MR. ERWIN K. STRAUBINGER, MR. WILLIAM C. CURRAN & MR. VINCENT L.
FIGHERA
FUNDAMENTALS OF NA VAL SURFACE
SHIP WEIGHT ESTIMA TING
THE AUTHORS
hlr. Erwin K. Straubinger is currently Head of the Weight
Division ( S E A 55W2) of the Naval Sea Systems Command. He
graduated from the University of Carifornia School of Ar-
chitecture at Berkeley in 1953. Mr. Straubinger began his
career with the U.S.NAVYin 1959 as a Naval Architect (Stabil-
ity) in the Scientific Section of the Design Division at Long
Beach Naval Shipyard and transferred to BUSHIPS Weight
Branch in 1962. Achieving his present position in June 1980,
Mr. Straubinger was previously Head of the Special Projects
Section, SEA 55 W21, being responsible for formulation and
development of weight control policies and procedures, as well
as coordination of the overall U.S.NAVYWeight Control Pro-
gram for detail design and construction. Before obtaining that
position in 1968, he worked in the Special Projects Section on
a variety of weight control matters including specifications,
contractual weight control language, estimating techniques,
computer applications, reporting procedures, and evaluation
of the Weight Control Program. Mr. Straubinger is a member
of ASNE, SNAME, ASE and the Society of Allied Weight En-
gineers (SA WE), in which he serves as a member of the Gov-
ernment/Industry Panel f o r marine vehicles.
Mr. William J. C u m is currently a task leader for surfoce
combatant ships in the Weight Division (SEA 55 W2) of the
Naval Sea Systems Command. He began his career with the
U.S. NAVY in 1966 as a naval architect trainee at the
Philadelphia Naval Shipyard while participating in Drexel
University’s cooperative education program. Upon graduation
from the D. U.School of Engineering, Mr. Curran accepted a
position in the Scientific Branch of the Shipyard. Some of his
responsibilities during this period included the development of
modernization weight estimates, inclining experiments, and
trim dives. In 1976, Mr. Curran transferred to the Surface
Combatant Ship Logistic Division in NAVSEA where he
worked for two years in the Destroyer Engineered Operating
Qcle maintenance program. Since 1978, he has held his pres-
ent position acting as task leader for the CVV design, DD 997,
DDG 51, and Special Projects.
hlr. Vincent L. Fighera is currently a Senior Naval Architect
with George G. Sharp, Inc. (Marine Designs). He graduated
from New York University School of Engineering (BME) in
1949 with supplementary naval architecture coursesfrom MIT
during the summers of 1953 and 1954. Mr. Fighera began his
career with the U.S.NAVYin 1950 as a naval architect after
previous periods of employment by the naval architectural
firms of Cox and Stevens and Philip L. Rhodes. The bulk of
Mr. Figheras U.S. NAVYservice has been with the New York
and Philadelphia Shipyards where he held supervisory posi-
tions in the Scientific and Tests Branches dealing with stabil-
ity, naval architecture and weight control matters. Prior to his
retirement in 1979, he worked in the Weight Divkion (SEA
55W2) on surface combatants. Mr. Fighera is a member of
ASE and the Society of Allied Weight Engineers (SA WE).
ABSTRACT
This paper descirbes how ship weights are estimated. Detail
is presented concerning relationships between existing weight
Delivered by Ingenta to: American Society of Naval Engineers Members
Date : Tue, 31 Mar 2015 08:51:01 IP : 103.27.8.49
data and the characteristics of a new design as it develops
from completion of feasibility design through contract design.
Margin requirements are also discussed. The weight estimating
ratios and factors presented, while not directly associated with
a specific ship type, cover the weight clessircation groups one
would use in the design of a surface combatant. The purpose
of this paper is to present the fundamentals of weight
estimating to the ship design community. With this
knowledge, ship design engineers and managers should be able
to personally identify with the important parts they all play in
creation of a credible weight estimate.
INTRODUCTION
ARE, BUILDING SHIPS FOR AS LONG AS THE RECORDED
history of man, and developing methods of calculating
ship weights for over 400 years (Shipwright Matthew
Baker being cited, in 1572, with the first methods of
measuring the weight of heterogeneous structure) [ 11, a
fair question is, “Why write a paper on fundamental
weight estimating now?” The simple answer is that late-
ly ship weights and KG’s have turned out, in reality, to
be getting further away from predictions and estimates.
In virtually every case, the discrepancy has been on the
heavy side (or high side in the case of KG) of the esti-
mate. Although the usual penalty for overweight, or
high KG, is denial of the full measure of service life
allowance, recent inclinings have indicated conditions
that have required immediate and costly corrections to
improve reserve buoyancy or KG. The unsatisfactory
conditions were usually not known until the detail
design and construction period so the element of sur-
prise added to the adverse effect. Reviews indicated that
weight estimating was one of several aspects of the ac-
quisition process that played a part, in that no early
warning of a design problem was reflected in the con-
tract design weight estimate. It is believed that an im-
portant step in strengthening the weight estimating
process is to present a discussion on weight estimating
methods to the design community so that we can review
our fundamentals and then reaffirm, or reconstruct,
personal notions about what material is in a weight
estimate at a &en time in the design. The major
challenge in weight estimating is in developing the judg-
ment necessary to make accurate predictions. While the
paper addresses “weight estimating”, for discussion,
the term could encompass center of gravity as well.
Details of estimating centers of gravity are not included
due to length. However, the process of development of
center of gravity information is parallel to that for
weight information.
OF A WEIGHT
COMPOSITION ESTIMATE
For those who are not familiar with NAVSEA (Naval
Sea Systems Command) design weight estimates, the
Naval Engineers Journal, May 1983 127
SURFACE SHIP WEIGHT ESTIMATING
first idea to get firmly in mind is that the weight estimate
discussed in this paper is the prediction of a ship’s
displacement, KG, list, and trim, at the time of delivery,
based on the technical definition of the design at the
time the estimate is computed. Generally, a review of
background information will indicate that a broad mix-
ture of data will be available, varying from “given”
weights for specific payload items or systems, through
weights of increasing uncertainty and finally weights
that incorporate several parametrically developed one
line entries to represent whole groups of items or
systems.
A great number of details must be reviewed and
judgments made based on information of varying reli-
ability. Although the job of estimating is complex, the
concept of a weight estimate as a prediction of the ac-
tual ship weight is simple. It can be viewed as having
three categories of information:
Known weights or centers of gravity: Mass
properties information for defined systems,
components or payload known to be in the
design, i.e., “givens.”
Probable weights or centers of gravity:
Estimated mass properties information for
material and systems that are known to be
aboard but not sufficiently defined to allow
a precise weight or center of gravity com-
putation. This category contains most of
the weight in any estimate and undergoes
the greatest transformation. In virtually
every ship design, the design manager tends
to be optimistic about the quality of these
weight estimates. At the same time, the
weight estimator tends to be pessimistic
because of his experiences with inaccuracies
that can occur in these probable weights,
e.g.:
- Incorrect weights in the data source.
Returned weights from construction and
proposed equipment lists can introduce
serious errors because of lack of actual
weighing or unreported changes in ma-
terial or components.
- Changes from early design concepts
after more detailed information about
interfaces, availability, cost, etc.,
become known to the design engineer.
These can have drastic side effects not
appreciated by either the designer or the
weight engineer.
- The wide range of design solutions, all
valid, but different than the ones used
early in the design that can be changed
late in detail design.
- Physical variations in components that
meet the same performance specifica-
tion.
- Hunch errors of omission and redun-
dancy.
This list is by means complete, but it serves to show
why there is a third mass properties category called
“margins” in the weight estimate.
128 Naval Engineers Journal, May 1983
Delivered by Ingenta to: American Society of Naval Engineers Members
Date : Tue, 31 Mar 2015 08:51:01 IP : 103.27.8.49
STRAUBINGER/CURRAN/FIGHERA
Acqukition Margins: Acquisition margins
are an integral part of a weight estimate that
is expected to reflect the ship’s weight or
KG at time of delivery.
Service Life Allowance: Service Life
Allowance is a growth capability designed
into ships so that they can be improved or
modernized in the future without either
degrading the ship’s capacity to absorb
damage and still fight, or requiring weight
or moment compensation to retain that
capacity. Service Life Allowance recom-
mendations are currently made based on a
projected twenty-year service life.
By inspection of Figure 1, relationships of weight
estimating, margin assessment, and ship design should
become very clear. Figure 1 is a very stylized diagram
showing how the three categories of weights and
margins change with time.
Known weights represent a very small proportion of
the weight and moment total. Probable weights are
related to specific equipment and systems to the extent
possible, but the bulk of the estimate is still based on
averages, factors, coefficients and the experience of the
ship designer. The relationship of margin requirements
is obvious if one subscribes to the definition of the
weight estimate, i.e., a prediction of the displacement of
the ship at time of delivery. What is not so obvious is the
actual quality of the weight data used in the sizing pro-
cess. There is a tendency to believe the estimate to be
more accurate than it actually is because of the huge
amount of historical mass properties data used to derive
the new weights. What must be taken into account is
that the data base reflects twenty years’ worth of chang-
ing relationships in system designs and state of the art of
equipment. Also, the source may include several wrong
weights. The acquisition margins usually proposed and
incorporated are in the medium to high risk range,
meaning that they reflect a statistical success rate of less
than 75 percent.
I SERVICE LIFE ALLOWANCE If
\ ACOUlSlTlON MARGIN
1
I I I
W D
k
! F
PROBABLE
W 0
c
W WEIGHTS
4
I.
I CONTRACT
I
I DETAIL DESIGN AND
-
II
1
DESIGN DESIGN CONSTRUCTKlN PHASE DEuVmy
DATE
PHASE PHASE
Figure 1. Design Time - Weight Profile.
STRAUBINGER/CURRAN/FIGHERA
The term Service Life Allowance introduces another
relationship to ship design that is made clear by Figure
1. There are currently two design mechanisms in use to
retain recommended Service Life Allowance if the
design weight or moment grow over the delivery predic-
tion: First, to reduce the weight or KG of the ship in
design by taking something physically out of the design,
or, second, to see what must be done to raise the naval
architectural limit. Obviously, the later in design that
the growth occurs, the more intense the crisis becomes,
the number of options drops, and the cost of the ship
usually goes up. The goal therefore is to do it right the
first time, namely to develop an adequate weight esti-
mate in feasibility design followed by controlled design
development to prevent or minimize unplanned weight
growth through contract design.
WEIGHT
CLASSIFICATION
Weight estimates are organized into the accounting
system defined in the Ship Work Breakdown Structure
(SWBS), Reference [2]. SWBS is arranged so that all
shipboard material will fall into a system boundary
definition outlined in one of the following seven func-
tional groups, or in loads.
1. Hull Structure
2. Propulsion Plant
3. Electric Plant
4. Command and Surveillance
5. Auxiliary Systems
6. Outfit and Furnishings
7. Armament
A full discusson of the application of SWBS to the
weight estimate is contained in Reference [3].
It should be noted that some weight data are still car-
ried in the predecessor to SWBS, called the Bureau of
Ships Consolidated Index of Drawings, Materials and
Services Related to Construction and Conversion
(BSCI). The classficiation systems are fundamentally
the same at the group level, the major differences being
in the greater detail of SWBS.
WEIGHT IN THE SHIPDESIGN
ESTIMATES PROCESS
The actual practice of weight estimation is an interac-
tive procedure wherein improved weight information is
substituted in an existing estimate so as to represent the
current status of the design at periodic intervals in the
ship design process. The first weight estimate produced
(Feasibility Estimate) is considered a starting point. It
will contain all the categories shown in Figure 1, i.e.
known weights and probable weights in Groups 1 to 7
and loads, and a margin. At the end of the preliminary
design phase, the ratioed weights should be largely
replaced by the estimated weights. The contract design
weight estimate, in turn, should be a well-developed
representation of contract drawings and detail ship
specifications with relatively few ratioed weights re-
maining. Throughout the entire design period, the ef-
fort of weight estimators is aimed at improving their
Delivered by Ingenta to: American Society of Naval Engineers Members
Date : Tue, 31 Mar 2015 08:51:01 IP : 103.27.8.49
SURFACE SHIP WEIGHT ESTIMATING
own confidence in the “probable weights” category. A
ranking of weight sources is used to show how improve-
ment is achieved. There are two kinds of weight infor-
mation in the “Probable Weight” category of any
weight estimate:
(1) Parametric - The system is defied by
mission characteristics,
coefficients and other
performance require-
ments. Weights are cor-
related to historic trends
at the element (3-digit)
level, coefficients, and
similar systems based
on volume, power, or
capacity.
(2) Estimated - The system is defied by
specific physical charac-
teristics with various
levels of definition.
Weights are computed
from plans, sketches
and diagrams, as well as
returned component
weights from similar
systems and material
lists that have been
developed for the spe-
cific ship design.
When probable weights are compared to the delivered
weights at the end of any phase of the design process,
comparison will show that the quality of information in
a weight estimate is very uneven.
The current solution, as illustrated in Figure 1, is to
absorb fluctuations and increases in the margin in order
to maintain a baseline estimate. The procedure is to con-
currently decrease weight and moment margin as the
group 1-7 estimate increases. During the preliminary
and contract design phases, the weight estimate is up-
dated periodically. These updates are called Interim
Weight Reports and are usually keyed to the general q-
rangements drawing issue schedule but lag that schedule
by two or three weeks. The lag time is required for inclu-
sion of final information at the end of the report, sum-
mation of related events in the design for consistency,
computer time for computing weights, and time to de-
velop a narrative report. The Interim Weight Report is
highly structured and transmits considerable informa-
tion about the design to the ship design manager. Figure
2 shows the format of a typical interim weight report.
At the end of the contract design there will be parts of
the design that are still defined only by performance re-
quirements. Weights will be carried as ratios but based
on more fm specific design information than early
ratios. Detail design must therefore still be considered.
Detail design and construction margins are initially
based on statistical data and the weight estimator’s
judgment. The actual margin carried during detail
design and construction, however, is negotiated by the
contractor and the Government. Thus, from the
feasibility phase on, margins must be carried for each of
Naval EngineersJournal, May 1983 129
SURFACE SHIP WEIGHT ESTIMATING STRAUBINGER/CURRAN/FIGHERA

