April 2015 Marine Technology magazine

marine technology

April 2015

Proven Designs Leveraging global partnerships

Expanded Research The role of JIPs and networks

International Code The impact on naval combatant safety

COMING TOGETHER The push to reach across cultural and geographic boundaries

A publication of the Society of Naval Architects and Marine Engineers

www.sname.org

THERE'S

A LOT RIDING ON THIS

VESSEL HEIGHT

MAST HEIGHT 125.56’

545.135‘

WIND SPEED

75 N

50 N

25 N

CENTER OF GRAVITY

VESSEL TO PLATFORM

135 FT

PLATFORM POSITION LATITUDE: 36° 14’ 55.1789” LONGITUDE:-115° 10’ 24.2677”

647.8’

DRAUGHT 35’ DECK TO WATER

128,500 FT TO SEA LEVEL

The future of offshore is farther out and deeper below. To get you there, Bentley combines the forces of SACS, MOSES, and MAXSURF under one roof to deliver engineering software for projects that are more complex and demanding than ever. It’s the new standard for the analysis, design, and simulation of offshore platforms, vessels, and floating systems of all types.

BENTLEY’S OFFSHORE SOLUTIONS. NOTHING IS STRONGER AT SEA.

Click to get the whole story of Bentley’s comprehensive solutions for offshore: www.bentley.com/MT © 2014 Bentley Systems, Incorporated. Bentley, the “B” Bentley logo, SACS, MOSES, and MAXSURF are either registered or unregistered trademarks or service marks of Bentley Systems, Incorporated or one of its direct or indirect wholly owned www.sname.org/sname/mt (2) marine technology April 2015 subsidiaries. Other brands and product names are trademarks of their respective owners.

www.sname.org/sname/mt

April 2015 marine technology

(1)

(contents) marine technology April 2015

[features]

[departments]

42

Hydrodynamics Across Boundaries

33

BY FRANS QUADVLIEG AND INGO DRUMMEN

Bringing together expertise and skills for the advancement of the industry

50

75

Source Globally, Build Locally

BY JAN VAN HOGERWOU

36 Practical Collaboration

BY MICHAEL LAGRASSA

Netherlands-based company provides U.S. shipyards with proven vessel designs

56

Aiming High

BY JEOM KEE PAIK, TOBIN R. MCNATT, AND TAPIO HULKKONEN

An ambitious joint industry project targets ship hull structural design and the next generation of the world’s largest containership

4 From the Editorial Board 5 Feature Contributors 6 Industry Events 7 Opinion 10 Policy Briefing 14 Founders and Leaders 19 Marine Technology Notes 62 Education 67 Running Your Business 70 Professional Development 74 Glossary 75 Historical Note

Aker Philadelphia Shipyard, Inc. looks to foreign partners to improve efficiency and quality

COMING UP marine technology

April 2015

Proven Designs

ON THE COVER:

The July issue of (mt) will explore the ferry sector and will include such areas as:

Leveraging global partnerships

Expanded Research The role of JIPs and networks

International Code The impact on naval combatant safety

COMING TOGETHER The push to reach across cultural and geographic boundaries

A publication of the Society of Naval Architects and Marine Engineers

www.sname.org

There’s more to collaborating with global partners than firing up a video chat app.

But bringing together expertise and skill sets from different countries and cultures offers potentially great benefits.

COVER DESIGN BY BATES CREATIVE

High-Speed Ferries Using Wing-inGround Effect

The Economics of High-Speed Ferries

Designing for Evacuation

Vessel Report: Washington State Ferries' Tokitae

The Role of Investigation in Ferry Safety

LNG in the Ferry Sector

And much more, so be here for the next issue of SNAME's (mt)!

(mt) Marine Technology (ISSN 2153-4721) is published quarterly in January, April, July, and October by the Society of Naval Architects and Marine Engineers, 99 Canal Center Plaza, Suite 310, Alexandria, VA 22314. Periodicals postage paid at Jersey City, NJ and additional mailing offices. Annual subscription rates: For U.S. and possessions, $125; single copy, $35. For international: $140; single copy, $35. Copyright © 2015 by the Society of Naval Architects and Marine Engineers. POSTMASTER: Send address changes to the Society of Naval Architects and Marine Engineers, 99 Canal Center Plaza, Suite 310, Alexandria, VA 22314.

(2)

marine technology April 2015

www.sname.org/sname/mt

2014 BECAUSE PERFORMANCE MATTERS WWW.NAUTICAN.COM SNAME Annual Meeting & Expo and Ship Production Symposium OCTOBER 22 -24, 2014 Hyatt Regency Houston – Houston, TX

Abstracts are encouraged on any subject related to Naval Architecture and Marine, Offshore, and Ocean Engineering. This is an opportunity to reach a large, focused audience in a timely manner. Note that in addition to being included in the Conference Proceedings, selected papers appear in SNAME Transactions, which now features the most outstanding papers published by SNAME during the year and is widely respected in our field.

SNAME Annual Meeting Papers

Deadline for Extended Abstracts (minimum of two pages): March 23, 2014 Abstracts Accepted: April 5, 2014 Submit to: http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/snameam2014 For more information: AM2014@sname.org

AN INVESTMENT IN YOUR FLEET THAT PAYS FOR ITSELF

Ship Production Symposium Papers

Deadline for Abstracts: June 3, 2014 Abstracts Accepted: June 24, 2014 Please send all submissions to SPSpapers@sname.org For more information: http://www.sname.org

Independently tested, high-performance hydrodynamic solutions help maximize power www.sname.org/events/callforpapers while reducing fuel consumption.

