Standardized Foundations Database for Combat Systems · Standardized Foundations Database for Combat Systems . T.D. Huang, ... • Foundation Design Requirements ... 57 mm Turret

Standardized Foundations Database for Combat Systems

T.D. Huang, Ph.D., P.E. and Michael Harbison Ingalls Shipbuilding

NSRP All Panel Meeting Charleston, SC

March 11, 2015

Distribution Statement A: Approved for public release, distribution is unlimited.

Approved for public release, distribution is unlimited

Outline

• Introduction

• Foundation Design Requirements

• Typical Foundation Examples

• Design and Production Process Issues

• Variances in Foundation Design

• Database Demonstration

• Current Foundation Design Process

• Improved Design Flow Process

• Standardization Options

• Benefit of Standardized Foundations

• Summary

• Acknowledgements

2


Introduction

• Customer requirements in shipboard operations have driven complexity into both design and construction

– Mission requirements have increased with smaller operational crew size – Increased use of automated systems with higher operational loading – Longer service fatigue life expectancy in design requirements

• Increased use of higher strength, thinner steels has been incorporated to leverage lighter weight required in ship design

• All of the changes have driven schedule, cost and weight upwards in shipboard foundation design and construction

• The foundations represent a small percentage, about 10% of the overall steel weight of navy ships, but the relative cost is very high, representing about 50% of the steel construction costs*

• The cutting, fit-up, and welding operations necessary for shipboard foundation fabrication are among the most costly process in hull structural construction. Standardization of foundations will significantly reduce ship production cost.

3 * Ref. “A Common Sense Design Manual for Producibility of Hull Foundations”, by the US Navy NSWC-Carderock Div., and Newport News Shipbuilding, June 1996


Foundation Design Requirements

• Shipboard foundations are typically uniquely designed to provide adequate structural support for all shipboard equipment, including electrical, mechanical, HVAC, mooring, and combat systems, to resist ship’s motion acceleration and other operational and environmental loading. In cases of naval surface combatants, shock acceleration resistance is the most critical requirement.

• All equipment foundations and combat systems are typically mounted on decks, bulkheads, or shell structure and are designed to meet the following requirements:

– Structural adequacy – Vibrational and acoustical limitation – Fatigue life expectancy – Producibility, weight and cost limitation – Operational and maintenance space limitation

• In case of combatants, depending on the criticality of the equipment, foundations have to be qualified to various shock grades based on the design specification.

4


Typical Foundation Examples

5 5

Pump Systems HVAC Fan Motor Ammunition Stores

57 mm Turret Main Engine Foundation

Boat Winch


Foundation Focus Areas on Ship

• Foundation breakdown for Ingalls Contracts:

* - Does not include Method Mounts (Equipment wt < 100 lbs)

• Most common mounting areas, based on sampling of LHA FDN’s

– Bulkheads, Stiffener Side (31%) – Bulkheads, Smooth Side (24%) – Decks (16%) – Banked, Stiffener Side BHD (11%) – Banked, Smooth Side BHD (9%) – Overhead (6%) – Other (3%)

6

LHA LPD DDG NSC Shipboard Foundations* (#) 2,560 1,980 590 500

Electrical (%) 51% 50% 50% 51% Pump/Machinery (%) 24% 26% 20% 23%

HVAC (%) 16% 16% 14% 20% Armament/Other (%) 9% 8% 16% 6%


Foundation Design Issues

7

• Foundations are almost always “uniquely” designed and analyzed, and can vary based on the designer’s and/or engineer’s preferred methods of equipment attachment and locations in the ship

• Environmental or operational differences between various contracts can cause variations in foundation designs for identical equipment mountings

• Late updates to equipment and technologies can drive late changes to foundation designs

Three Electrical Transformers on two different ships. The far right foundation is drastically different than the other two, including the foundation found in another area of the same ship.


Foundation Production Issues

• Each foundation has many parts that must be fabricated, tagged, stored, and later retrieved during the outfitting stage. Material tracking and handling become significant cost drivers.

• Designers do not always design using shapes that are available off-the-shelf and must be uniquely manufactured in the shop to meet size specifications

• In many instances, unbudgeted rework is caused by:

– Foundation built incorrectly – Discrepancies between drawings – Incorrect vendor drawings

• “Leave loose” parts are frequently lost during blasting, painting, and moving resulting in rework and delays in equipment installation.

8


Foundation Design Variances

• The five variables most affecting foundation designs are:

– Bolting Surface – Equipment Weight – Equipment Location – Hard Mount vs. Shock Mount – Upper Deck Attachment, if any

• Bolting surface and upper deck attachment methods both greatly affect the production costs and fabrication complexity of the foundations

• Equipment weight and location are key inputs for shock loading requirements

• Mounting methods and upper deck attachments are critical for handling shock criteria.

Section View

Plan View

9


Why is Foundation Standardization Needed?

• Group of nine foundations taken from an LHA sample group

• Seven foundations support identical equipment, two foundations support equipment with only minor differences

• A need to standardize foundations scantlings and design configurations to be consistent with equipments weight and geometry.

10

Equipment Label S=SWAY BRACE U= UPPER FDN

N= NONE

HARD MOUNTED / SHOCK MOUNTED

FOUNDATION BOLTING SURFACE

FALSE DECK COMP YES/NO

SHOCK GRADE

SHIP'S ORIENTATION Weight

ER-14 N SHOCK MOUNT ANGLE NO A Transv 330#

ER-01 N SHOCK MOUNT TEE NO A Long 330#

ER-01 N SHOCK MOUNT PLATE NO A Long 330#

ER-01 N SHOCK MOUNT TEE NO A Long 330#

ER-01 N SHOCK MOUNT ANGLE NO A Long 330#

ER-01 N SHOCK MOUNT TEE NO A Transv 330#



ER-01 N SHOCK MOUNT ANGLE NO A Long 330#


Foundations Database Demonstration

• The database was developed as a web application to provide a flexible design environment

• Web viewing allows for searching, sorting, and filtering for all variables

• Tracks 29 variables of foundations including location, structural features, and reference information

• User categories and roles/permissions to be set when database is fully integrated into engineering processes

• Demonstration.

