Acquisition Research SymposiumNaval Postgraduate School

REDUCING WORK CONTENT IN EARLY STAGE NAVAL SHIP DESIGNS

Robert G. Keane, Jr., Ship Design USA, Inc.Laury Deschamps, SPAR Associates, Inc.Steve Maguire, First Marine International

May 14, 2014

The views expressed herein are those of the authors only and may not represent those of any DoD organization or program.

Report Documentation Page Form ApprovedOMB No. 0704-0188Public reporting burden for the collection of information is estimated to average 1 hour per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering andmaintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information,including suggestions for reducing this burden, to Washington Headquarters Services, Directorate for Information Operations and Reports, 1215 Jefferson Davis Highway, Suite 1204, ArlingtonVA 22202-4302. Respondents should be aware that notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person shall be subject to a penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information if itdoes not display a currently valid OMB control number.

1. REPORT DATE 14 MAY 2014 2. REPORT TYPE

3. DATES COVERED 00-00-2014 to 00-00-2014

4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE Reducing Work Content in Early Stage Naval Ship Designs

5a. CONTRACT NUMBER

5b. GRANT NUMBER

5c. PROGRAM ELEMENT NUMBER

6. AUTHOR(S) 5d. PROJECT NUMBER

5e. TASK NUMBER

5f. WORK UNIT NUMBER

7. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) Ship Design USA, Inc,4913 Red Hill Rd,Keedysville,MD,21756

8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATIONREPORT NUMBER

9. SPONSORING/MONITORING AGENCY NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) 10. SPONSOR/MONITOR’S ACRONYM(S)

11. SPONSOR/MONITOR’S REPORT NUMBER(S)

12. DISTRIBUTION/AVAILABILITY STATEMENT Approved for public release; distribution unlimited

13. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES

14. ABSTRACT

15. SUBJECT TERMS

16. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF: 17. LIMITATION OF ABSTRACT Same as

Report (SAR)

18. NUMBEROF PAGES

31

19a. NAME OFRESPONSIBLE PERSON

a. REPORT unclassified

b. ABSTRACT unclassified

c. THIS PAGE unclassified

Standard Form 298 (Rev. 8-98) Prescribed by ANSI Std Z39-18

2

The Problem

AT&L (2013) analyses of cost and schedule growth on Major Defense Acquisition Programs (MDAPs) over last 20 years: 

– Premature contracting without understanding design issues greatly affects contract work content and cost growth

– Early work content stability predicts lower total cost, work content, and schedule growths

– Contract work content growth dominates total cost growth– Cost‐over‐target reflects poor performance, poor estimation, 

or faulty framing assumptions

The Problem: Contract Work Content Growth

3

r LE TOt_ A B c FOC

TECHtOLOGY 'C DEVELOP EtfT

:F.igu e . i' , esig ~n. & A q _ ·siti ~on P · ess Compared · ~he IO.efe~nse Acqui:sitt,o · · ,ystem Liii e Cy~c:l

4

Contract Cost Growth on Navy Ship Development Contracts (MS B – C)

• AT&L found a statistically significant UndefinitizedContract Action (UCA) effect • UCA pertains to contract action for which contract terms are not agreed before performance is begun

• UCAs had a measurable increase on total contract cost growth and also on cycle time 

• AT&L warned it could indicate an area of caution and attention for the Navy

For ship development contracts, UCA effects, or contract work content growth, were significant!

5

Contract Cost Growth on Early Production Contracts (Post MS C)

• For total cost growth from 1992–2011: • “The dominant statistical correlate of total cost

growth was work content growth (as reflected in a higher contract target cost), which explained 95 percent of the variation in the data.”

• Concurrent production when designs are unstable can impose added retrofit costs for early production products

AT&L case of early production contract cost growth due to “work added later”: a DDG-51 contract

6

First Ship Engineering MH / LT vs. Outfit Density

Mid course change in the DDG 51 class

design tool increased hours due to

redesign efforts

Future DDG

2.6

LHA 1LHD 1

LPD 17

MLP 2B

MLP 3MLP 2A

LOG-RO/RORO/RO

AVIATIONDISTRIBUTED

T-AKE 1

LHAR

DD(X) Navy

CG 47

FFG 7

DDG 51

0

200

400

600

800

1,000

1,200

1,400

1,600

2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 9.0Outfit Density (lbs/cu ft)

Hybrid Designs Commercial Designs

Military Designs - Combatants

Military Designs - Amphibs

Legacy Hulls (Return Data)Navy Program EstimatesMPF(F) Notional Designs (Estimated Data)

Firs

t Shi

p En

g H

ours

/ LT

7

Ships Possessing Greater Density Increase Production Cost

Ship Production hours increase with density and fall into predictable groupings.