parent ship, or ships, should have similar design con-

A . E figurations, machinery plants and full load displace-
B*EELINE
ments. Since it is improbable that any one ship will have
all the necessary attributes, it may become necessary to
use one parent ship for hull structure while another may
provide useful data for electrical or machinery plants.
2.

3.
C.D.

CONST.
Iup.

MP.
U The usefulness of the information presented in actual
weight estimating is highly dependent on the availability
5. PPCJBCTED and accuracy of detailed weight data and design infor-
DELlVKRY
0 mation for “parent ships.” Besides calculated detailed
weight data, it is important for accuracy, to have access
to specific information such as: detail specifications,
specific lines, hull characteristics, general arrangements
and structural drawings for the parent ship.
Estimating by ratiocination of individual SWBS
weight elements (three digit) may be accomplished in
1. CENTER OF OLAVlFI - CUppdNT S T m S
various ways:
-
KG -
LIST -
mm
1. CR 1-1

2. C.U. MP. 0 Estimate an element by ratioing from

3. CONST. nap. the equivalent parent ship element. For
*. PYOJECIED DKLIMRY (L.S.) example, shell plating may be assumed
S. PROJKCTED DCLIVKRY (F.L.)
n to vary directly with the parent ship in
the same ratio as their lengths, beams,
b. cubic numbers, displacements, etc.
U Estimate an element by separately
estimating the weight of major parts or
7. SEYVICB L Y E ui I I M C I N :
components, then developing the re-
Yequlred maining weight in the element as a func-
tion of the major component. For exam-
Figure 2. Interim Weight Report. ple, assuming the weight of auxiliary
boilers can be estimated for the new
ship, as well as the parent ship, then the
the design phases and should include consideration of remaining equipment in the element for
the shipbuilder’s requirements for detail design and con- the new ship can be estimated as a direct
struction. Whether or not a ship is designed hard against ratio of the weight of the boilers to the
naval architectural limits is a design decision and not a remaining equipment in the element in
weight estimating practice. the parent ship.
Similarly, as in the previous paragraph,
FEASIBILITY
WEIGHT
ESTIMATES system weights can be developed by esti-
mating the weights of the main com-
Feasibility weight estimates are usually made by a ship ponents and then assuming the remain-
design naval architect with support of a weight engineer. ing system weights vary in the same ratio
as the parent to new ship lengths,
The first estimates are necessarily based largely on beams, cubic numbers, etc.
parametric correlations of weight to various perfom-
ance or system characteristics. Unique and special
features are carried in the parametric estimate by in- It is apparent that using the various methods of
troducing modifying actions in the model. Once a ratiocination will only produce estimates that are as
specific ship description is developed, the task of good as the parent ship weights. Therefore, every effort
developing a corresponding specific weight estimate should be made to use a parent ship system that best ap-
begins. Use of the parent ship is one means of develop- proximates the new ship system in size, service and con-
ing weight estimates for this specific ship after the first figuration and is also fully documented. It may also be
hull dimensions, rough body plan and general arrange- advisable to use several parent ships, if available, to
ments have been parametrically generated. A parent cross check or supplement the new system design esti-
ship, as used in this paper, is a ship with characteristics, mates.
wholly or in part, of construction, arrangements, size Ratiocination will produce a reasonable basic
and capabilities most nearly like those of the ship being estimate for most of the weight groups. In combatant
designed. Details in the Final Weight Report of this ship ships, for example, it can be used for only some of the
form the basis for developing weights for the new ship. elements of Group 4 “Command and Surveillance” and
It should be emphasized that weight estimates are usual- not at all for Group 7 “Armament,” These two groups
ly a mix of the two kinds of weight information noted comprise, basically, the payload of a combatant ship
earlier. The parent ship approach has been found to be and, as such, most of the weights of these groups are
most useful if certain other conditions can be met. The part of the “givens” derived from characteristics.
130 Naval Englneers Journal, May 1983

Delivered by Ingenta to: American Society of Naval Engineers Members

Date : Tue, 31 Mar 2015 08:51:01 IP : 103.27.8.49
STRAUBINGER/CURRAN/FIGHERA SURFACE SHIP WEIGHT ESTIMATING

TABLE 1. Definitions of Symbols and Ratios. TABLE 3. Hull Structure Ratio or Fractions.
ELEMENT DEFINITION ELEMENT ITEM RATIO OR FACTPR ISEE TABLE 21

WP WEIGHT OF THE PARENT SHIP ELEMENT 111 SHELL PLATING W,=wp l 1 w S + 2 10-HILI or WpxLlE+2D1
W" WEIGHT OF THE NEW SGIP DESIGN ELEMENT
113 INNER BOTTOM W" = wp X 8 L '
L LENGTH BETWEEN PERPENDICULARS
114 SHELL APPENDAGES w..wpx= 100
6 MAXIMUM MOLDED BEAM AT DESIGN WATERLINE
115 STANCHIONS W=
, Wp x LD
D AVERAGE MOLDED DEPTH TO THE HIGHEST STRENGTH DECK
116 LONGL FRAMING W, = Wp IWS + ZID - HlLl or Wp x,IE + 2OIL
A DISPLACEMENT AT DESIGN WATERLINE
117 TRANS FRAMING w, = wp
[ LIE + DI +LIB + 201 + LDl2D + 61'
ws WETTED SURFACE AT DESIGN WATERLINE

stip SHAFT HORSEPOWER AT DESIGNEO MAXIMUM SPEED 121 LONGL BULKHEADS W, = Wp x LD'

V DESIGNED MAXIMUM SPEED 122 TRANS BULKHEADS Wn=WpxL8D'Cp

CP LONGITUDINAL OR PRISMATIC COEFFICIENT 123 TRUNKS AND

ENCLOSURES 100
CWP WATERPLANE COEFFICIENT 131 to MAIN DECK AN0 W, = Wp x LECwp OR ACTUAL DECK AREAS
135 BELOW
L
& CUBIC NUMBER
100 136 01 HULL DECK W, = Wp x L K w p OR ACTUAL DECK AREAS

LIB&OI QUADRATIC NUMBER 141 to PLATFORMS W, = Wp x IL' - MACHINERY SPACE1 E'Cwp

145 OR ACTUAL DECK AREAS
n MEAN DRAFT IN FULL LOAD CONDITION
149 FLATS W, = Wp x LB' OR ACTUAL DECK AREAS
KW KILOWATrS
151 to SUPERSTRUCTURE PROPORTIONBY DECK AREAS AND VOLUMES
159

161 CASTINGSIFORGINGS
ESTIMATING
IN FEASIBILITY
DESIGN
162 STACKS AND MACKS PROPORTIONBY PERIPHERAL AREAS, VOLUMES
OF EQUIVALENT SCANTLINGS OF PARENT SHlF'S
The ratios and tables that follow represent the typical
163 SEA CHESTS
parent ship approach for the element being considered.
In actual practice, there would be an expectation of
more specific ship design information to use so as to not 164 BALLISTIC PLATING TO SUIT REQUIREMENTS

have a completed feasibility estimate made up entirely 165 SONAR DOMES MANUFACTURER'S ESTIMATE OR VOLUMETRIC
PROPORTIONING TO A PARENT SHIP
of these ratios. L & B OF EACH DECK

TABLE 2. Examples of Ratios: Parent Vs. New Ship.