(from the editorial board)

Communicate and Collaborate

April 2015

Published by the Society of Naval Architects and Marine Engineers 99 Canal Center Plaza, Suite 310, Alexandria, VA 22314 Phone: 703-997-6701 Fax: 703-997-6702 www.sname.org/sname/mt Joseph H. Comer, III President joec@shiparch.com

I

t may not be news, but we need to be reminded of it regularly: Communication is still king.

Technology has made it easier in so many ways, but one of the best is that our smartphones and tablets enable us to ping, check in with, and have brief interactions with others. We can get that key piece of information to our colleague half a world away while we wait in line to buy a sandwich.

Working with international partners brings with it a variety of challenges, many of them wrapped up with effective communication. I was talking about this earlier this week with one of our two issue leads for this issue of (mt), Vicky Dlugokecki, and she said that language barriers often get in the way.

“It can be a challenge, especially when expressions don’t translate directly or have more than one meaning. Also, you can use time zone differences to your advantage, but so often you have to make sure you’re on the grid for that 5AM conference call.”

One of our authors, Rich Delpizzo (see “The Global Commercial Model,” starting on page 19) told me as we worked on this issue that communication is an important part of getting the navies of the world onboard with the Naval Ship Code. “As a goal-based standard, it’s a relatively new concept,” he says. “Having an understanding of how a goal-based standard works is key to being able to invoke it. Once navies understand how to use and benefit from it, I think we’ll see greater application with this thing. It’s a question of education more than anything else.”

Vicky worked with co-lead John Boylston to bring you an (mt) packed with stories, challenges, and solutions focused on working successfully with partners and colleagues around the globe. Check out John and Vicky’s bios, below, and then learn how our contributors make international collaboration a daily reality.

We can get that key piece of information to our colleague half a world away while we wait in line to buy a sandwich.

Douglas R. Kelly Editor

John Boylston holds degrees from Kings Point, the University of Michigan, and Johns Hopkins University.

He has been involved in the design and construction of more than 100 ocean going commercial vessels. He has written numerous papers for SNAME on design and construction, and is author of portions of SNAME texts. He remains active in retirement and is presently involved in the construction of LNGfueled commercial vessels.

marine technology April 2015

Erik W. Seither Executive Director eseither@sname.org Keith Michel Treasurer Susan Evans Grove Publications Director sevans@sname.org Douglas R. Kelly Editor dkelly@sname.org Alan Rowen Book Review Editor arowen@sname.org Dave Weidner, Advertising Sales advertising@sname.org Kristin Walker, Publications Coordinator kwalker@sname.org Editorial Advisory Board Matthew Tedesco, Chair Rod Allan Chris Dlugokecki Vicki Dlugokecki Norbert Doerry Rob Hindley Peter Tang Jensen Kevin McSweeney

Peter Noble Jeom Paik Lars Rønning Erik Seither Les Sonnenmark Rik van Hemmen Peter Wallace

Design Bates Creative, Silver Spring, MD Officers of the Society Joseph H. Comer, III, President Erik W. Seither, Executive Director Keith Michel, Treasurer Regional Vice Presidents 2015: Atlantic South: Robert J. Gies Central & Gulf: Scott C. McClure International: Harilaos N. Psaraftis 2016: Pacific: Dan E. McGreer Atlantic: Timothy J. Keyser 2017: Atlantic South: Michael Monahan Central & Gulf: Glenn Walters International: Jeom Paik

Leaders for This Issue

(4)

marine technology

Victoria Dlugokecki, P.E. is an engineering and management consultant with 25 years of experience in ship design and construction.

Before becoming a consultant, she was a senior supervisor at NASSCO in the Initial Design and Naval Architecture department, and an engineer at ABS, working on rule development and quality assurance. She started her career at C. R. Cushing and Co., Inc., where she participated in all aspects of engineering design for commercial and military vessels. Dlugokecki has participated in several successful NSRP collaborations, including design for producibility, design for maintainability, weld shrinkage, and distortion projects.

2018: Pacific: Wei Qiu Atlantic North: Timothy McCue Publication in (mt) Marine Technology does not constitute an endorsement of any product or service referred to, nor does publication of an advertisement represent an endorsement by the Society of Naval Architects and Marine Engineers or the magazine. All articles represent the viewpoints of the authors and are not necessarily those of the Society of Naval Architects and Marine Engineers, or the magazine.

Subscriptions: (mt) Marine Technology is circulated to all members of the Society as a portion of their dues allocation. Non-member subscriptions are $125 annually for the U.S. and possessions; single copies are $35. For international non-members, subscriptions are $140 annually; single copies are $35. (mt) Marine Technology is dedicated to James Kennedy, 1867-1936, marine engineer and longtime member of the Society, in recognition and appreciation of his sincere and generous interest in furthering ship design, shipbuilding, ship operation, and related activities.

www.sname.org/sname/mt

(feature contributors)

Ingo Drummen graduated with

a master of science degree in offshore engineering from Delft University in 2004 and earned a Ph.D. from NTNU in 2007 in experimental and numerical investigation of nonlinear wave-induced load effects in containerships considering hydroelasticity.

Since 2007, he has been with MARIN, mainly in the area of hydrostructural loads on ships and offshore constructions. He is responsible for the VALID-JIP project, in which the Fatigue Lifetime Assessment Program is carried out. He chairs a cooperative research project focusing on direct fatigue calculations using 3D finite element analysis coupled with 3D hydrodynamic software.

and distribution of the MAESTRO code, and its application to ship structural analysis and design requirements.

Jeom Kee Paik is a professor

in the Department of Naval Architecture and Ocean Engineering at Pusan National University in Busan, Korea.