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 9.0

Combatant Designs

Hybrid Designs

Commercial DesignsLegacy Hulls (Return Data)MPF(F) Notional Designs (Estimated Data)

Future L-ShipLHD

LSD

LPD

LMSR FLO/FLO 3

FLO/FLO 2FLO/FLO 1

DISTRIBUTED

AVIATIONLOG-RO/RO

RO/RO

LHA

AOE

Auxiliary / Amphibs Designs

Future DDG

CG

DDG

FFG

Nor

mal

ized

Firs

t Shi

p Pr

oduc

tion

(Hou

rs /

LT)

Outfit Density (lbs / cu ft)

Naval Ships Unnecessarily Cost Too Much to Design and Build• Cost growth on development contracts correlates

strongly with cost growth on production contracts

• NAVSEA Cost Group states Ship Production hours increase with ship outfit density

• National Shipbuilding Research Program report (NSRP, 2011) criticizes US naval ships for:• early design decisions that lock in density• poor arrangements of piping and ventilation

8

An overly dense ship with resulting complexity imbeds unnecessary work content in design

A SOLUTION: DESIGN OUT COMPLEXITY EARLY

• Lack of understanding of complexity and how to address complexity during early stage design

• Factors that influence product complexity: • number of components, • number of interactions/connections, • number of subassemblies, • geometry, shape, size, accessibility

• Need measures/methods to assess complexity during Design Space Exploration (DSE)

9

DENSITY : best measure to use to reduce total-ship complexity during DSE in concept design

Outfit Density as a Measure of Complexity

• LT Grant (NPS, 2008) found density is sufficient measure of tightness of ship arrangements

• Based on examination of density as it relates to work content and cost, Grant concludes: • weight-reduction efforts to reduce cost often

result in opposite effect;• unnecessarily dense designs inevitably result

in increased cost, schedule, performance risks

10

DENSITY represents significant and under-emphasized driver of historic cost growth

Impacts of Unnecessarily High Outfit Density • Design tends to have more interferences, rework

• Work sequencing more difficult to plan, schedule

• Negative impacts compounded when combined with weight saving thin steel:• Constraints on penetration locations resulting in

inefficient routing of distributive systems• Distortion and distortion removal impact outfitting • Delays and rework to paint and insulation• Impact on items requiring completion of paint and

insulation behind them before their installation

11

When productivity decreases, labor hours increase

Impact of Outfit Density on Ship Construction Work Content• European ship designers actively promote benefits of

designing larger hulls (Gelling et al, 2010): • Better accommodate equipment and outfit systems• Better accommodate Service-Life Allowances for

future upgrades • Reduce construction work content by making

installation of equipment and systems easier • Improve access to systems during operations,

maintenance and repair

12

Need a Process-Based not Weight-Based Cost Model to Account for Density and Work Content

Benefits of Reduced Outfit Density on Cost: A Demonstration

• Evaluated impact of ship density on production hours, material costs and total construction cost

• Based on comprehensive libraries of cost data for medium and high speed naval vessels

• Cost models produce estimates of shipyard manpower requirements by basic trades

• For concept design, cost model substitutes values based on analyses of existing ship designs

13

Product-Oriented Design And Construction (PODAC) Process-Based Cost Model Used

Shipbuilding Productivity Factors

• Developed 4 types of productivity factors for specific ship construction circumstances:

technical support (detail design) structural manufacturing and assembly work outfit manufacturing and assembly work material costs

• Determined productivity factors for different ship types

• Plotted those against density factor for those same ships

• Developed formula that approximates the correlation curve

14

Produced figure showing predicted impact of outfit density on labor productivity

15

- - " ·O -u t!!l ... > -:2 -- ----u = "C 0 '-~

..1:::: '- L ; ,_ -= a ~

A ROM Parametric Ship Concept Study with PODAC Cost Model

16

• Varied length from 135 to 160 meters; baseline was 150

• Maintained other principal characteristics (e.g., speed)

• Structures changed with length (superstructure the same)