ELEMENT NEW snip DESIGN ini PARENT SHIP IPI RATIO Inlpl
The symbols defined in TABLE 1 are used in the
following sections of this paper. TABLE 2 is a tabula-
L 466 D 529 0 0 8309 tion of a hypothetical ship's characteristics and worked-
6 62 0 55 0 11273 out examples of various factors for both the new ship
D 42 3 41 6 1 0313
and the parent ship, and the resulting ratios. The ratios
A ATDWL 8500 7016 12115
are then applied to the applicable weight groups as
12104 10240
noted in TABLES 3 through 9. Appendix A is a typical
LBDll 00 12395
example.
LD 19991 22006 0 9084

LE 28892 29095 0 9930

Hull Structure (Group 1)
LIE+ZDI 88875 73108 0 9421

LD l2D + 81' 436 70 x 10. 42030xlO* 10390

TABLE 3 shows ratios or factors that may be applied
LBD. cp 32 1 1 7 x 10' 28196x10' 11391 to most of the three-digit elements in Group 1. Since the
LD' 057631 915450 0 9368 resulting estimates are only as good as the parent ship
sw 80000 Boo00 loo00 data, these data should be as characteristic of the new
n 20 0 180 11111 design as possible. It is not intended to suggest that the
CP
D 604 0 560 10786 ratios shown are the only ones to be used. The degree of
CWP 0 773 724 10760 detail available for the parent ship and the status of the
LIB + DI 48883 51101 0 9566 new design may suggest different ratios that would re-
ws 3 m 34727 0 9503
sult in more reliable estimating.
2 ID - w L 21343 24969 0 8548
Not shown in TABLE 3 are weight elements for mill
22507 21065 1 0684
tolerance and welding. The inclusion of these elements
LBCWP
(usually 195 and 1%, respectively) is dependent on how
KW loo00 7500 13333
they are treated in the parent ship. Under the BSCI
ACCOMMODATIONS
system, welding was a separate element. Under SWBS,
Accwn, Officers 23 33 0 6970
Accwn, NCOs 23 21 10952 however, welding and mill tolerance are included with
Accom, Enlisted 290 306 0 9477 each system (shell plating, etc.). Care should be taken to
Accwnt TOTAL 336 360 0 9333 neither duplicate nor exclude these weights. If elements
Naval Engineers Journal, May 1983 131

Delivered by Ingenta to: American Society of Naval Engineers Members

Date : Tue, 31 Mar 2015 08:51:01 IP : 103.27.8.49
 SURFACE SHIP WEIGHT ESTIMATING STRAUBINGER/CURRAN/FIGHERA

TABLE 3. (continued) HuU Structure Ratio or Fractions. TABLE 4. Propulsion Plant Ratios or Factors.
ELEMENT ITEM RATIO OR FACTOR ISEE TABLE 21 ELEMENT ITEM RATIO OR FACTOR (SEE TABLE 21

167 HULL STRUCTURAL w,=wp XLO 234 PROPULSION GAS wn = wp snp

CLOSURES TURBINES

168 DECK HOUSE W, = Wp x LD 24 1 REDUCTION GEARS TO SUIT SELECTED EOUIPMENT

169
STRUCTURAL
CLOSURES

SPECIAL W R W S E
CLOSURES
PROPORTIONEDBY AVERAGE AREAS
243 SHAFTING w, =
lip
y isnPitiZ

1 =LENGTH OF SHAFTING
1,
] + 5% IFOR
ADDITION
AL EQUIP
MENT

171 MASTSlTOWERS BASED ON EOUIVALENT SCANTLINGS OF 244 BEARINGS Wn=- [LlNEU) + TUEE(1) + STRWs)] SHP=
PARENT SHIPS

172 KINGPOSTS (SEE ELEMENT 1711

NO =NUMBER OF BEARINGS
179 SERVICE RATFORMS (SEE ELEMENT 17 1I
245 PROPULSOR
181 HULL STRUCTURE INCLUDED IN STRUCTURE SYSTEM THEY SERVE
FOUNDATIONS

182 PROPULSIONR A N T W, =$+%x SHP OR Wp x GRP Zn.* 251 COMBUSTION AIR W, = Wp x ISHPI'"'
FOUNDATIONS 2 2 GRP ZP' *
252 PROWL CONTROL w,=wp xisnpi1Q-
183 ELECTRIC PLANT [SEE ELEMENT 1821 svs
FOUNDATIONS
256 ClRC & COOL SW SYS W, = Wp x ISHPll "x ACCOMt
184 COMMAND AND W,=Wp xGRP "4,
259 UPTAKES W, = Wp x lSHPl112' ICORRECT FOR UPTAKE
~

SURVEILLANCE GRP*,4
,
FOUNDATIONS LENGTHS1
26 1 FUEL SERVICE Wn=Wp x 1SHPI1"'
185 AUXILIARY SYSTEMS ISEE ELEMENT 1841
262 MAIN PROPULSION Wn= Wp x ISHP11'2*
166 OWFIT AND FURNISH (SEE ELEMENT 1841 LUBE SYSTEM
INGS FOUNDATIONS
264 L o FILL, TRANS AND w, = wp istipi' 1 2 *
187 ARMAMEM SEE ELEMENT 184 IF ARMAMENT IS SIMILAR TO PURIFIER
FOUNDATIONS PARENT SHIP OR ESTIMATE FOUNDATIONS
FROM OTHER SHIPS 298 OPERATING FLUIDS W, = Wp x GRP 2',
~

GRP ZP"
198 FREE FLOODING TO SUIT SEA CHESTS, SHAFTING. ETC
LlOUlDS 299 REPAIR PARTS Wn=WpxGRP Zn*'
__
GRP ZP"
199 HULL REPAIR PARTS W,=WpxGRP 1",
~

GRP l P ' * OR 1Wp~MachplSHP1"+Mach,

* * TOTAL GROUP WEIGHT LESS FLUIDS AND REPAIR PARTS
"TOTAL GROUP WEIGHT LESS FLUIDS AND REPAIR PARTS

195 and 1% are used, they should gradually be phased TABLE 5. Electrical Plant Ratios or Factors.
out as preliminary structural drawings are produced so ELEMENT ITEM RATIO OR FACTOR (SEE TABLE 21
that by the end of preliminary design the elements have
been eliminated. When treated as an element, weld 31 1 SHIP SERVICE PWR GEN W, = Wp x KW OR [WP -GENSpl KW +GENSn]
metal in excess of the grooves in the plating and shapes OR TO SUIT INSTALLATK)NMUST ALSO SUIT
is taken as 1.5 to 2.5 percent of hull weight (elements ENGINE IDIESEL. GAS TURBINE. ETC.1

111 to 187). When individual elements are calculated 312 EMERGENCY (SEE ELEMENT 31 1I
GENERATORS
from preliminary structural drawings, the percentage is
31 3 BATTERIES (I SERV FAC Wn = Wp x KW x L OR TO SUIT INSTALLATON
included with the element.
Mill tolerance is treated similarly, and although past 314 PWR CONVERSION
EQUIP
(SEE ELEMENT 31 11

NAVSEA estimates have been based on 1.5 percent of

321 SHIP SERVICE PWR Wn =Wp x KW x L
the structural weight, recent shipyard studies indicate CABLE
that the figure is closer to 2 percent. An additional 322 EMERG. POWER CABLE Wn P Wp x KW x L
percentage should be added to the individual elements svs
when estimating from preliminary structural drawings 323 CASUALTY m w E R
CABLE SYSTEM
w. = wp x KW x L

for butt laps, liners, backing bars, inserts and docking

brackets and other local reinforcing. A realistic percent- 324 SWTCHGEAR 6
PANELS
W, - Wp x KW OR TO SUIT INSTALLATION

age to use should be based on completed weights for 331 LIGHTING DlSlRlBUTlON Wn = Wp x x Acc-
similar ships or detail calculations of typical areas. 100

Recommended percentages for the various factors, i.e., 332 LIGHTING FIXTURES W, = Wp x Leo x ACT
Welding, Mill Tolerance, etc., are given in the Prelim- 100

inary Design phase of this paper. 341 SSGTG LUBE OIL Wn=WpxKW

3421343 DIESELfTURE SUPPT W, = Wp x KW

svs
Propulsion Plant (Group 2)
398 OPERATING FLUIDS w, = w x KW OR TO SUIT momsm
INSTALLTION
Group 2 elements are usually very difficult to estimate 399 REPAIR PARTS W, = Wp x GRP 3',
unless reliable parent ship data are available and new GFq7
ship characteristics are reasonably close to the parent * TOTAL GROUP WElGHT LESS FLWDS AND REPAlR PARTS

132 Naval Engineers Journal, May 1983

Delivered by Ingenta to: American Society of Naval Engineers Members

Date : Tue, 31 Mar 2015 08:51:01 IP : 103.27.8.49
STRAUBINGER/CURRAN/FIGHERA SURFACE SHIP WEIGHT ESTIMATING

TABLE 6. Command & Surveillance Ratios or Factors. The best approach, if possible, is for the cognizant
machinery system design engineers to prepare weight
~

ELEMENT ITEM RATIO OR FACTOR ISEE TABLE 21

-
estimates of main components, such as engines, reduc-
41 1 DATA DISPLAY GROUP W, = Wp I LED tion gears, shafting, main and auxiliary condensers,
100
boilers, etc., at the same time that the various options
4'2 DATA PROCESSING W, = Wp x LED
100
are being considered. When such estimates are used, it is
421 NON ELECIELEX NAV w -w + w XLBO
important that the estimate be checked by the weight
"-9-f 100 engineer to be sure that auxiliary or peripheral
equipments have been accounted for somewhere. Ex-
422 ELEC NAV AIDS W,=W
* -f
+ W rL8D
loo amination of old machinery weight reports, or even the
SWBS, may be useful as a guide as to what additional
423 ELEX NAV SYS. RADIO W, = Wp x LED equipment should be included, i.e., piping, pumps, lift-
100
ing gear, etc. or, at least, provided for in the new
424 ELEX NAV SYS ACOUST W, = Wp x LED
100
estimate.
426 ELEC NAV SYS w,=wp x Len
~

100

427 INERTIAL NAV SYS w, = wp L LEO

100

431 SWBOS FOR I C SYS W, = Wp x LED QR Electric Plant (Group 3)

100
[IWp -EOUIPplLB + EOUIP,I
I Group 3 elements may be ratioed assuming availabil-
432 TELEPHONE SYS ISEE ELEMENT 4311
ity of relevant parent ship data. In common with Group
433 ANNOUNCING SYS ISEE ELEMENT 4311
2, however, certain components, such as generators,
434 ENTERTAIN (L TRN'G
SYS
ISEE ELEMENT 4311 panels and power conversion equipment should be
based on weight estimated provided by the cognizant
435 VOICE TUBES W, = Wp x LD
electrical design engineers preparing the various options
436 ALARM, SAFEN &
WRN SYS
(SEE ELEMENT 431 I under consideration.
437 INDICATING, ORDER ISEE ELEMENT 431 1
TABLE 5 shows the ratios that may be used assuming
SYS that there is sufficiently applicable parent ship data and
441 RADIO SYSTEMS ISEE ELEMENT 4311 provided that the new ship ship's service kilowatt (kw)
rating requirements are known to be accurate and com-
442 UNDERWATER (SEE ELEMENT 43 1 I plete.
SYSTEMS