He serves as president of the Korea Ship and Offshore Research Institute and also as director of Lloyd’s Register Foundation Research Centre of Excellence at the university. He is a fellow and vice president of SNAME and a fellow and council member of RINA. He was a recipient of SNAME’s David W. Taylor Medal in 2013. has worked at MARIN since 1993, after graduating with a master of science degree in naval architecture

Frans Quadvlieg Tapio Hulkkonen is senior product

manager at NAPA Group. He is responsible for the development of NAPA Steel business and software. His previous experience includes 23 years working at shipyards in Finland and 9 years in NAPA Group. is an outfitting and project engineer for the MT50 Product Tanker Series at Aker Philadelphia Shipyard. He recently completed a six-month assignment for Aker as Korea Design Coordinator, based at Hyundai Mipo Dockyard in Ulsan, Korea. He graduated from Webb Institute in 2007 with a bachelor of science degree in naval architecture and marine engineering and is nearing the completion of a master of engineering degree in management sciences and engineering from Lehigh University.

from Delft University of Technology.

He worked in various areas of ship and offshore hydrodynamics as senior project manager, becoming an internationally recognized expert in the field of maneuverability for all kinds of ships, ranging from fast surface vessels to submarines and from numerical simulation studies to model basin experiments. He is knowledge coordinator for maneuvering of ships. He has authored a number of articles and papers and served on the ITTC Manoeuvring Committee as chairman.

Jan van Hogerwou is sales manager at Damen Shipyards Group. He is responsible for all Damen activities in the United States, Canada, Honduras, and the French speaking part of the Caribbean.

Michael LaGrassa

Tobin R. McNatt is a senior director at the Advanced Marine Technology Center (AMTC) of DRS Technologies, Inc., located in Stevensville, MD. He provides business management of the AMTC, which is a naval architecture group specializing in the development of computer software tools used for ship design. He leads the team that is responsible for the progressive development www.sname.org/sname/mt

ECAP propeller by MMG

SAFER, SMARTER, GREENER

EXPERTISE IS KNOWING World’s most experienced service provider in solving your enviromental emissions issues and ship performance efficiency. DNV GL provide:

 Ship Classification with USCG ACP since 2000  LNG Fuel expertise with Class Rules since 2000 and Bunkering Guidelines  ECO Solutions with significant savings through: -ECO Assistant in Trim optimization -ECO Lines in Hull optimization -ECO Retrofit in Bow, Propeller & Machinery optimization -ECO Insight for fleet performance transparency www.dnvgl.com/maritime

April 2015 marine technology

(5)

(industry events)

Upcoming Events: April, May, and June APRIL 2015 Western Europe Section: Controlled Innovation April 9 TU-Delft, the Netherlands www.sname.org/westerneurope/home

Texas Section: April Luncheon April 14 Houston, TX

JUNE 2015 SCA 2015 Spring Meeting April 22-24 Washington, DC preever@balljanik.com

12th International Marine Design Conference (IMDC) May 11-14 Tokyo, Japan http://www.nakl.t.u-tokyo.ac.jp/imdc2015

Greek Section Technical Meeting April 23 Athens, Greece siliogrammenou@sname.org

www.sname.org/texassection/home

fhamme@navalengineers.org

Western Europe Section: Dry Dockings, Hull Cleanings, and Propeller Polishes May 14 London, Great Britain www.sname.org/westerneurope/home

Dry Dock Training April 14-17 Virginia Beach, VA www.drydocktraining.com

2015 Ferry Safety and Technology Conference April 16-17 New York, NY

MAY 2015 Offshore Technology Conference 2015 May 4-7 Houston, TX meetings@otcnet.org

ferrysafety@gmail.com

Mega Rust 2015: Naval Corrosion Conference June 23-25 Newport News, VA

Dry Dock Training May 26-29 London, Great Britain

NOVEMBER 2015 SNAME Maritime Convention/WMTC15 November 3-7 Providence, RI www.sname.org/2015wmtc

jstiglich@aol.com

GreenTech 2015 May 27-29 Seattle, WA manon.lanthier@green-marine.org

Engineered for life at Sea

Image courtesy of POSH Semco Pte Ltd.

Quality Steering Systems Jastram state of the art marine systems.

Our products are designed to meet standards of all the major Classiication Societies

www.jastram.com

(6)

marine technology April 2015

www.sname.org/sname/mt

(opinion)

Manukai, a 217 m Philadelphia class containership, was built by Aker Philadelphia Shipyard for Matson Navigation Company and was launched in 2003. Photo courtesy Aker Philadelphia Shipyard.

International Cooperation The shipowner’s perspective on building foreign designs in U.S. yards

BY JOHN BOYLSTON

www.sname.org/sname/mt

F

or many years, the U.S. shipbuilding industry has cooperated with foreign manufacturers of equipment, and, in some cases, in joint projects with foreign shipyards. In the last 15 years, large foreign shipbuilding entities have opened new, modern, U.S. facilities to provide U.S.-built vessels to their designs.

One notable foreign entrant was the Norwegian shipyard conglomerate, Kvaerner, at the old Philadelphia Naval Shipyard, which had been abandoned for years.

Their new yard, Aker Philadelphia Shipyard, was started as a cooperation between Kvaerner, the city of Philadelphia, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, and the U.S. government. Rebuilt and opened in 2000, the yard delivered its first ship in 2003: MV Manukai, a container cargo ship for Matson Line and the first of four sister vessels built for Matson through 2006. (See “Practical Collaboration,” beginning on page 36, for more information on Aker’s work with international partners.)

What is most notable is that these ships were not built based on new U.S.-produced designs. They were built based on proven Kvaerner designs, with which Kvaerner had constructed multiple vessels. Even more innovative was that the designs included lessons learned in the foreign construction of identical vessels. The new U.S. yard was built to mimic a successful European shipyard, with improvements, and the

lessons learned in Kvaerner production engineering were passed on to the new U.S. yard. The cost savings did not go unnoticed by other U.S. shipyards.