• Propulsion was variable, expecting with longer length, less power to maintain same speed

• Auxiliary systems followed propulsion system requirements

• General outfit the same except for hull insulation & coatings

Plots of Density and Corresponding Labor Hour Multiplier Versus Length Show Lengthening the Hull Can Result In Lower Labor Hours

17

Lengthening The Hull Results In

Lower Labor Hours

18

Lengthening USN ships should result in more impressive cost savings

Since USN shipstwice as denseas baseline ship

MAJOR CONCLUSIONS

AT&L finding about contract work content growth combined with results of ROM parametric study:

• density impact on cost important to model early in sizing ship during concept design

• further work needs to relate density to Cost Estimating Relationships (CERs)

• a PODAC process-based cost model needs to be integrated with Navy early stage ship design tools• Rapid Ship Design Environment - RSDE• Advanced Ship & Sub Evaluation Tool – ASSET• Leading Edge Architecture for Prototyping Sys-LEAPS

19

LEAPS ToolsetDesign Tools Analysis Tools

NCCMCost Model

LEAPSProduct Model

• Generic Class Structure

• Product Model Schema– NAVSEA Ship Focus Object

Model

• Product Model Data

T

LEAPS Product Model

Presentation Manager

SHCP/LIntact and Damaged Stability

ASSET ShipShip Synthesis

ASSET SubSubmarine Synthesis

CADImport using STEP or IGES

ISACompartment Arrangement

LEAPS Editor

In Development ExistingBeta Code

T

IHDEResistance and Seakeeping CFD

Planned

EMATManpower Estimation

MS Excel

PBCMEarly Stage Cost Model

Database

VERESSeakeeping CFDRSDE

Toolset Executive, Design Space Exploration and Optimization

LAMPSeakeeping CFD

FKSResistance CFD

SMPSeakeeping CFD

SWPEResistance CFD

TSDResistance CFD

ASAPVulnerability Analysis

T

T

T

T

T

T

T

CREATE-SHIPS Project, DoD High Performance Computing Modernization Program (HPCMP)

• Computational Research & Engineering Acquisition Tools & Environments (CREATE)-SHIPS:– Build on NAVSEA’s LEAPS Product Model and ASSET

Total Ship Synthesis Tool – Replace empirical design with validated physics-based

computational design – Detect and fix design flaws early in design process– Develop optimized designs for new concepts– Begin system integration earlier in acquisition process– Increase acquisition program flexibility and agility to

respond to rapidly changing requirements

NDIA CREATE-SHIPS- Hurwitz 4/20/11 Page-22 Distribution Statement A Applies, see cover page for specifics

Design Space Exploration via HPCMP CREATE-Ships RSDE

Generating The Space

Concept Comparison

Select window and type to add message.

View / EditThresholds Update Save As Exit

T45 #1 T45 #2 T45 #3

HPC Enables Exhaustive Exploration by:

and Visualization

Exploring The Space

Evaluating The Space

From…Limited

Investigation of relatively few Design

Points

To… Full

Investigation of Concepts throughout the Design

Space

The Way Ahead

• Integrate PODAC model in LEAPS, store results in LEAPS, make work content part of design optimization, RSDE

• Explore wide range of design options to evaluate impact upon detail design and construction (DD&C) work content

• Relate outfit density computations to outfit productivity • Calculate ship outfit density in ASSET, group by ship type

and plot against man-hours for DD&C • Organize actual man-hour data for range of ships into a

relational data base • Establish ship outfit density as discriminator in early stage

naval ship design to reduce DD&C work content

23“Steel is cheap and air is free!” Director, Damen Schelde

BACK UP

24

25

Outfit Density vs. Lightship Weight(circa 2007)

DD(X)’s internal volume provides less density than most major combatants

Legacy Hulls (Return Data)Navy Program DesignsMPF(F) Notional Designs (Estimated Data)Future DDG

2.6

DDX

DDG 52MHC 51

FFG 7

DDG 51DDG 95

CG 47

LSD 41

LSD 49

LPD 17

AOE 6

LHA 1LHD 1

DISTRIBUTEDAVIATIONRO/RO

LOG-RO/RO

MLP 2AMLP 2B

MLP 3

T-AKE 1LHAR

0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

7.0

8.0

9.0

0 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000 30,000 35,000 40,000Lightship Weight (LT)

Out

fit D

ensi

ty (l

bs/c

u ft)

Complex Combatants

Hybrid Auxiliary

Military Design

Commercial Design

Legacy Hulls (Return Data)MPF(F) Notional Designs (Estimated Data)

26

First Ship Production MH / LTvs. Lightship Weight

• Navy PLCCE Hrs/LT statistically significant with historical lead ship performance…warts and all!• DDG 51 anomaly due to lead ship redesign and 65% ramp up in shipyard personnel during construction.