443 VISUAL & AUDIBLE SYS

wn =F 2 xlBD
la,

446 TTY & FAC SYS (SEE ELEMENT 4311

446 SECURITY EDUlP SYS W" = wp X E Command and Surveillance (Group 4)

la,

450 SURVEILLANCE SYS

ISURFI
WEIGHTS FDR ELEMENTS NOT SHOWN
SHOULD BE EASED ON PROPOSED
Weight estimating for Group 4 presents a special con-
INSTALLATONS dition. Unlike groups which are dependent upon the
480 SURVEILLANCE SYS WEIGHTS FOR ELEMENTS NOT SHOWN basic design characteristics of the ship, Group 4 is essen-
IUNDERWATERI SHOULD BE EASED ON PROPOSED
INSTALLATIONS tially independent (as is Group 7). Frequently, the
470 COUNTERMEASURES WEIGHTS FOR ELEMENTS NOT SHOWN
equipment and systems represent the payload, so ratios
SHOULD BE EASED ON PROPOSED and factors are neither necesary or appropriate. When
INSTAUTONS
the proposed electronics are completely new and under-
W, = Wp x L E OR Wp x GRP(,
475 DEGAUSSING
la, GRP lp
going concurrent development, the weight engineer will
IBASIC STRUCTURE ONLY) be provided with weight budgets for these systems. Cau-
480 FIRE CONTROL SYS WEIGHTS FOR ELEMENTS NOT SHOWN
tion must be exercised to ensure that the weights pro-
SHOULD BE BASED ON m o m s E D
INSTALLATIONS
vided for new systems include equipment such as panels,
498 ORRATING FLUIDS TO SUIT SONAR INSTALLATION
cabling, cabinets, shock mounts, spare and repair parts
REPAIR PARTS W=
, Wp x GRP 4,"
expected and similar items.
499 __
GRP 4p" When the systems or components are well defined and
* PREFERRED RATIO
data from a parent ship are sufficiently applicable, rea-
*. TOTAL GROUP WEIGHT LESS FLUIDS AND REPAIR PARTS sonable estimates may be developed by ratiocination.
Shown in TABLE 6 are the ratios or factors that may be
used.
The usual case, however, is a mix of new and existing
ship. Under these conditions, ratiocination is possible equipments which tend to evolve as the candidate ship
and is shown in TABLE 4. These estimates should be becomes more defined. Close checking on the equip-
considered as "first cuts" and should be replaced as ment list by the weight engineer is vital to accuracy of
soon as more reliable data become available. Group 4 weight in the estimate.
Naval EnglneersJournal, May 1983 133

Delivered by Ingenta to: American Society of Naval Engineers Members

Date : Tue, 31 Mar 2015 08:51:01 IP : 103.27.8.49
SURFACE SHIP WEIGHT ESTIMATING STRAUBINGER/CURRAN/FIGHERA

TABLE 7. Auxiliary Systems Ratios or Factors. TABLE 7. (continued) Auxiliary Systems Ratios or Factors.
~. ~ ~ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ~ ~ ~
ELEMENT ITEM RATIO OR FACTOR [SEE TABLE 21 ELEMENT ITEM RATIO OR FACTOR [SEE TABLE 21

51 1 COMPT HEATING SYS W, = Wp x Accoml x 583 BOATS. HANDLING E

100 STOW NUMBER AND TYPES OF BOATS

512 VENTILATION SYS 585 ELEV E RETRACTING TO SUIT INSTALLATION

W, = Wp x Accoml xLBD
100
GEAR

513 MACH SPACE VENT W, = Wp 1 MACH SPACE VOLUME 586 AIRCRAFT RECOVERY TO SUIT INSTALLATION
SYS SYS

514 AIR CONDITION SYS W, = Wp x Accomt x OR 588 AIRCRAFT HDLG. TO SUIT INSTALLATION
100
SERViSTOW
[ Wp ~ IAC MACHI,] Accomt xLBD + IAC MACHI,
100 593' ENVIRON POLLUTION W, = WplLBD/lOO + Accamtl
.~
C0NT R 0L 2
516 REFRIGERATION SYS W, = Wp x Accamt
598 OPERATING FLUIDS W, = Wp x GRP 5"''
~

51 7 AUXILIARY BLRS W, = Wp x Accomt x GRP 5p"

100

52 1 FIREMAIN & FLUSH W,=Wp X E D OR

100
[i Wp-Machpl x s]+ Mach"
599 REPAIR PARTS W, = Wp x G E 6 , "
GRP 5p"

SPRINKLER SYS W, = Wp x LED OR ACTUAL AREAS

522
100 . WHERE POSSIBLE. MAKE INDIVIDUAL ESTIMATES FOR COMPONENTS. Ie , nP AIR, LP AIR
EMITTERS, C 0 2 P O R T , HALON. PKP. ETC
523 WASHDOWN SYS w, = wp x L8 .' TOTAL GROUP WEIGHT LESS FLUIDS AND REPAIRS
524 AUX SEA WATER SVS W" = loo
wp x LEO

526 SCUPPERS & DK DRNS W,=Wp xLB

527 FM ACTUATED SERV w,=w .LED

pi66
528 PLUMBING DRAINAGE W, = Wp x LB x Accomt

529 DRAINAGE & BALLAST W, = Wp x LB OR

I IWp - Machp) LB + Mach,
I Auxiliary Systems (Group 5)
53 1 DISTILLING PLANT DISTILLER CAPACITY

532 COOLING WATER [

W, = Wp x LD IWp - Mach,,) LD t Mach, While Group 5 is composed of a large number of dif-
ferent systems, most can be ratioed provided a suffi-
[IWp-Machpl LDiMach,
1 ciently detailed and applicable parent ship is available.
533 POTABLE WATER
In many cases, it may be possible to develop more ac-
534 AUX STM & DR SYS curate system estimates by estimating the weights of the
IMACH 60x1 W, = Wp x ISHP + LBDll 001
2 main components and then assuming that the remaining
535 AUX STM & DRNS Wn= WpxlSHP+ LBD ~ lOOl
system weights will vary in the same ratio as the ap-
10,s. MACH BOX1 2 plicable ratiocination factor. Examples of systems
536 AUX FRESH WTR W,= Wp x LD where this approach would be used are the Air Condi-
COOLING
tioning System and the Firemain and Flushing System.
W, = WplLD + F D CAP1 OR IWp - MACHPI
541 FUEL OIL SYSTEMS
[ The weight estimators can minimize latent adverse
ILD+CAPI + Mach,
2 1 impacts of sharp weight increases or decreases by special
542 AVlA (I GEN PURPOSE w, = wp ILD + F D CAP1 OR [I Wp - M x h p l care in developing initial estimates. Areas to check
FUELS
ILD+CPIPI + Mach, carefully are the functional definition of the proposed
2 I system, similarity to the functional definition of the
545 TANK HEATING W,= W p x LB

W,=WpxLBD/lOO OR IWp-Machpl
parent, and relative density of spaces involved (new ship
551' COMPRESSED AIR SVS
to parent) where clutter could have an effect on the effi-
1 DO
Iel+
Msch,
I ciency of the design in terms of material and compart-
552 COMPRESSED GASSES TO SUIT PROPOSED INSTALLATION ment sizes. TABLE 7 indicates the various factors that
553 02 N2 SYSTEM TO SUIT PROPOSED INSTALLATION may be employed.
555' FIRE EXTINGUISHING W, = Wp x LD OR
i IWp - MachpllLDl +Mach"
I
558 SPECIAL PIPING TO SUIT PROPOSED INSTALLATION

581 STEERING w, = wp x L n v 2

562 RUDDER w,=wpXLn Outfit and Furnishings (Group 6)

571 REPLEN-AT-SEA W, = W, x LBD/100 OR TO SUIT INSTALLATION
SYSTEMS Group 6 ratiocination factors are almost all functions
572 SHIP STORES HDLG Wn = Wp x LBDll 00 OR TO SUIT INSTALLATION of ship size or volume, and of complement. One of the
581 ANCHOR HDLG & W, = WplL80!100 + A I OR TO SUIT
exceptions is paint (element 631) which may be esti-
STOWAGE 2 INSTALLATION mated as a percentage of Group 1 structural weights.
Ratios for estimating elements should follow the ratios
582 MOORING & TOWING W, = WplLBDL!-T-~ &I OR TO SUIT
2 INSTALLATION or factors given in TABLE 8. There are, however, a few
specific aspects of the new design which should be
- WHERE POSSIBLE. MAKE INDIVIDUAL ESTIMATES FOR COMPONENTS. I a , t i P AIR. L P AIR.
EMITTERS. C 0 2 PORT, HALON, PKP. ETC
reviewed with care because ratios to parent ship may not
be completely valid:
134 Naval Engineers Journal, May 1983

Delivered by Ingenta to: American Society of Naval Engineers Members

Date : Tue, 31 Mar 2015 08:51:01 IP : 103.27.8.49
STRAUBINGER/CURRAN/FIGHERA SURFACE SHIP WEIGHT ESTIMATING

TABLE 8. Outfit & Furnishings Ratios or Factors. TABLE 9. Loads (Full Load Condition).
ELEMENT ITEM RATIO OR FACTOR ISEE TAELE 2) ELEMENT ITEM RATIO OR FACTOR [SEE TABLE 21
-

61 1 HULL FITTINGS Wn=Wp XL F 11 ' SHIPS OFFICERS W, = NO OF OFF'RS x 400 XIMAN

61 2 RAILS, STAN'S & w, =wpX l

F 12 ' SHIPS NON COM W, = NO OF NCO'S x 330NIMAN
LIFELINES OFF'RS

F 13 ' SHIPS ENLISTED W, = NO OF EM'S x ZMXlMAN

61 3 RIGGING & CANVAS w,=wp XL MEN
62 1 NON-STRUCT BHDS W" = wp x LBD1100 F 21 SHIP AMMUNITION SEE DESIGN REQUIREMENTS

822 FLOOR PLTS & W=

, Wp xLB F 22 OR0 OEL. SYSTEM SEE DESIGN REQUIREMENTS
GRATINGS AMMO
F 23 ORDNANCE DELIVERY SEE DESIGN REQUIREMENTS
623 LADDERS W=
, Wp x LD SYS
624 NON-STRUCT W,=WpxLBD/lW F 26 ORD OEL SYS SUPPT SEE DESIGN REQUIREMENTS
CLOSURES EQUIP