The Jones Act requires only that the hull and superstructure of a vessel be constructed in the U.S., and that left considerable latitude as to what could be done to control costs. Since Kvaerner’s entry, the degree of foreign shipyard involvement in the U.S. has been expanded to fully “kitted” vessels—not only is engineering provided, but every part of the vessel is provided by a foreign shipyard, except for the steel. The kits are pre-assembled modules of auxiliary machinery and other outfit.

Jones Act vessels cannot simply be built at any cost with the cost passed onto shippers; they must fit into established rate structures. Therefore, their construction cost determines whether or not they will be built. By lowering the cost of Jones Act vessels, by using foreign shipyard cooperation, the market for Jones Act vessels has improved in the last 15 years.

How does this impact the eventual shipowner?

Engineering cost and technical risk In my experience, if you take a clean sheet of paper (CSP) design prepared in the U.S. for a completely new class of vessel and then add in the cost of U.S. production engineering to produce 2 ships, the engineering cost April 2015 marine technology

(7)

(opinion)

International Cooperation continued

comprises about 10% of the completed ship cost. Computer aided design (CAD) has made the shipbuilding process more productive, but the cost of production engineering associated with the use of CAD is greater than it was with half hull models and measuring tapes.

On the other hand, if you take a fully-found foreign design, including production engineering, the component cost of a 2-ship contract will be significantly less than 1% of the constructed cost of the vessel. At ship costs up around $200 million, the difference is a considerable savings to the shipowner. At the same time, there is a huge schedule advantage as this engineering is immediately available, instead of requiring a couple of years to produce.

A CSP design comes with technical risk as technical aspects such as deadweight, speed/power, stability, and vibration are estimated. The U.S. design community may take exception to this assertion, contending that modern tools eliminate risk. However, many shipowners would not agree.

The Jones Act commercial vessel is not only the most expensive in the world to build, it is the most expensive to operate.

Technical issues are therefore of considerably more financial impact than they might be in other world trading areas.

As a result, with foreign shipyard cooperation the U.S. Jones Act shipowner gets a less costly design with little, or no, technical risk.

Is there a down side?

Standards, specifications, and terms U.S. shipowners have built in foreign shipyards for the offshore (non-Jones Act) trades for years and were initially put off by foreign yards imposing their standards, specifications, and contract terms. Having been accustomed to a U.S. shipbuilding industry willing to do more to get the few contracts available, it seemed unreasonable to owners that they should not have whatever they wanted. Unfortunately for them, foreign yards usually had customers perfectly willing to build ships, as they had done for years, to the foreign yards’ terms. Customizing ships, exorbitant specifications (with clauses making the owners determination the final word), and contracts that required shipyards to include in their cost expensive contract guarantees (and possibly litigation) all added to the U.S. shipbuilding cost. Foreign shipyards wanted no part of it.

Foreign standards have long been espoused by U.S. yards for Jones Act vessels. However, in some cases, U.S. regulatory requirements, particularly those of the United States Coast Guard (USCG), were at odds with those foreign standards. With extensive U.S. regulation for the operation of ships (which is far greater than anywhere else in the world), U.S. shipowners could not blindly accept all foreign standards, but that has changed, too. The use of the Alternate Compliance Program (ACP), in which a classification society such as the American Bureau of Shipping or DNV GL can set the standards and inspection previously left to the USCG, has helped. As (8)

marine technology April 2015

Foreign designs, particularly those of the Far East, have no margins.

most classification societies have agreed to a harmonization of their rules, foreign designs to most any classification rules can be relatively easily converted to the rules of another classification society.

Still, some Far East contract terms and specifications take it to an extreme, where as many as six different standards are listed, any one of which the shipyard can use at its discretion.

The U.S. Jones Act shipowner therefore needs to be fully aware of these alternate standards, as some could interfere with regulatory compliance during operation.

Margins From a shipowner’s perspective, including margins (in some ways to minimize technical risk) is one of the great things that U.S. naval architecture firms and shipyards historically have done. There were added estimated factors for weight, vertical center of gravity, and speed/power such that if the CSP design did not fully measure up to the anticipated technical requirements, there was enough surplus to make up the difference. Corrosion margins were used on scantlings.

The effect for shipowners, besides a slightly costlier ship than one carried out without margins, was that it gave “growth” to most designs.

A tanker might be able to take a greater draft in operation, improving deadweight, as scantlings were above those required for the contract draft. Greater installed power might allow the same speed at a greater draft, or even increased speed if the need occurred. A containership might be able to add a greater quantity of containers on deck to increase capacity and have the added deadweight to do so, without vessel modification.

Foreign designs, particularly those of the Far East, have no margins.

For the Jones Act shipowner, this has considerable impact.

Due to their construction and operating cost, most Jones Act vessels operate well past the number of years one might find for a foreign operator’s similar vessel. Many Jones Act vessels operate into their 40 th year, whereas a foreign shipowner might be looking at 20 years as the life of a vessel.

Quality of components The Jones Act owner, not used to foreign standards, particularly those of the Far East, may therefore have a rude awakening. If coated valves www.sname.org/sname/mt

Artist’s rendering of General Dynamics NASSCO’s TOTE containership, being built in cooperation with Korea-based Daewoo Shipbuilding & Marine Engineering.

Photo courtesy General Dynamics NASSCO.

made in the U.S. last 10 years before replacement, but a particular Far East equivalent lasts only last 2 years, an expensive replacement is due a lot earlier than planned. Because of relatively greater labor costs in the U.S., replacement is a significant cost to be considered when negotiating options as to the quality of valves to be installed.