11


Current Foundation Design Process

1. Cognizant engineers identify need for equipment, then sends vendor drawings and Request For Service (RFS) to the responsible engineering group

2. The responsible engineering group identifies locations for equipment and sends a request to Hull or Outfitting Design for foundation drafting development

3. Hull and Outfitting designers develop preliminary foundation design drawings with approximated scantlings based on existing design experiences, sends drawings to Hull Technical Engineers for verification

4. Hull Tech structural engineers validate preliminary design scantlings developed by designers and perform structural analyses for strength and ship specification requirements

5. After validation, the engineers return the drawings to the designers with any necessary modifications or approval as submitted notifications

6. Fabrication documents and material bills are generated.

12


Improved Foundation Design Process

1. Cognizant engineers identify need for equipment, then sends vendor drawings and Request For Service (RFS) to the responsible engineering group

2. The responsible engineering group identifies location for equipment and sends the RFS to Outfitting Design to select a pre-qualified foundation to guide a streamlined design process

3. Outfitting Design sends the pre-qualified or modified foundation to Hull Technical to ensure that the foundation meets strength and specification requirements verification

4. After validation, the engineers return the drawings to the designers with any necessary modifications or approval as submitted notifications

5. Fabrication documents and material bills can be duplicated and updated with only minor changes

13


Proposed Design Process Flow

14

Cognizant Engineer

identifies need for equipment, sends vendor drawings and Request For

Service (RFS) to the responsible

engineering group

The responsible engineering

group identifies location for

equipment and sends the RFS to Hull or Outfitting

Design for foundation

drafting development

Hull or Outfitting designers develop

preliminary design of

foundation and scantlings based on experience,

then send to Hull Technical

Engineering for analysis

Hull Tech structural engineers validate preliminary design

scantlings developed by designers and

perform structural analyses for

strength and ship specification requirements

Fabrication documents and material bills are generated and

sent to production crafts

The responsible engineering group identifies location

for equipment and sends the

RFS to Outfitting Design to select a

pre-qualified foundation to

guide a streamlined

design process

Outfitting Design sends the

foundation to Hull Technical to

ensure that foundation

meets strength and specification requirements in new location and

issue final approval

Fabrication documents and

material bills can be duplicated

and updated with only minor changes

Current Foundation Design Process:

Proposed Foundation Design Process:


Standardization Options

15

• Two main strategies exist for standardization of foundations: picking and choosing when needed, or specially drafting and qualifying several types of foundations.

• Picking and choosing when needed is to reduce repeated design costs and is more easily integrated into process flows.

– Current foundations captured, new foundations are added through time – Does not optimize foundations or provide full benefits of

standardization, particularly in production environments

• Drafting and qualifying optimized foundations could have higher preliminary costs, but realizes full spectrum of benefits

– Utilize items, including Gen Spec 072a4 section, to qualify foundations across a wider variety of applications such that one foundation can be used much more often

– Reduces unique parts for production/fabrication substantially and allows for significant Design for Producibility optimization

Both Power Panels are attached via the same size

of angle bar despite having different

orientations and sizes


Benefits of Standardized Foundations

• Eliminate cross-contract duplication of engineering labor costs in foundation analysis and design.

– Up to a 40% reduction in engineering labor

• Improve productivity by reducing the numbers of unique parts and materials that must be designed, marked, fabricated, stored, tracked, and retrieved later.

• Simplify production by having many foundations using the same footprints in volumetric production, rather than crafting unique foundations for every application.

– Up to a 10% reduction in fabrication hours for foundations by eliminating unscheduled rework and simplifying designs

• Provide consistent information to government customers and vendors to guide equipment design by utilizing existing database information in earlier stages of design and construction.

16


Summary

• Project kickoff meeting held on February 7, 2014 at Ingalls Shipbuilding, Pascagoula, MS.

– Scope of the database was selected as Government-Furnished Equipment (GFE) foundations that are deck-mounted

• A spreadsheet encompassing all 29 tracked variables for all 114 foundations within the scope of the project has been generated.

• The foundations database has been fully developed for this project and the information for the 114 foundations has been uploaded.

• Cross-contract studies of target applications for further expansion of the database are ongoing and will continue after the project’s ECD.

• Cost benefits analyses are ongoing and will continue to be refined as more information becomes available.

17


Acknowledgements

• Dave Niolet, Joel Myers, Brian Haynes – Engineering, Hull Technical

• William Koon, William Tash – Engineering, Outfitting Design

• Sara Trawick and Sean Murphy – Engineering, Shock Group

• John Porco, Roger Jackson – Engineering, Combat Systems

• Michael Maples, Cary McGee – Engineering, Electrical Design

• Virgel Smith – Information Technology

• Tim Warren – Production Engineering

• Perry Haymon – Advanced Concepts Group, SWSI Panel Chair

• John Walks – Advanced Concepts Group, NSRP Program Manager

• Justin Montague – SCRA Program Manager

• Vince Stametti – BAE, Program Technical Rep

18


Thank You

Questions?

19

Documents

Standardized Foundations Database for Combat Systems · Standardized Foundations Database for Combat Systems . T.D. Huang, ... • Foundation Design Requirements ... 57 mm Turret