625 AIRPORTS, WINDOWS W,=Wp XLB F 31 . PROV & PERS

STORES
DRY: W,=COMPLE x 3 . 2 0
IMANIDAY x ENDURANCE
631 PAINTING Wn=WpxLBO/lWOR%OFGRP1'
FREEZE W,=COMPLE x 1 .ll
NIMANIDAY x ENDURANCE
633 CATHODIC PROTECTION W,=WpxLBD/lWORWS
CHILL: W, = COMPLE x 1.65
634 DECK COVERING W,=Wp xLB RIMAN/ DAY x€NDURANCE

635 HULL INSULATION W,=Wp XLBDllW CLOTH & SM W, =COMPLE x0.07

STRS: NIMANl DAY x ENDURANCE
636 HULL DAMPING W,= Ws+ W
s x SHP
2 2
SHIPS STR: W,=COMPLE xO.BO
637 SHEATHING W,=Wp xLBD/lW XIMAN/ DAY x ENDURANCE

MEDICAL W, = COMPLF x 0 02
638 REFRIGERATED SPACES W" = wpAccofly NIMANIDAY xENDURANCE
639 RADIATION SHIELDING TO SUIT REOUIREMENTS F 32 * GENERAL STORES W, = COMRE x 1.08 IIMANIDAY
x ENDURANCE OR W, = Wp x COMRE x
641 OFFICERS MESS & Wn = Wp x A c c m o LBDll 00
BERTH
F 41 to F 45 FUELS SEE DESIGN REOUIREMENTS
642 NCO MESS & BERTH W, = Wp x Accom, LUBE OIL W, = Wp x SHP
F 46

ENLISTED MESS & W, = Wp x Accm, F 51 SEAWATER TO SUIT REQUIREMENTS

643
BERTH F 52 FRESH WATER W, = COMPLE x 40 GALSIMAN
B44 SANITARY SPACES/ W,=WpxAccq F 55 SANITARY TANK Lia. TO SUIT REOUIREMENTS
FIX.
* NAVSHIPS TECH MAN 0901-290-002 CHAPTER 9290 WEIGHTS AND STABILITY
645 LEISURE SPACES Wn = Wp x A c c q

651 COMMISSARY W, = Wp x Accofly

652 MEDICAL SPACES W, = Wp x Accml

853 DENTAL SPACES Wn=WpxAccq

654 UTILITY SPACES W, = W

s + Ws x Accofly
2 2

655 LAUNDRY SPACES W, = Wp x A c c m t (2) Office spaces may be based on a dif-

856 TRASH DISPOSAL W, = W
s +W
s x Accofly ferent operating scenario.
2 2 (3) Insulation requirements have become
681 OFFtCES W, = Wp x A c c m t x LBDIl W complex and more stringent. A careful
662 MACH. CONTROL CTRS. W,=WpxAcc~xLBDllW check of the parent ship requirements
683 ELECTRONICS CNTRL W, = W, x A c c q xLBD1100 would be appropriate.
CTRS (4) Furniture is probably quite different.
B&) DAMAGE CONTROL w,= wp x LBD/loO ( 5 ) Stowage methods change.
STAS

885 WORKSHOPS/LABS/ w,=ws+ws XLBDlloO

TESTING 2 2
Loads (Full Load Condition)
671 LOCKERS & SPEC W.=Wp x A c c q XLBDIlW
STOW

672 STOREROOMS & ISS W, = Wp x LBD/l00 x STORES ALLOWANCE

Load items are dependent on the basic ship character-
ROOMS istics and the nature of the ship's missions. The basic
696 OPERATING FLUIDS W,=WpxGRP 6 ", ~
characteristics define complement, aircraft, armament,
GRP 6p"
speed, range and horsepower. Other load items may be
REPAIR PARTS W,=WpxGRP- 6
",
699
GRP 6,,"
ratioed from the factors shown in TABLE 9.

* TOTAL GROUP WEIGHT LESS FLUIDS & REPAIR PARTS

Margins
'* TOTAL GROUP WEIGHT LESS FLUIDS & REPAIR PARTS

Margin is introduced into the design weight estimate

(1) Habitability standards may be dif- during the earliest stages of development. Margin
ferent. Living spaces would be affected allocations, made during feasibility design, are deter-
and some kind of an allowance may be mined on the basis of estimated growth expected for the
appropriate. entire design, construction, and service period. Margins
Naval Englneers Journal, May 1983 135

Delivered by Ingenta to: American Society of Naval Engineers Members

Date : Tue, 31 Mar 2015 08:51:01 IP : 103.27.8.49
SURFACE SHIP WEIGHT ESTIMATING STRAUBINGER/CURRAN/FIGI-IERA

are included to cover the inherent limits on precision of Data Sources

initial weight estimates. In any phase of design, values
used for the various margin amounts will depend on: The amount and type of data available for weight
estimating during preliminary design stage varies con-
Experience and knowledge gained in the siderably from design to design. It may include all or
design of previous similar ships. very little of the following and other sources:
The nature and status of the design -
whether design is relatively f i i or still a. Drawings, sketches and diagrams for:
developmental. (1) Hull structure (decks, sections,
The extent of historical data available. shell expansion, etc.).
The result of studies of previous weight (2) Machinery arrangements, uptakes,
growth trends. various piping diagrammatics.
(3) Deck machinery, boat stowage and
A complete discussion of margin criteria, selection handling, anchor handling and
and accounting procedures is contained in Reference stowage, shop arrangements, etc.
PI. (4) Electronic spaces such as radar
rooms, CIC, communications, IC
PRELIMINARY
DESIGN
PHASE and sonar rooms.
( 5 ) Armament (VLS arrangements,
Completion of the feasibility estimate and assignment ammo stowages and handling).
of acquisition margins establishes the mass properties (6) Outfit and Furnishing - Office ar-
boundaries within which the ship will be designed and rangements, living and leisure
built. The preliminary design phase represents the first spaces, food services spaces and
refining of the baseline design, development of weight laundry spaces.
detail and consumption of margin. The objective of b. Lists and ReDorts
preliminary design will be to “prove” the design by Combat System Equipment List
functional definition of systems. The objective of the (CSEL).
preliminary design weight estimate will be to demon- Combat System Parameter Ac-
strate that the design will meet the naval architectural counting Report (CSPAR).
requirements for strength, stability, damage, and per- Master Equipment List (MEL).
formance. Fluid Systems Master Equipment
It can be expected that the weight estimate will be List.
greatly improved during this phase since there should be Ship Service Electric Plant Prime
an improvement in design information such as: Mover Equipment List.
Group 2 (Machinery) Major Equip-
a. Refined baseline definition. ment Weights.
b. Better design information (structural Preliminary Design Baseline Defiii-
drawings, etc.). tion Report.
Detail Weight Estimates of Parent
c. Release of the Top Level Requirements
(TLR). Ship@).
Ship Work Breakdown Structure
d. Better definition and weights of
(S W BS) .
machinery and ancillary equipment.
Naval Supply System Command
(NAVSUP) requirements for Re-
The result should be an improved quality for esti- pair Parts, General Stores and Per-
mates of both VCG (Vertical Center of Gravity) and sonnel Stores (See General Ar-
weight. rangements Division, SEA 55W1).

Reporting
Reporting requirements are formalized during this
stage and interim weight reports are used to update the
preliminary design weight estimate on a predetermined
periodic schedule. Calculation of mass properties is
computerized to conform to the NAVSEA “Ship Design
Weight Estimate System and Program Documen-
tation,” CASDAC Numbers 230021 and 230143,
References [5] and [a]. The program is structured to
produce a 20 station longitudinal weight distribution for
calculating maximum longitudinal bending stresses. The
full reporting requirements for weight estimates are
found in DOD Standard 2137, “Mass Properties
Technical Requirements for Surface Ships” Reference
[71.
136 Naval Engineers Journal, May 1983
ESTIMATING DESIGN
IN PRELIMINARY
Hull Structure (Group 1)
The early issues of structural drawings usually show
little more than the extent and weights of plating and
stiffeners. Unless better information is produced,
scantlings shown for the midship section are used as
typical sizes for the middle two-thirds of the hull. The
end scantlings are reduced in size based on discussion
with the structural engineers. This information is then
updated as typical bulkheads and other sections of the
hull and superstructure are developed. The later
refinements of additional stiffening or inserts around
opening or other requirements that result from detailed