Previously, in standard CSP U.S. contracts, an owner would specify a particular piece of equipment with the suffix “or equal.”

This term could often become the subject of great dispute, as each party’s definition was based upon, perhaps, diametrically opposite criteria. In my opinion, the method of approach in the foreign contract is more proactive as it lists a group of possible manufacturers for each type of equipment. This makers list is proposed during contract negotiations, and the savvy Jones Act shipowner will do his homework to determine which alternatives are acceptable to him. Once the alternative manufacturers are agreed, the final selection decision is up to the shipyard.

The contract package The U.S. CSP design contract package would have a sizable specification trying to tie down every piece of outfit as tight as could be done.

The specification and contract would be accompanied by perhaps 50 contract plans and diagrams laying out the arrangements and systems in great detail. The contract usually forbade the shipyard from deviation from these contract documents without owner approval.

By comparison, the foreign shipyard cooperative contract set comprises one drawing, the general arrangement. www.sname.org/sname/mt

When it comes to construction and plan approval disagreements, the CSP U.S. practice, again, was that the shipowner participated fully in disagreement resolution during plan approval and construction. In fact, many contracts had the shipowner decision as the final one. The foreign shipyard cooperative contract sets the classification society as the final decision maker. Generally, if it meets the classification rules, that is all that is needed to proceed.

It’s a question of balancing cost and control. Giving up control can be frustrating for a shipowner. But the end result is considerable savings with the international cooperative vessel in the constructed cost of the vessel, as well as the time the program takes to complete as compared to a CSP U.S. design.

In my estimation, for similar designs, a CSP U.S. designed 2-ship project would cost 40% more than a foreign shipyard cooperative option (if this option were fully kitted), and that at least 1 year in construction time is saved. These savings are partially made up by the incredibly low price of the full kit, which can amount to a little more than 25% of the constructed vessel cost. This cost is indicative of the huge buying power of major foreign shipyard conglomerates. Coupled with the reduced U.S. labor requirements for outfitting, due to the kits and a partial learning curve reduction from using kits and prior construction knowledge, this makes up the balance of the savings. MT John Boylston is a naval architect specializing in the design and construction of commercial vessels.

April 2015 marine technology

(9)

(policy briefing)

Staying Relevant SNAME T&R partners with NSRP in bringing earlier publications up to date

BY RICK ASHCROFT

T

he SNAME Technical and Research program (T&R) began in 1938 with the formation of the Vibration Research Committee, and by 1984, it had grown to 68 committees and panels. Today, the T&R program consists of 10 committees, 3 sub-committees, and approximately 80 panels and groups. I use the word “approximately” because the T&R program is a living organization, intended to change with the needs of the industry. Panels that are no longer needed are retired and new ones that are relevant to the current requirements added. That’s not to say that panels drop off and appear on a regular basis—the needs of our industry are, by and large, long-term—but things do change over time and we must adapt accordingly.

The objectives of the T&R are to organize and manage a research program that addresses all aspects of the design, construction, and operation of ships,

marine vehicles, and structures; to participate in and, where appropriate, financially support other relevant research programs; and to correspond, cooperate, and collaborate with relevant domestic and international research programs.

The organizational leadership is provided by the T&R Steering Committee, chaired by the functional vice president of technology. The Steering Committee is comprised of the chairs of the committees and others that have demonstrated an interest in this component of SNAME. Committee chairs are appointed by the Steering Committee chair and panel chairs are appointed by the committee chair. Membership is open. There is considerable autonomy at the panel level and strong support is available from the SNAME staff whenever it is needed.

T&R Functions Table 1: T&R Bulletins Issued Since 2012 T&R COMMITTEE

BULLETIN NUMBER

BULLETIN TITLE

YEAR ISSUED

2-33

Guidelines for Hydroelastic Model Design, Testing, and Analysis of Loads and Responses

2013

2-34

A Guide to Materials Engineering for the Maritime Industry

2015 (early spring)

5-5B

Guidelines for Site Specific Assessment of Mobile Jack-Up Units— Gulf of Mexico Annex

2013

6-2 EE-1

Marine Vessel Environmental Performance Assessment Guide “Energy Efficiency: Hull and Propeller Operations and Maintenance”

2013

6-2 AE-1

Air Emissions: Sulfur Oxides (SOX)

6-2 GM-1

Ocean Health and Aquatic Life – Underwater Noise

2014

7-10

Guide for Conducting Technical Studies

2014

8-1

Guidelines for Marine Forensic Investigations

2012

9-1

Standard Guide for Conducting Small Boat Stability Test (Air Inclining)

2014

Hull Structure

Offshore

Environmental Engineering

Ship Design Marine Forensics Small Craft

(10) marine technology April 2015

2013

Under guidance from the Executive Committee, input from the various committees, and within budget constraints, the Steering Committee has the following functions: • r ecommends project funding requests to the Executive Committee • provides guidance to the T&R committees and panels • determines the T&R program for the SNAME Maritime Convention Committee • provides technical outreach to the SNAME community •p rovides guidance to project teams •p rovides input to the Finance Committee.

Panels, under the guidance of their parent committee, address the research needs within their topic areas.

To this end, committees and panels will host or sponsor meetings and events, such as panel and committee meetings; e-group discussions; online data repositories (such as ITTC documents); workshops; and symposia.

Panels also will undertake projects to attain specific objectives that are either informal (unfunded) or formal (funded by the T&R budget or external sources), and will generate publications such as T&R bulletins, T&R guides, and T&R reports.

