29.1
3.8
SWATHs
43.5
0.1
29.7
1.5
31.8
1.7
Ship Type
12-6
ment of inertia of a ship or a submarine is included in Standard Coordinate System for Reporting Mass Properties of
Surface Ships and Submarines (8), which was derived from
Cimino and Redmond (10). Some of the more pertinent information from the SAWE document is duplicated in these
pages as a convenience to the reader. However, it is recommended that users of this text avail themselves of the
SAWE document, which is readily available on the SAWE
web site at www.sawe.org/docs/rec_pract/rp.html, and use
it in conjunction with the material provided herein.
The data required for calculating the weight moment of
inertia of a total ship is essentially the same as that contained
in a typical weight estimate, with the exception of added
mass due to entrained water which must be included when
calculating the natural periods of ship motion. Therefore,
as more detail and more reliable information becomes available and is incorporated into the weight estimate it follows
that the weight moment of inertia calculation can be rened. However, one difference that must be respected that
relates to the calculation of roll and yaw gyradius is the
need to separate items that are identical port and starboard.
Such items must be entered as separate database line items.
Reference 8 expresses the weight moment of inertia
about the three rotational axes as:
Roll inertia
I xx = I tx + I ox
or
I xx
( w n ( y 2n + z 2n ) ) i ox n
n
Pitch inertia
I yy = I ty + I oy
or
I yy
( w n ( x 2n + z 2n ) ) i oy n
n
TRANSFERENCE INERTIA
ITEM INERTIA
Yaw inertia
I zz = I tz + I oz
or
I zz
( w n ( x 2n + y 2n ) ) i oz n
n
where
Itx = sum of the transference weight moments of inertia for
all the elements about an axis parallel to the x axis
through the ships center of gravity
Ity = sum of the transference weight moments of inertia for
all the elements about the axis parallel to the y axis
through the ships center of gravity
I tx = i tx
2
i tx = w y + z 2
I ox = i ox
w
i ox = 12 ( a 2 + b 2 )
12-7
12-8
tested in order to obtain the best-t curve, that is, the least
standard deviation. Kern demonstrated the effectiveness of
the method experimentally by using it to prepare three partial weight group summaries for three ships. A comparison
between the results obtained using the Best-Fit program and
the actual Final Weight Report summaries served to validate the method. Kern concluded that this type of statistical method of estimating weights during early design is an
acceptable alternative to ratiocination. Reference 11 is one
example of how statistical methods can be used to improve
weight estimating during the early stages of design. The
system can also be used to estimate center of gravity data.
However, statistical systems are dependent upon the availability of data for a suitable population of appropriate ships.
The statistical data used by Kern was derived from fteen
U.S. Navy surface ships built over a period of fteen years.
It is possible that a reasonable database of commercial ship
information could be accumulated in less time.
As design development progresses, more reliable information becomes available, which is incorporated into the
mass properties database as a part of the iterative process
discussed earlier in this section. More reliable information
comes from a number of sources, examples of which include:
enhanced, more complete system descriptions, diagrams
and arrangement drawings,
more complete bills of material,
parts standardization,
improved vendor information, and
computer models.
As an example, during preliminary design the mass properties characteristics of a typical piping system would probably be derived parametrically. Subsequent development of
the system diagram and ship arrangement drawings and then
the detailed construction drawings will result in progressively more reliable information becoming available that can
be inserted into the mass properties database as part of the
iteration process. Unit weights for piping, ttings and equipment would typically be derived from vendors catalogs,
company standards, or historical records. These company
standards and historical records typically reect or reveal mill
or casting tolerances, or weld and paint allowance factors.
Fittings would include anges, hangers, elbows, tees, couplings, gages and thermometers. In addition to valves, equipment includes strainers, freestanding tanks, air asks,
demineralizers, etc. In more progressive commercial shipyards, pipe details, ttings and equipment are for the most
part captured in company design standards that in addition
to material, conguration, and installation data also include
weight and center of gravity information. Variables, such as
12.5
12-9
siders the allocation of acquisition margins an essential element of ship design that mitigates risks associated with failure of the ship to meet the required mass properties
characteristics at delivery. The NAVSEA margin allocation
process accounts for historical patterns of weight and KG
growth, unique ship features, injudicious application of margins and variations in acquisition strategy and policies.