Delivered by Ingenta to: American Society of Naval Engineers Members

Date : Tue, 31 Mar 2015 08:51:01 IP : 103.27.8.49
STRAUBINGER/CURRAN/FIGHERA
stress analyses are missing. These refmements, as well as
mill tolerances and welding, usually add considerable
weight. To compensate for this missing weight, certain
percentages (which may vary according to individual
shipyard practices) as listed below are suggested for in-
clusion with the structural weights in the appropriate
3-digit weight account:
Factors Shell Pltg DkdBhds
Welding 1!h% 1!h%
MiU Tolerance 2% 2%
Inserts, doublers, local stiffening l%Vo 3 qo
- -
5 qo 6%%
If welding and mill tolerance have been carried as in-
dividual weight elements in earlier issues of the estimate,
these elements would have to be modified each time a
structural plan is calculated. To maintain the accuracy
of the longitudinal weight distribution, structural draw-
ings must be calculated to conform to the standard
longitudinal station breakdown in accordance with
Reference [7]. Preliminary design structural drawings
do not cover all of the ship’s structure. Some of the
weight elements not covered are stanchions, flats,
castings, stacks, masts, sea chests, foundations, ballistic
plating. These groups will have to be carried as ratios
unless cognizant functional codes can provide addi-
tional specific information to update the ratios.
Propulsion Plant (Group 2)
Major equipment weights such as main engines,
reduction gears and propulsors have usually been
developed by the end of the feasibility design, and are
carried forward. However, design changes can cause
machinery changes so the weights should be checked
periodically to ensure that they are the last available
and still applicable. The weight engineer should make
certain that weights of ancillary equipment and
miscellaneous items such as lifting gear, sub-bases’
seachests and major valves are identified and accounted
for. This type of information can be acquired from
discussions with functional codes using parent ship
weight reports, and SWBS as shopping lists and a cross
check for completeness.
While shafting and bearing weights are usually pro-
vided by the responsible functional codes, the weight
engineer must determine with functional codes the
design leeway that the prospective contractor can have.
This design latitude may result in a considerable weight
fluctuation. Again, the effect of ancillary or
miscellaneous equipment must be considered. Equip-
ment weights of the remaining elements must be
checked periodically for changes. Distributive system
type weights such as piping, valves and fittings are more
difficult to estimate since detail layout drawings are not
prepared. Diagrammatics, if available, plus discussions
with the cognizant engineer to determine system similar-
ity to the parent ship, may help to estimate or at least
determine a reasonable approach to use for rationing
weight from the parent ship.
Delivered by Ingenta to: American Society of Naval Engineers Members
Date : Tue, 31 Mar 2015 08:51:01 IP : 103.27.8.49
SURFACE SHIP WEIGHT ESTIMATING
Electric Plant (Group 3)
The approach to this group is basically the same as
for Group 2. One of the heaviest and usually the most
difficult elements to estimate is the power cabling.
Cable lists, diagrammatics and discussions with the
functional code are all helpful but a significant amount
of weight will always be a ratio or a factor until detail
design. However, as in Group 2, a detailed and reliable
parent ship weight estimate may provide the most reli-
able source of information for ratioing. Reliability, in
this case, being well detailed and scaled return weights
for the same equipment.
Command and Surveillance (Group 4)
Elements 410 and 450 through 480 are almost ex-
clusively based on a CSEL or CSPAR. Elements 420
through 440 are also based, in varying degrees, on the
CSEL/CSPAR. Some of the systems in these latter
elements (such as Announcing, Alarm, Safety, In-
dicating, etc.) must be ratioed from a parent ship. Some
of the other elements such as Radio and Navigation may
be only partially listed in the CSELICSPAR and may
require partial ratioing. All systems, whether
CSEL/CSPAR or parent ship based, should be in-
vestigated each time a CSEL or CSPAR is issued. In ad-
dition, all elements should be investigated to ensure that
auxiliary equipment, cabling, etc., have been included.
In light of technical strides in electronic miniaturization,
special attention should be given to cabling ratios to be
certain that parent ship equipment to cable relationships
are valid for the new design. Various electronic spaces
are usually detailed allowing for a better determination
of VCG’s of the systems being estimated.
Auxiliary Systems (Group 5)
Elements 510 through 550 include a large proportion
of the Group 5 Fluid Systems such as HVAC, Sea
Water, Fresh Water, Fuels, and Gases. The systems may
have diagrammatics toward the end of preliminary
design, but are never well defined until detail design.
While major components weights may be available,
pipe/duct sizes and runs under four inches are not. The
approach used in Group 2 should be applied where ma-
jor components are estimated, and located, and the re-
maining smaller system weights are ratioed. As with
other groups, a high quality, well detailed parent ship
weight estimate and consultation with cognizant codes
are essential.
Remaining Group 5 systems, Elements 560 through
580, are composed mainly of machinery components
which may change as the design progresses. As layout
drawings are developed or updated parent ship ratios
can be developed for identified components and
peripheral support material such as foundations (for
Group l), piping, wiring, and mechanical systems.
Among the major and widely used systems are
Replenishment-at-Sea, Anchor Handling and Stowage,
Boat Handling and Stowage, and Mooring and Towing.
Naval Engineers Journal, May 1983 137
SURFACE SHIP WEIGHT ESTIMATING
Checks or weights against drawings as they are issued or
updated, and consultations with cognizant codes, are
essential for proper and complete understanding of the
design necessary for an accurate estimate.
Outfit and Furnkhing (Group 6)
This group is composed of a large number of varied
elements. Some elements that may be better estimated
by using various sources of information than by ratios
are as follows:
Element 61 1 (Rails, etc.) may be developed
or better estimated from general ar-
rangements, parent ship and specifications.
Element 621 through 625 (Hull Compart-
mentation) may be developed from general
arrangements, cognizant code information,
specifications and developmental drawings
and sketches.
Element 634 (Deck Covering), Element 637
(Sheathing) and Element 638 (Refrigerated
Spaces) probably may be developed using
general arrangements, cognizant code con-
sultation and parent ship. Remainder of
subgroup 630 probably remain a ratio or
factor unless there is sufficient time to
develop the design information.
Subgroups 640 through 670. At some point during the
preliminary design stage, most of the elements within
these subgroups should have been developed within the
cognizant codes by drawings or sketches and/or equip-
ment listings. Although not all of this information is
available for general 'release, access to it is usually
available for weight estimating purposes. Where specific
ship information is not available, ratios can be reviewed
in light of known design refinements or definition.
Armament (Group 7)
General arrangement drawings are usually produced
for the various ammunition stowages. Drawings may
also be produced for handling systems, especially where
elevators and lifts may be employed. Weights of the
various armament systems may be listed in the CSEL.
However it is best to periodically check with the func-
tional codes to be assured of current information.
CONTRACT
DESIGN
PHASE
The contract design phase represents a further refin-
ing of the baseline design through a major engineering
effort. The purpose of this phase is to establish a firm
basis for shipbuilder bids for a detail design and con-
struction contract and to provide criteria for NAVYac-
ceptance of the ship. The contract design weight
estimate is used to measure the validity of the ship
design as it progresses from preliminary layouts to a
finished specification. At the completion of contract
design, the fully developed final contract design weight
estimate is also used as the benchmark for comparison
138 Naval Engineers Journal, May 1983
Delivered by Ingenta to: American Society of Naval Engineers Members
Date : Tue, 31 Mar 2015 08:51:01 IP : 103.27.8.49
STRAUBINGER/CURRAN/FIGHERA
with the shipbuilder's first independent weight estimate.
Contractual requirements are established by the ad-
judication of these two estimates into a mutually agreed
upon Accepted Weight Estimate.
Reporting
Reporting procedures are virtually the same as during
preliminary design except that contract design margin
accounts are adjusted to maintain the baseline weight
and KG values.
Data Sources
Major systems, such as structural configuration, pro-
pulsion, and armament were defined during preliminary
design. Generally, the support systems, auxiliary
systems, and individual compartment arrangements
have been left for development in contract design. To a
large extent, the weight estimating methods during this
period are an expansion of the methods used for prelim-
inary design. The improved systems definitions lead to
expectations of smaller fluctuations in weights and
centers of gravity. The data sources available for weight
estimating during the contract design stage, whether
reports, or drawings, or equipment lists, generally con-
tain more detailed information than the sources used in
preliminary design. The principal technical products of
a contract design are:
a. Drawings, sketches and diagrams
(1) Contract Drawings and Contract
Guidance Drawings - approximate-
ly one hundred
(2) Miscellaneous Study Drawings (in
support of specification develop-
ment)
b. Lists and Reports
(1) Ship Specifications
(2) HVAC Design Criteria Manual
(3) Contract Data Requirements List
(4) Master Equipment List
( 5 ) GFE Specifications (Schedule A)
(6) GFI Requirements (Schedule C)
(7) Preliminary Ship Manning Docu-
ment
(8) T & E Requirements
(9) Contract Design Weight Estimate
Estimating in Contract Design
The most straightforward portion of the contract
design weight estimate is incorporation of contract
drawings. This type of drawing contains mandatory
features such as the exact locations, plating sizes, and
scantlings of the subdivision bulkheads. Also, these
drawings can be expected to be consistent with detail
specification requirements. Next, contract guidance
drawings are estimated. This type of drawing depicts
only one of probably several acceptable design solu-
tions. Other sketches, lists, and reports are used as input
in a similar manner that has been described for
STRAUBINGER/CURRAN/FIGHERA
preliminary design. The unique type of weight
estimating input that makes contract design different
from any previous design phase is the use of ship
specifications. This document translates the engineering
description of the ship into contractual language. For
many subsystems in Groups 2, 3 and 5 , technical re-
quirements are stated in performance-oriented terms so
that solution options available to the shipbuilder will
not be unduly restricted. Performance specifications are
the most difficult to accurately estimate. The weight
engineer will research the range of possible alternatives
and continue to interview the cognizant system engin-
eers to get their advice as to the most probable choice.
Then, after reviewing the historical practices of the like-
ly shipbuilders. a judgment will have to be made concer-
ning which of the alternatives to reflect in the weight
estimate. Even the type and terms of contract enters into
this decision. If not somehow given sufficient incentives
to control weight, the shipbuilder will select the cheapest
solution every time even if it is known to be the heaviest.
Individual specification sections are completed during
reading sessions toward the end of contract design. The
weight engineer tracks all of the last minute changes that
are necessary to mold the contract design deliverables
into a comprehensive and consistent data package.
Many of the differences between the government’s Con-
tract Design Weight Estimate and the shipbuilder’s
Contractor’s Design Weight Estimate are design
changes that “fell through the cracks” during the last
third of contract design. The weight estimates for the
seven major classification groups undergo considerable
expansion of detail throughout the contract design
phase.
Hull Structure (Group I )
Structural drawings are iterated to incorporate
knowledge gained from the final preliminary design
longitudinal weight distribution. Plating thicknesses
and scantlings get refined to account for some of known
local loading conditions as well as overall bending mo-
ment effects. Ballistic plating schemes are usually
selected during contract design, stanchion sizes and loca-
tions are identified, and, at a minimum, typical panels
are drawn from major fabricated structural elements.
Foundations for some of the significant equipments can
be itemized since the main machinery components are
usually fmed after preliminary design. However, foun-
dation estimates for other equipments are usually not
developed beyond the original ratios or factors since
drawings and sketches are almost never available before
detail design. Welding and mill tolerance factors seldom
change for contract design since quality assurance prac-
tices and construction techniques of the building
shipyard and the steel mill cannot be evaluated until
contract award. Percentages for miscellaneous structure
can be decreased if the structural drawings identify most
of the insert plates, doublers, headers, brackets, etc.
that will eventually be required.
Delivered by Ingenta to: American Society of Naval Engineers Members
Date : Tue, 31 Mar 2015 08:51:01 IP : 103.27.8.49
SURFACE SHIP WEIGHT ESTIMATING
Propulsion (Group 2)
Machinery equipment lists, arrangement drawings,
and schematic diagrams undergo a refinement process
similar to that which happens in structures. The quanti-
ty of information expands as some of the secondary
systems become developed. For examp!e, the fuel oil
filling and transfer system which remained fairly con-
ceptual during preliminary design might progress to a
guidance drawing stage during contract design. The size
and quantity of major components such as pumps,
motors, heaters, and valves, that meet the required per-
formance parameters will be shown. However, esti-
mates of these systems must be completed by including
weights for additional supplementary hardware such as
fittings, pipe hangers, sounding tubes, gaskets, etc., and
considering the possibility that the shipbuilder’s detail
design could be different. Ratioing from a parent ship
is useful if the systems are sufficiently similar and serve
the same functions. Any information that is developed
should be discussed with the cognizant system engineer.
Electric Plant (Group 3)
During contract design, the size and number of
generators should be settled, allowing arrangements to
be designed for major components of Group 3 such as
the generators, switchboards and cableways. Major
power requirements will be identified so another review
of the ratios brought forward from preliminary design
will be required for possible refinement as sizes and
numbers of equipment are known.
Command and Surveillance (Group 4)
In general, weight accounts for the combat systems
groups do not show a great amount of activity during
contract design. Equipment lists are periodically up-
dated and must be checked for consistency but most
new mass properties data is generated by locating com-
bat systems equipment according to the room arrange-
ments. Center of gravity values can be estimated with
reasonable accuracy based on the amount of detail that
has appeared on recent electronics space layouts for
combatant ship designs.
Auxiliary Systems (Group 5)
Contract design for auxiliary systems is comprised of
two general design approaches. For mechanical systems,
such as deck systems ship control, and the like, contract
or contract guidance drawings are developed where ma-
jor components are identified and arranged in the ship.
This permits a relatively accurate weight estimate to be
made. Accuracy at the end of the design is dependent on
keeping abreast of the design changes. On the other
hand, distributive systems are defined through sketches
and diagrams of tentative solutions, and subsequent
translation of selected schemes into performance
specifications. The result is that even though perform-
ance of these systems may be well defined by the end of
Naval Engineers Journal, May 1983 139
SURFACE SHIP WEIGHT ESTIMATING STRAUBINGER/CURRAN/FIGHERA