During 2014, the T&R program was responsible for an emissions workshop at MITAGS in March; an SSC symposium in May; a short course on small craft stability standards at IBEX in September; and 16 presentations at the SNAME Maritime Convention in October. www.sname.org/sname/mt

In April 2015, we will participate in the Ferry Safety and Technology: Design and Operations symposium, jointly sponsored by the Worldwide Ferry Association, the Transportation Research Board, and SNAME. The T&R program also has been working on publications, and, since 2013, has issued the bulletins and guides shown in Table 1.

All of this work has been accomplished by members of SNAME—technical experts in their fields—sharing their knowledge and expertise across our industry.

Earlier publications still relevant?

The T&R program has done quite a lot since its inception in 1938. More than 250 documents have been issued as T&R bulletins, guides, or reports. However, there is a problem: after they were issued, these documents were promptly forgotten as the issuing panel or committee moved on to The Next Big Thing. At the beginning of 2013, I asked the committee and panel chairs to review all the documents issued under

the auspices of their group and let me know the status. This was really a high-level assessment, dividing documents into five categories: • OK as is—up to date, no revision required • Needs minor updating to stay current • Needs major revision to get current • White paper—of historical interest only—no need to modify • No longer relevant—withdraw from circulation.

Approximately 25 documents were identified that fall under the second and third bullets: documents that are important to the industry, but required some level of revision to either stay or get current. The question is, given the current process that goes into developing T&R bulletins and guides, how will we accomplish the required updating?

Traditionally, T&R bulletins and guides have been developed by groups of experts formed from the relevant panel or committee. If a document crosses specialties, more than one panel (and their parent committees) would be involved. A subgroup would be created to prepare a draft of the document, which would then be circulated among

“Fishers underwater video cameras brave the dangerous sites, so you -Jack Fisher, President don’t have to” SeaOtter-2 ROV

Only $20,995

Very Rugged and Compact Control Box with Built-in Monitor

“Fishers underwater video products are cost effective tools for underwater search and inspection. The line includes low-cost mini cameras, dropped video systems, towed cameras, and powerful ROVs with scanning sonar onboard.

Fishers has an underwater camera that will fit your application and your budget.”

Call for a free catalog or visit our web site: jwfishers.com

Scan-650 Scanning Sonar

$6,995

CT-1 Cable Tracker with Signal Injector

$15,995

Proton 44 Proton Marine Magnetometer

$12,995

Pingers

Side Scans

$20,995

Pingers and Receivers

P12

$795

Boat-towed Metal Detector

$9,995

1953 County St., E. Taunton, MA 02718 USA • (800)822-4744 (508)822-7330 • FAX: (508)880-8949 • email: jwfishers@aol.com • www.jwfishers.com

www.sname.org/sname/mt

April 2015 marine technology

(11)

(policy briefing)

Staying Relevant continued

We are an international society and our bulletins and guidelines must conform to international requirements in order to stay relevant.

the members of the larger panel and committee for comment. After several rounds of comments, the chair of the panel responsible would release the document to the parent committee for review and approval.

After incorporating any comments from that round of review the document, now in nearfinal form, would be sent to the chair of the T&R Steering Committee.

The T&RSC chair would then send the document to members of the T&RSC and sometimes a few subject matter experts not previously associated with the document.

Any comments generated during this level of review would be incorporated and the document approved for release. The document now passed to SNAME headquarters for final editorial review, legal review, and, if necessary, additional third party review.

The final document was then formatted and officially released to the public. This is a lengthy process, involving a large number of people. And—in the 21st century—it’s far too slow.

As we work to prepare bulletins and guides today, there is one major change we see in the process: authors. Whereas the process just described started with a large group of people, documents have recently been created by small groups or even individuals. These people are all experts in their fields, but they represent a smaller number of professional opinions and SNAME has been challenged to provide appropriate review that ensures the broader requirements of the industry are being met. The process still takes too long, and there was no process in place to ensure that the bulletins and guides developed are regularly reviewed for relevance and compliance with current international standards.

(12) marine technology April 2015

Why does the process take so long, what can we do to improve it, and how can we ensure that the needs of our industry are being met?

Moving forward I believe that the people who participate in the T&R program and contribute to the bulletins, guides, white papers, and other documents that have been or will be published are among the most talented and dedicated people in our organization—and they are all volunteers. I have been involved with a number of volunteer organizations, and the one thing they all have in common is that most of the volunteers have day jobs that pay the bills, so volunteer work is done when they can make time to do it.

My observations lead me to believe that, from a technical standpoint, our volunteers create excellent work. The bottleneck has been (and continues to be) the review and editing processes that create the final document. We spend our volunteer time first in creating technical content, then, as we have time, get into editing and polishing. These tasks always seem to fall into the category of time that can be spent whenever we have it, with no specific deadlines imposed. That may have been satisfactory in the past, but today the elapsed time is too long and we spend virtually all our time creating new documents and almost none in reviewing and updating.

Another problem the T&R program faces is engagement with the industry. For SNAME to remain relevant as a technical society, we must engage our constituents in all aspects of the business. When I first started attending annual meetings in the 1970s, there were many attendees from shipowners and operators. Those people don’t seem to be active

participants today. Joe Comer has made it a priority for us to re-engage our constituency. As a start, we approached the National Shipbuilding Research Program (NSRP), the executive control board (ECB) of which is made up exclusively of representatives from 11 shipyards, to tell them about SNAME and the T&R program.