In addition to acquisition margins, which as a general
rule, are consumed prior to delivery, ships procured by the
U.S. Navy must be delivered with an additional allowance
in accordance with the requirements of reference 5. This additional allowance called the service life allowance (SLA)
is intended to account for reasonable growth in weight and
KG during the ships service life without unacceptable compromise of the ships principal naval architectural characteristics and performance. These weight and KG SLAs must
be incorporated during the earliest stages of design and construction and must be continuously accounted for to ensure
that they are available at delivery. The concept of a SLA is
normally not applied to commercial ships. The displacement at which the commercial ship operates is governed by
the loadline assignment. Typically, unless the ship is reclassied for some reason, the loadline wont change, which
obviates the need for a weight service life allowance. If a
commercial ship experiences an unexpected increase in
lightship KG due to some form of modication, an inclining experiment and deadweight survey would be required
and a new stability letter would be issued. The revised stability letter may or may not involve new or modied operating restrictions.
An essential step that must occur during the early stages
of design is the determination of the maximum permissible
KG and the limiting draft, and, by association, the limiting
displacement. These vitally important naval architectural
characteristics are dependent upon hull form, watertight
subdivision, compartmentation and intact and damaged stability. Once set, these characteristics are almost impossible
to change without major disruption to the program. Figure
12.3 shows graphically how the four components of weight
and KG, that is, lightship, loads, acquisition margins and
service life allowance, constitute the total ship weight and
KG. Figure 12.3 also illustrates the break out of the acquisition margin into four subcategories, which would be typical of a U.S. naval ship. It can be seen from Figure 12.3
that the combined weight and KG for the four weight components must not exceed the limiting whole ship values.
From this it follows that any growth in lightship, load or
acquisition margin will result in a corresponding decrease
in service life allowance. Should this situation occur it would
almost certainly result in a contractually unsatisfactory ship
at delivery.
12-10
PRELIMINARY
CONTRACT DESIGN
GOVERNMENT
FURNISHED MATERIAL
12.6
KG2 Feet
10.0
1.0
7.5
2.5
5.0
1.0
Auxiliary
5.0
0.5
5.0
0.5
Combatants
1. Weight percentage based on the predicted full load departure displacement at delivery.
2. KG values based on the predicted full load departure KG at delivery.
12-11
KG Percent of Lightship
Minimum
Maximum
Minimum
Maximum
Preliminary/Contract Design
0.8
4.4
2.7
6.1
4.5
9.8
1.7
5.1
Contract Modications
0.4
2.1
0.9
1.9
0.2
0.7
0.1
0.4
12-12
life allowance values. The equivalent process for commercial programs is usually less formalized than what has just
been described for military ships. Nevertheless, it is aimed
at achieving similar levels of understanding between contractor and customer relative to oversight of the ships mass
properties characteristics.
The mass properties control process required for U.S.
Navy programs is highly structured and involves signicant management effort. During the design and construction phases, the baseline mass properties data is continuously
and progressively rened and updated until the initial estimated value for each line item has been replaced with more
reliable data. Renements include better estimates, calculated and measured values and whenever possible data from
actual weighings. This process is tracked over time with the
uctuations in whole ship characteristics resulting from the
mass properties control effort being regularly reported to
the customer via quarterly weight reports or QWRs. The format and content of the QWR is essentially the same as the
weight estimate reports described earlier. Each QWR includes the current summary status of the acquisition margins in terms of how much has been consumed and hence
how much remains. Tracking this particular element of the
QWR over time can identify trends in acquisition margin
consumption, which in turn can show the mass properties
management team whether remedial action is or is not required. For example, undesirable trends would be a warning that acquisition margins are being consumed too quickly
and as a result service life allowances may be in jeopardy.
On the other hand, a desirable trend would tell management
that mass properties control techniques currently in use have
so far been effective or that initiatives instituted to recover
either weight or KG margin appear to be having the desired
effect. Figure 12.4 is a simplistic representation of how,
over the ships life, the acquisition margins are consumed
during design and construction leaving the service life allowance for consumption after delivery. The shape of the
acquisition margin portion of the curve could be indicative
of the occurrence of an unfavorable trend that has been successfully compensated for by an offsetting weight reduction initiative leaving the SLA intact at delivery.
Obviously, if an undesirable trend develops late in a program the cost and schedule impacts from any remedial action cannot be avoided and must be factored into
managements decisions. As a general rule the earlier an
undesirable trend is detected the less the disruption will be
to cost and schedule.
The management process can maintain oversight of the
residual level of risk and uncertainty by evaluating the maturity of the mass properties information contained in the
current QWR.