Future DDG

CG 47

DDG 52

DDG 51

FFG 7

LSD 41

LSD 49

LHD 1LHA 1

LPD 17

T-AKE 1

LHAR

DD(X) Navy

DD(X) CAIG

0 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000 30,000 35,000 40,000

Lightship Weight (LT)

Prod

uctio

n M

H/L

T

Commercialr2 = TBD

Auxiliariesr2 = 0.870

Combatants/ Amphibs r2 = 0.875 w/o DDG51r2 = 0.642 w DDG51

MILITA

RY

HYB

RID

CO

MM

ERC

IAL

LMSR

Delivered Hulls (Return Data)Estimated DataNavy Programs

CREATE- SHIPS Denver211/14/11 Page-27

Distribution Statement

RSDE - Product Architecture

LEAPS Database

Rapid Ship Design EnvironmentGUI

apid Ship Design EnvironmentGUI

ASSETSynthesis

Hull Form Gen/Trans

IHDEHydrodynamic

ISAArrangement

SHCP-L Stability

Behavior Objects

FloodingBehaviors

StructuresBehaviors

SeakeepingBehaviors

StabilityBehaviors

GEML KernelNURBSMathRadial Basis

MathKriging

MathNeural Net

Math

Execution EngineMulti-Discipline Optimization Design Space Exploration

ResistanceBehaviors

Hull Form Geometry

Arrangement Geometry

LEAPS API and Toolkits

Design Data Sets

BehaviorMan TktHulltran Tkt Hullgen TktSHCP-L Tkt

StructureGeometry

SubdivisionGeometry

Importance of Flexible Ships: Selecting a Hull Sized Appropriately• Damen Sigma Class modular design philosophy:

• “Oversized” hulls to reduce installation, operations and maintenance costs• Increasing hull length by 20% only increases

building cost by 1-3%. • Cost of larger hull far offset by savings for

installation of equipment and distributive systems• Customizations by configuring essentially different

ships from standard components

• Flexibility must start at ship concept design

28

Value-Added Design Philosophy: Rigorous Exploration of Larger Design Solution Space

Need for Physics-Based Design Tools in Early Stage Ship Design

• Earlier versions of Navy’s Advanced Ship & Sub Evaluation Tool (ASSET) synthesis model inadequately addressed • Arrangements Seakeeping• Damage Stability Structures

• Leading Edge Architecture for Prototyping Systems (LEAPS) developed to integrate physics-based tools in a common data environment

• Rapid Ship Design Environment (RSDE) being developed by HPCMP-CREATE Program integrates ASSET & LEAPS for exploring trade space leading to large set of designs

29

RSDE not based on single concept design points such as traditional design spiral method

30

SHIP AVG WeightedQty (Qty) by Cost

1980s Reagan Build-up 14 10% 1%1990/2000s Low Rate Production 5 50% 20%Overall 19 20% 21%

Navy historically UNDER estimates lead ships by ~20%...

SHIP AVG Weighted(Qty) by Cost

1980s Reagan Build-up 129 -9% -5%1990/2000s Low Rate Production 76 4% 1%Overall 205 -4% -6%

Navy historically OVER estimates follow ships by ~6%...

Ship Cost History since 1980

Once the Navy has REALIZED the cost of its warships, they have delivered under the original budget set two years before award.

So when does cost realism become cost growth?

Importance of Design Team Experience on Acquisition Outcomes

SHIPS AVG WeightedQty Growth by Cost

1980s Reagan Build-up 14 10% 1%1990/2000s Low Rate Production 5 50% 20%

Navy historically UNDER estimates lead ship cost growth

Contract No. of Designed Type Ships by

1980s Reagan Build-up Fixed Price Plus Many NAVSEA1990/2000s Low Rate Production Cost Plus Few Contractors

Outcomes far better with an experienced NAVSEA Design Team

Lead Ship Cost History Since 1980

Many factors affect Lead Ship Cost, but obviously theExperience of the Design Team is a major factor.