NSRP-SNAME joint project Joe and I were invited to make a presentation to the ECB at a meeting in Charleston in February 2014. The presentation about the T&R program covered the history and current accomplishments—a PowerPoint version of the first half of this article. During the discussion afterward, I told the ECB that we had two major problems: documents that needed revision, and volunteers who could handle the technical part, but fell short when it came to timely release. SNAME wanted to get input from the ECB members regarding which T&R documents they would like to see reviewed and updated first; and we told them we would like their financial support to help us with the non-technical editing and document preparation so that we could take the volunteers out of that part of the loop. Those requests were well received: T&R Bulletin 3-47, Guide to Sea Trials, was selected as the first document to address. It meets all the criteria we set out: • first issued in 1989 • referenced in virtually every commercial (and most naval auxiliary) shipbuilding contract in the U.S. and many overseas • never reviewed • a lthough mostly relevant, contains outdated information • n ot fully in accordance with international standards. www.sname.org/sname/mt

The ECB agreed to fund a test project to update 3-47. The way that NSRP normally works is that a shipyard takes project lead and other entities participate as needed. My employer, General Dynamics NASSCO, agreed to take the project and I am the technical lead. The American Bureau of Shipping (ABS) is supporting the effort, and SNAME is handling some information gathering from non-shipyard sources and will coordinate the editing, SNAME internal review (it will be a SNAME issued document), and publication.

This is really an important step forward for SNAME: we will be able to focus on the technical requirements—our strength— and engage editorial support as required to produce a polished document for release.

NSRP has set up a working group comprised of shipyard representatives, ABS, and SNAME. SCR A, the management company that supports the NSRP, has been helpful, providing teleconferencing and coordination support. Members of the working group met in Houston at the SNAME Maritime Convention to start things off and there has since been one teleconference. A secure SharePoint site has been set up by SCRA to enable the working group members to exchange information electronically. Additionally, by the time you read this, a face-to-face meeting of the working group will have been held during the NSRP All Panels meeting in Charleston in March.

The working group will ensure that requirements that are no longer relevant are removed; that requirements are in accordance with current international practice; that EEDI support is included; and that appropriate national and international reference are cited. This effort will bring a document that was released more than 25 years ago and still used regularly by our industry up to current international practice. We are an international society and our bulletins and guidelines must conform to international requirements in www.sname.org/sname/mt

order to stay relevant. 3-47 is a test case to see if NSRP and SNAME can partner effectively to update T&R bulletins and guides.

I know we can, and the proof will be seen in September when T&R Bulletin 3-47:2015 is released.

Additional updates In 2014, the T&R program reviewed documents and began the update process.

Another bulletin in the process of revision is T&R 4-14, Recommended Practices for Merchant Ship Heating, Cooling, Ventilation & Air Conditioning Design Calculations.

This bulletin is being updated without the benefit of NSRP support and is now in the review phase. Comments received to date include comparisons to ISO 7547 and seven other ISO documents related to air conditioning and ventilation of shipboard

spaces, as well as making SI the standard system of units with U.S. These comments indicate the importance of aligning SNAME guides to international practice, a direction we must go to remain relevant in the very international business of ship design, construction, and operations.

In accordance with international quality practices, the T&R program has instituted a five-year review plan. Given the available resources, I recognize that this is an ambitious goal, but we cannot stay technically relevant if we allow our bulletins and guides to become dated. With diligence on our part and support from the NSRP, I believe we can make this happen. MT Rick Ashcroft is principal engineer at General Dynamics NASSCO. He also is functional vice president, technology for SNAME.

A prelube system can save you a fortune in engine overhaul costs and downtime.

If you count on your engines to be out earning their keep, you can’t afford to have them in dry dock.

Visit MarinePrelube.com April 2015 marine technology

(13)

(founders and leaders)

Peter G. Noble A passion for boat design leads to a distinguished career in naval architecture, research, classification, and the offshore sector Editor’s note: Peter Noble finished his term as president of SNAME on December 31, so we gave him a week or two to decompress before pinning him down for an interview. Douglas R. Kelly, editor of (mt), spoke with Noble about his career, the changing global landscape, and his ongoing fascination with all things related to the Northwest Passage.

KELLY: You were born and raised in Scotland and are now a Canadian citizen, correct?

NOBLE: That’s correct. A Scot by birth, a Canadian citizen, and a Texan by choice.

KELLY: I read somewhere that, as a kid, you found and read John Scott Russell’s series of books, The Modern System of Naval Architecture, in your local library. Is that right?

NOBLE: Well, they were published in 1865 and the books are in the Victorian format. They’re about three and a half feet tall, and two and a half feet wide. To say I read them…I discovered them, actually, in my early teen years, when I was already interested in boats of all kinds. I’m a boat nut. That’s how I got involved. I still am a boat nut. I’m lucky enough to be a professional naval architect as well. So yes, I would go to the library and take out books on boats of all sorts. [The Russell books contained a section that stated] what a naval architect is, from 1865. That’s what really fascinated me. It went like this …“A naval architect should be able to design, draw, calculate, lay down, cut out, set up, fasten, fit, finish, equip, launch, and send to sea a ship out of his own head. He should be able to tell beforehand of what speed she will go; what freight she will carry; what qualities she will show in a sea, before it, athwart it, against it, on the wind, close hauled, going free; what she will stow and carry, earn, and expend.

By his word, you should be able rely that what he says, that ship will infallibly do.” I read that and I thought, “Wow! This is what I want to be!” Before that, I didn’t (14) marine technology April 2015

know what a naval architect was. That was the first time I recall seeing that term, naval architect. No one in my family had been a naval architect. So it was that kind of an epiphany moment.

KELLY: It sounds like it had quite an effect on you.

NOBLE: It did. Historically, if we go back to my grandparents, on my mother’s side, they were land-based. They were farmers. On my father’s side, they were more connected to the sea and to fishing, those kinds of things.