TABLE 1h. Weights From Contract Design Weight TABLE lob. Weights From Contract Design Weight
I

Estimates. Estimates.
GROUP ~
F F 1052 FF 1078 __
FFG 7 GROUP DDG-2 DDG 22 DD 963 DD 993

-
1 -
1

WEIGHT 1172T 1394T 1404T 12411 WEIGHT 1183T 1224T 2722T 3241T
INCREASE 67 5 7% 67 4 8% 88 62% 71 5 7% INCREASE 111 9.4% 18 1 4% 444 163% 430 13 3%
DECREASE 21 18 36 26 33 24 64 5 1 DECREASE 56 .4.7 3 2 61 22 63 19
CHANGE 88 75 103 74 121 86 135 108 CHANGE 167 14.1 21 17 505 18 5 493 152
NET 46 39 31 22 55 39 7 6 NET 55 4.6 15 12 383 14 1 367 114

-
2
-
2
WEIGHT 351T 418T 420T 257T WEIGHT 8lOT 831T 767T 744T
INCREASE 19 5 4% 30 7 2% 33 79% 64 249qil INCREASE 29 3.6% 6 8% 90 11 7% 23 31%
DECREASE 11 31 10 24 1 1 7 34 132 DECREASE 17 -2.1 3 4 104 1 3 5 32 43
CHANGE 30 86 40 96 40 95 98 38 1 CHANGE 46 5.7 9 12 194 2 5 2 55 74
NET 8 23 20 48 26 62 30 11 7 NET 12 1.5 3 4 14 18 9 12
3
~

-
3
WEIGHT 1087 121T 135T 187T
WEIGHT 125T 123T 347T 294T
INCREASE 12 11 2% 20 1 6’4 13 96% 21 1 1 2%
INCREASE 20 15 7% 1 11% 28 80% 53 179%
DECREASE 8 74 5 4 5 37 12 64
CHANGE 20 18 5 25 21 18 1 3 3 33 177 DECREASE -49 -39.3 2 15 91 2 6 2 2 7
NET 4 38 15 12 8 59 9 48 CHANGE 68 55 0 3 26 119 3 4 2 55 186
NET 28 -23.6 1 4 63 1 8 2 51 172
4
~

-
4
WEIGHT 178T 202T 202T 94T
INCREASE 3 1% 10 50% 1 5% 27 28 7 % WEIGHT 163T 175T 349T 362T
DECREASE 16 15 74 20 99 6 64 INCREASE 65 39.7% 25 14 0% 36 103% 78 21 7%
29
CHANGE 32 17 9 25 12 4 21 104 33 35 1 DECREASE 59 -28.1 3 31 8 9 22 62
NET 26 15 5 25 19 94 21 223 CHANGE 124 75.8 25 14 3 67 1 9 2 101 278
NET 6 3.6 24 13 7 5 14 56 155
5
-
~

5
WEIGHT 335T 346T 368T 404T
INCREASE 22 6 7% 73 11 1% 34 92% 121 300% WEIGHT 307T 370T 643T 804T
DECREASE 37 11 2 36 10 5 40 1 0 9 34 84 INCREASE 209 68.1% 11 3 1% 130 20 2% 168 209%
CHANGE 59 17 6 109 31 5 74 2 0 1 155 384 DECREASE 75 -24.4 6 17 70 1 0 9 41 51
NET 15 45 37 10 6 6 16 87 21 5 CHANGE 284 92.5 17 48 200 3 1 1 209 260
NET 134 43.7 5 1.4 60 93 127 158
-
6
-
6
WEIGHT 258T 238T 2777 289T
INCREASE 15 5 8% 58 24 4% 20 72% 47 163% WEIGHT 302T 363T 532T 453T
DECREASE 44 17 1 16 67 17 61 29 100 INCREASE 176 57 9% 11 4 2% 45 84% 107 23 5%
CHANGE 59 23 9 74 13 4 37 134 76 26 3 DECREASE 48 16.0 8 31 126 2 3 6 42 93
NET 29 11 3 42 17 7 3 11 18 62 CHANGE 223 73.9 19 73 171 3 2 0 149 328
NET 127 41.9 3 11 81 1 5 2 65 142
7
-
~

7
WEIGHT 111T 138T 143T 94T
INCREASE 4 4% 7 5 1% 0 3 WEIGHT 260T 255T 142T 273T
DECREASE 62 56 1 1 11 7 7% 4 4 3”4 INCREASE 72 27.7% 1% 44 307% 54 199%
CHANGE 66 60 8 58 11 77 7 75 DECREASE 195 75 2 13 52 34 2 3 6 13 49
NET 58 52 6 44 11 7 7 1 11 CHANGE 267 1029 13 53 78 5 4 3 67 247
NET 123 47.5 13 51 10 7 1 41 151

contract design, accuracy of estimated weights relative Armament (Group 7) and Loads
to actual construction weights may be lacking. Close
consultation between the weight engineer and the system The bulk of Group 7 and full load can be computed
engineer is vital, not only to fully develop the weight im- directly, based on contract guidance drawings, CSEL’s,
pact represented in sketches and diagrams, but just as proposed Schedule A and detail specifications.
importantly, to incorporate the judgment and ex- Elements that are not fully defined can usually be ac-
perience of both parties. curately accounted for by lifting component and system
weights “as is” from a parent ship.
Outfit and Furnishings (Group 6) SUMMARY
AND CONCLUSIONS

Outfit and furnishing subgroups undergo a signifi-
cant change during contract design. Most habitability
spaces, offices, and workshops are arranged at this
time. Compartmentation has settled down to the point
where non-structural bulkheads, deck covering and
other area dependent systems can be accurately esti-
mated. Painting remains one of the few outfitting items
that is best left a factor until the building yard has been
selected. Even though the applicable specification sec-
tion enumerates all the different coatings that are to be
applied to the ship according to compartment type, the
effort required to improve the ratio derived estimate
would not significantly improve either the coatings
estimate, or the total ship estimate.
14.0 Naval Engineers Journal, May 1983
With completion of the Contract Design Weight
Estimate, NAVSEA should have the best estimate of the
design that could be made at the time. Elements of the
estimate will have gone through the design evolution or
development and have been checked against several
assorted material lists for machinery, electronics and
weapons specifications and previous similar, or perhaps
same, systems and components.
TABLES lOa, b, and c represent a backward look
that shows how accurate our contract design weight
estimates have been. The weights are from contract
design weight estimates. The changes are a comparison
with the final weight report for the ship submitted at the
end of construction. The increases and decreases are

Delivered by Ingenta to: American Society of Naval Engineers Members

Date : Tue, 31 Mar 2015 08:51:01 IP : 103.27.8.49
STRAUBINGER/CURRAN/FIGHERA SURFACE SHIP WEIGHT ESTIMATING

TABLE 1Oc. Weights From Contract Design Weight itself, accuracy of any ship estimate is spotty. TABLE
Estimates. lOa, the frigates, represents the closest family and in
~
GROUP CG 16
__ -
CG-26 -
CGN-36 -
CGN-38 general carries the smallest numbers and percentages.
1 (3) Throughout the TABLES, where the changes be-
WEIGHT 2292T 2462T 3329T 3286T
INCREASE 33 1.4% 78 3.1% 696 20.9% 888 27.W tween ship weight groups are small, the record will
DECREASE 18 -.a -78 -3.2 -95 -2.9 -10 -3
usually show that the parent ship system was either very
CHANGE 51 2.2 156 6.3 791 23.7 888 27.3
NET 15 7 .. 0.0 601 18.0 879 28.8 close to the new design or that the system was developed
2
early in the design. The indication is that innovative and
WEIGHT 922T 922T 2455T 2495T
INCREASE 29 3.1% 40 4.3% 141 5.7% 38 1.4% dynamic designs require either a greater latitude in
DECREASE -8 -.9 18 -1.9 140 6.7 .7 ..3
CHANGE 37 4.0 58 6.3 281 11.4 42 1.7 weight estimating or an improvement in weight estimat-
NET 21 2.2 22 2.4 1 .03 23 1.2
ing accuracy. The former means more margin and the
3
WEIGHT 225T 261T 566T 581T
latter means an increase in engineering early in the
INCREASE
DECREASE
4
-14
18%
-6.2 41
0 0.0%
15.5
222 39.2%
.5 -.8
232
0
39.9%
0.0
design, which relates to the next observation.
CHANGE 18 8.0 41 15.5 227 40.0 232 38.9 (4) Of the 84 groups shown in TABLE 10, 59 reflect a
NET -10 4.4 41 -15.5 217 38.4 232 39.9
4
net increase, 24 reflect a net decrease, and one zero net
WEIGHT 291T 286T 510T 416T
change. The implication is that the tendency is for the
INCREASE
DECREASE
58
-10
19.7%
3.4
80
4
27.0%
-1.3
42 8.3%
-76 -14.9
B9
-7
23.8%
-1.7
NAVSEA weight estimate to be light. This particular
CHANGE
NET
67
48
23.2
16.3
84
76
28.3
25.7
118 23.2
-34 6.6
106
92
25.5
22.1
discrepancy is put mostly right by the assorted govern-
5
ment and contractor margins assigned to detail design
WEIGHT 561T 592T 723T 7WT and construction. The historical trend, if it can be called
INCREASE
DECREASE
48
-21
86%
-3.8
1
-24
0.0%
4.0
274
49
37.9%
6.7
381
40
47.6%
6 0
that, is toward more consistent underestimating. Note
CHANGE
NET
69
27
12.4
4.8
24
-23
4.1
-3.9
323
225
44.6
31.1
421
341
52.6
42.7
FFG 7 and DD 993 have only one group that finished
6 lighter than estimated, while CGN 38 had none. Most
WtlGHT 385T 412T 739T 737T net decreases occur in the older ships. NAVSEA weight
INCREASE 23 6.1% 56 13.5% 54 7.4% 156 21.2%
DECREASE -52 -13.5 42 -10.3 .71 -9.5 -23 -3.1 estimates are usually on the low side, in part because of
CHANGE
NET
75
-29
19.6
-7.5
98
13
23.8
3.2
125 16.9
-16 -2.2
179
133
24.3
18.1 the difficulty of including “everything” that will be in
7 the finished system and in part because of optimistic
WEIGHT 38ST 324T 262T 308T judgment of the estimator and the rest of the engineer-
INCREASE 5 13% 5 1.6% 23 8.8% 23 7.4%
DECREASE -18 -4.8 10 -3.0 -17 6.5 -27 -8.8 ing community. Design weight has been a critical factor
CHANGE 23 6.0 15 46 40 15.3 50 16.2
NET -14 -3.5 -5 -1.4 6 2.3 4 1.4 in recent years, and this pressure finds its way into judg-
ment as well as engineering solutions. In addition, it is
believed that this trend affects cost estimating as well as
naval architecture.
The foregoing observations were made to point up the
need for improved accracy in weight estimating. Indeed,
summarized at the group level. The “Change” repre- the new design process described in Reference [8] dic-
sents the total (the absolute) swing away from the con- tates certain changes in the weight estimating procedure.
tract design weight estimate value. “Net” is the net The major thrust of the design process, from the weight
change for the group. The numbers are raw data based estimator’s standpoint at least, is to do less (i.e. more
on the building contractors’ calculated and scaled general) engineering in feasibility and preliminary
weights. Changes due to contract modifications and design. This will adversely affect weight estimating in
GFM were not removed because only records of net ef- the following ways:
fects are kept. Also, the accuracy of the data is (1) Major weight effects do not necessarily follow
diminished slightly by not being able to prorate major design interfaces. For example, there appears to
discrepancies between final weight reports and inclining be a reduction in the amount of structural information
experiment results to the group level. The ships are that will be developed in preliminary design. That
grouped so as to put parent ships together. Although means that corresponding weight information will stay
not necessarily 100 percent parents at the detail level, at the parametric level and remain at a higher probabil-
they represent the family. The tables are not precise, ity of change until later in the design.
owing to the limitations just noted, but they can show (2) A shorter preliminary design period will reduce
some aspects of weight estimating touching on ac- the number of design iterations and therefore, interim
curacy, to which the reader’s attention is invited: weight reports. Trends that develop may well be carried
into contract design. Although in contract design there
(1) Considering the total swing away from the con- will be more time and detail engineering support ready
tract design weight estimate, there is much room for im- to solve the problems, those problems may be more
provement in accuracy. Not surprisingly, Groups 2, 3 severe and changing ship size may no longer be an ac-
and 5 , the mechanical and electrical systems are the ceptable alternative for corrective action.
weakest. (3) There will be a change in the amounts of margin
(2) “Family” ties notwithstanding, learning curves used in the design phases, although the overall amount
for accuracy are not clearly indicated. While changes in of margin required should not be changed by the
design weights can be traced to changes in the design policies in Reference [8]. The shorter preliminary design
Naval Engineers Journal, May 1983 141