12-13
By determining the percentage of the overall mass properties database that is based on a specic estimating or engineering method and assigning a condence level to each
method, a sense of the overall maturity of the mass properties database can be established. The concept is best illustrated by an example. Figure 12.5 shows a pie-chart
presentation of the breakdown by method for a typical mass
properties database where each slice of the pie represents
Limiting Displacement or KG
Service Life
Margin
Acquisition Margin
Lightship + Loads
Service Life
12-14
HYDRAULIC SYSTEMS WEIGHT TRENDS (ESWBS: 55600 55620 55630 55632 55633 55634)
100
120
90
70
60
100
50
40
90
30
PERCENT CALCULATED
80
110
20
80
10
0
70
1
11
13
15
17
19
21
23
QUARTERLY WEIGHT REPORT NO.
27
29
31
% Calculations
AWE
25
IfIfrow
rowentry
entryisis
IfIfrow
rowentry
entryisis
IfIfrow
entry
row entryisis
IfIfrow
rowentry
entryisis
IfIfrow
rowentry
entryisis
Criterion
Value
Criterion
Value
EQUALLY
asas
important
asas
column
entry
11
EQUALLY
important
column
entry
MODERATELY
more
important
than
column
entry
MODERATELY
more
important
than
column
entry 33
STRONGLY
more
important
than
column
entry
STRONGLY
more
important
than
column
entry 55
VERY STRONGLY
STRONGLY
more
important
than
column
entry
VERY
more
important
than
column
entry 77
EXTREMELY
more
important
than
column
entry
EXTREMELY
more
important
than
column
entry 99
NOTE:
NOTE:IfIfcolumn
columnentry
entryisismore
moreimportant
importantthan
thanrow,
row,
then
thenuse
usethe
theinverse
inverseofofthe
theabove
abovevalues.
values.
Weight
KG
Seakeeping
Priority Percentage
++33
++11
Engineering M anhours
More
MoreFavorable
Favorable
Favorable
Favorable
M anufacturing Cost
Value
Value
++99
Construction Schedule
Effect
Effecton
onPriority
Priority
Most
MostFavorable
Favorable
1/3
1/3
1.15
19%
Candidate B
Manufacturing Cost
1/3
1/3
1/3
0.62
10%
Candidate C
+3
Engineering M anhours
1/3
1/3
1/3
0.54
9%
Candidate D
+3
+3
Construction Schedule
Weight
2.08
35%
KG
1/3
1.36
23%
None
None
Unfavorable
Unfavorable
More
MoreUnfavorable
Unfavorable
Most
MostUnfavorable
Unfavorable
11
33
99
Candidate A
+9
+9
+3
Candidate E
1/3
1/5
1/3
0.25
4%
2.5
100%
1/9
1/5
Candidate G
+3
Candidate H
+9
Priority Percentage
+3
19% 10%
+3
+1
+9
+9
+9
+3
+1
3.9
0.1
3.8
5.3
0.2
5.1
1.3
0.2
1.1
2.5
+9
2.9
0.4
+1
+9
0.9
2.0 1.1
+3
+9
3.4
1.0
2.4
+9
+1
2.3
0.8
1.5
+9
+1
4.2
0.0
4.2
+1
Candidate F
Seakeeping
+1
9% 35% 23%
4%
12-16
12. 7
COMPUTER APPLICATIONS
weld material,
mill tolerances or casting allowances,
fasteners,
surface treatments (such as paint, insulation or deck underlayment),
system liquids,
loads such as tank liquids, and
missing items (components not yet modeled).
The development and consistent use of standard operating procedures is strongly recommended as a way of minimizing risks of this type.
12.8
12-17
12-18
12.9
Although the ships predicted mass properties characteristics are closely tracked throughout the design and construction process, actual validation of these predictions and
of the system used to make them doesnt happen until just
before delivery. The inclining experiment and deadweight
survey is conducted close to delivery when the ship is as
complete as possible. Comparing the results of this procedure with the values for lightship weight and center of gravity location that are predicted by the mass properties database
provides a level of mutual validation for both sources of
this information. Generally speaking, good correlation between these two sets of very differently derived data is taken
as an indication that the inclining experiment/deadweight
survey has produced reliable values for lightship weight
and center of gravity location. However, poor correlation
presents a peculiar problem that has no immediately obvious solution. Deciding on which of two sets of data, that
are supposed to describe the same entity, is correct requires
an assessment of the condence levels that can be placed
in each data source. The results of this assessment may require a second inclining, or a detailed review of the weight
and moment database.
The previous sections of this chapter have discussed in
12.10
REFERENCES
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
12-19
12-20