Delivered by Ingenta to: American Society of Naval Engineers Members

Date : Tue, 31 Mar 2015 08:51:01 IP : 103.27.8.49
SURFACE SHIP WEIGHT ESTIMATING STRAUBINGER/CURRAN/FIGHERA
I Date:

A. Ship Class: Destroyer Ship: DD XYZ

SWBS Group: 550 A u x i l i a r y System

Subgroup: 520 Seawater Systems
Element: 521 Firemnin a n d F l u s h i n g System

_.
A o o l i c a b l e Shio = Soec
r S _.._._
ections: .
R e l a t e d S h i p b o a r d Systems:
503.. .504.
522 Spri*ler
. 505. 507. _
..... 508.. 5.2_ 1 _.
System, 523 Washdown System, 5 2 4 A u x i l i a r y Seawater System,
555 F i r e f i g h t i n g System, 5 9 8 A u x i l i a r y Systems O p e r a t i n g F l u i d s

B. Element Components, f o r Nominal Weight:

Defined in Nomenclature Unit Weight T o t a l Weight

Component Design Phase and Description Quantity (lbs) (tons)

1. Contract
2. Detail
3. Detail
4. Detail
5. Detail
6. Detail

7. Detail
system
8. P i p i n g b r a n c h e s f o r backup SW Detail
9.
10.

C. Source of Component Weight Data: SUBS 521 WEIGHT tons

Feasibility Preliminary Contract Detail

Component Study Design Design Design

1. Firepumps
2. Fire stations
3. Piping loops and branches
4.

I). P o t e n t i a l V a r i a t i o n s from Nominnl W e l ~ h t : D e s c r i b e a n y d ~ c i g nr h o i c e s a v a i l a h l e o t h e r t h a n those dezzribed in

S e c t i o n B, which v o u l d r e s u l t i n a n e s t i m a t e d weight d i f f e r e n t from t h a t shovn i n S e c t i o n 8.

E. S h i p P a r a m e t e r s w i t h P o t e n t i a l Impact on Element Weight:

Variations f o r :

Parameter O t h e r Surf
Parameter Value Comb? CV? hphib? Aux?

1. I n s t a l l e d c a p a c i t y of firepumps.(gpm) - _ _ _ -
2. S h i p c u b i c number o r volume (ft’) - - -
3. Main d i s t r i b u t i v e l o o p scheme ( s i n g l e , d o u b l e , - ~
vertical, horizontal)
4. Accommodations - ~
5. h g a z i n e volume (ft’) - ~
6. Exposed t o p s i d e s u r f a c e area (ft’) - _ _ _ -
7. I n s t a l l e d c a p a c i t y of e l e c t r i c g e n e r a t i n g p l a n t (kW)

F. Supplementary I n f o r r m t i o n :

1. Similar o r Parent Ships: DD ABC

2. Changes r e q u i r e d t o S h i p Specs t o p r e c l u d e d e s i g n o p t i o n s v i t h a d v e r s e weight e f f e c t s :

3. Recommended changes t o Gen Specs i d e n t i f i e d d u r i n g t h i s d e s i g n :

4.

G. P a r a m e t r i c E q u a t i o n s f o r B a s e l i n e Weight E s t i m n t i o n of t h i s Element ( i n c l u d e s p e c i f i c i n p u t v a l u e s used f o r t h i s

application) :

NAVSEA 55W2

NAVSEA

SUBS 521. S h e e t 2 of 2

Figure 3. Weight Data Collection Sheet, SWBS 521.

142 Naval Engineers Journal, May 1983

Delivered by Ingenta to: American Society of Naval Engineers Members

Date : Tue, 31 Mar 2015 08:51:01 IP : 103.27.8.49
STRAUBINGER/CURRAN/FIGHERA SURFACE SHIP WEIGHT ESTIMATING

period is expected to result in less margin consumption.
The affect, therefore, would be a greater amount of
margin being carried in the weight estimate. The quality
of the cost estimate would, therefore, be lowered by
some measure because the margin requirement cannot
be accruately correlated with the seven major cost
groups.
Recommendations
The weight estimating hazards, which will only be ag-
gravated by the lateness in development of higher qual-
ity weight information with the new design process,
need to be addressed through a concerted effort to im-
prove weight estimating practices. There are several
things that are being, or can be, done to mitigate the
adverse effects discussed:
(1) The Weight Division in NAVSEA is currently
engaged in the Ship Design Weight Estimating Methods
Improvement Program. In this program, weight
engineers, with the help of appropriate ship systems
give a cost and weight advantage not only to himself,
but to the NAVYas well.
REFERENCES
[l] Abell, Sir Wescott, “The Shipwright’s Trade”, Cam-
bridge University Pres, 1948.
[2] NAVSEA O900-LP-039-9010, “Ship Work Breakdown
Structure”, 1 August 1977.
[3] S9096-AA-WCM-OlO/(U)WT CNTRL, “Weight Control
of Naval Ships, Volume 1 of 2.”
[4] NAVSHIPS Technical Manual 0901-290-002, Chapter
096, “Weights and Stability.”
[S] NAVSEA Computer Program, “Ship Design Weight
Estimate (SDWE), CASDAC No. 230021.
[a] NAVSEA Computer Program, “Ship Design Weight
Estimate Data Update (UPDAT),” CASDAC No. 230143.
[7] DOD Standard 2137, ‘‘Mass Properties Technical Re-
quirements for Surface Ships,” 13 April 1982.
[8] Ship Design in NAVSEA, August 1982 (Draft).
APPENDIX
EXAMPLE
OF ESTIMATING PLATING
FOR SHELL

engineers, are developing specific estimating procedures Problem - Estimate the weight of Element 111 (Shell
for each SWBS element. Concurrently, ship design en- Plating) for the new ship design shown in TABLE 2. The
gineers will be reviewing and ascertaining applicability weight of Element 111 for the parent ship (W,) is 543 tons.
of existing parameters in the NAVSEA synthesis com-
puter programs. Figure 3, the format developed for the From TABLE 3, the equations are found to be:
firemain system, is an example of the approach being
taken for Preliminary and Contract design. An accom- Wn = Wp [WS + 2 (D-H)L] or Wp x L (B + 2D).
panying narrative will guide the weight estimator and
the system designer through all aspects of a firemain Where Wp = weight of shell plating for parent ship
Wn = weight of shell plating for new design ship
design that could be pertinent to the weight estimate. WS = area of wetted surface
The guidelines and the formats will be developed jointly 2(D-H)L = shell area above the design waterline
by the Weight Division and the cognizant technical (approx)
code. Use of these procedures will provide guidance (B + 2D)L = approximation of total shell area
concerning system boundary identification, interfaces,
weight influences, factors and sources. The procedures Then: for Wn = Wp [WS + 2(D-H)L]
will also standardize documentation of estimating
methods and background information used. The data (WS + 2(D-H)L),
form will become part of the ship design estimate wn = wP (WS + 2 (D-H)L)p
notebook. This kind of standardization should improve
the accuracy of the system estimate by causing it to be Wn = 494 tons
more complete, identifying accountability for weights
and to some degree, formalizing the communication or Wn = Wp [L(B + 2d)l
between the weight engineer and the design engineer.
(2) Consideration should be given to improving the L(B + 2D),
feasibility estimate by earliest possible introduction of a wn = wP L(B + 2D)p
specific ship estimate as the baseline. This would
minimize the amount of time the design is based on wn = 68875
543 -
parametric equations and provide a more accurate base 73108
at the three-digit element level for the conduct of design
studies. Wn = 512 tons
(3) Finally, with earlier shipbuilder involvement in
If wetted surface (WS) values for both designs are available,
the design process, there should be no reason why detail the former equation may be considered more reliable. If a
specifications and guidance drawings for ship systems more conservative approach is judged necessary (perhaps due
cannot be made more stringent with respect to com- to sketchy information) then an average value (503 tons) may
ponents and detail design schemes. The shipbuilder, in be used. For the latter equation, the ratio for the L(B + 2D)
these participative design contracts, should be able to factor (0.9421) could have been used directly. Thus Wn = 543
commit to specific hardware and design details earlier to x 0.9421 = 512 tons.

Naval Engineers Journal, May 1983 143

Delivered by Ingenta to: American Society of Naval Engineers Members

Date : Tue, 31 Mar 2015 08:51:01 IP : 103.27.8.49