In my early years before I became a teenager, I had an interest in boats. I don’t know where that came from. We didn’t live that close to the sea. But in my early teens, we www.sname.org/sname/mt

“You’re creating something where everything has to work together. There’s no orange extension cord following you around the ocean.”

moved to a place where our home was 100 yards from the shore. That was when I started building canoes and boats, going to the library, and reading this kind of stuff.

KELLY: Your career has spanned a bunch of different disciplines in this industry; ship design, research classification, and so forth.

Was that variety intentional, or did it sort of happen organically?

NOBLE: Good question. It’s both, really. I’m probably cursed with a short attention span. I’m always looking for new things to do.

I’m much better starting things than finishing them, to tell the truth (as my wife knows only too well). So on the one hand, it was intentional that when new things came along, I was always interested in seeking that path. On the other hand, it was organic in that it grew out of learning things … “Oh that’s interesting, where might that take me,” and it would open new doors. Even to this day, I like change. Growing up, same thing, my father was an Episcopal priest in Scotland and he had the opinion that he couldn’t minister to all the people all the time. So, we moved every five or six years. I understood moving, changing, and making new friends from the beginning. That sort of grew into my professional life.

KELLY: Is ship design your first love? Or is there something else that drives you even more strongly?

NOBLE: I would replace “ship” with “boat design.” That’s really my passion. I’m lucky enough to get paid to do ship design and offshore, and there’s lots of overlapping things. But I think the reason I like boat design is really that, at the core of all, it’s creative engineering. Part of the problem … as engineers, we suffer from the public perception that we’re locomotive drivers or nuts and bolts guys.

Engineering is really what makes civilization tick. I think it was [Theodore] von Kármán who said, “Scientists seek to understand www.sname.org/sname/mt

what is. Engineers seek to create what has not yet been.” It’s a much more positive thing to be an engineer than a scientist, but somehow, we haven’t got that across in the media. For me, that’s it.

Boats and ships embody that … you’re creating something where everything has to work together. There’s no orange extension cord following you around the ocean. Guys don’t go home at night from a ship. Everything has to work together. It’s a little god-like, in that you have to create a world that does everything—it does its job, it looks after people, it stays safe, it doesn’t pollute, it makes its own energy. Aircraft land regularly for maintenance. The space shuttle, that’s great but really, this whole infrastructure on the shore looks after them. Ships are independent entities out there in the middle of the ocean. That’s still exciting to me.

KELLY: You transitioned to ABS in the mid-1990s … coming from the design side, was there something from that type of work that served you well at ABS? NOBLE: I think I had an understanding of how ships were designed and built, which wasn’t always common, at least in the rule development side of a class society. In the ship survey side, we’re certainly familiar with how ships are built. But I found that, on the design side, a lot of the ABS engineers were really not that familiar with design practices. So I think there was some learning there that I was able to help move forward.

KELLY: Let’s talk about mentoring, Peter. Who were the individuals that went out of their way and invested themselves in you?

NOBLE: In mid-career, I had a really exciting time with a group of companies called Arctec. There was a whole bunch of great people there … not so much a hierarchical thing, it was more of a team, but there was definitely a lot of mentoring going on. People like Rod Edwards taught me how to write winning proposals, April 2015 marine technology

(15)

(founders and leaders)

Peter G. Noble continued

and E.J. LeCourt, who shared his vast experience with marine electric systems, both ex-coast guard guys … George Comfort who taught me a lot about operating in the Arctic. But if I think of one person that I’ve used as a mentor more than the others, it’s somebody I never met. It’s a guy called Phil Bolger, who is now departed. He was a boat designer from Gloucester, Massachusetts who was one of the most creative small craft naval architects I have ever had remote contact with. I devoured his publications and designs and learned a lot from them. I’ve used those things in my professional life. He was an extremely creative small boat designer.

“We’re not separated by oceans. The oceans are what join us together and we naval architects are part of using the oceans to join us together.”

KELLY: In 2006, you received the Land Medal from SNAME and in your acceptance speech, you talked about the change in the global landscape, the problems, the opportunities that naval architects face.

What would you say is the number one challenge for naval architects in adapting to what you called the new world order?

NOBLE: Well yes, the world is changing. Well-trained naval architects are able to adapt easily, but one of the challenges we have today is that we have a disconnect between our academic training and our practical training. There are a few exceptions, but it tends to be a problem not just for naval architects but for other engineering disciplines also. New graduates have to (16) marine technology April 2015

make a bigger step to get into the industry and learn what’s there than I had to do, for example. I actually served a concurrent student apprenticeship in a shipyard while going to full-time university, every minute I wasn’t in school I was in the shipyard. Of course, part of the challenge there, as we go global, is how does somebody coming out of a school in Michigan get practical training when the ships are being built in Korea? That’s one of the things I think that professional societies, and SNAME in particular, can help with … either bringing the practical experience through mentoring, or into the schools. Example, in SNAME we have the Mentor for a Day Program during OTC, which connects seasoned industry practitioners with students. I think it’s important to recognize that the global nature of our industry has intensified.

Naval architecture and marine ocean engineering are amongst the most important pursuits on the planet.

You know, we call it “planet earth,” but I have it on good authority that the extraterrestrials call it “planet ocean” because from out there, that’s what it looks like. If we think about why we’re civilized beings, it has to do with technology. We invented fire not because scientists understood combustion chemistry, but because we had a need to stay warm and cook our meat. On our ”ocean planet,” technologies and engineering are really critical to support our civilization. That’s why naval architects and ocean engineers should rule the world! Well, maybe not rule, but at least be deserving of respect.

KELLY: How do we motivate and capture industry representatives, naval architects, marine engineers, to get them to come and invest that time in the next generation of our students?

NOBLE: I think that’s already under way. Webb Institute, for example, with their internship programs, and also with bringing people into the school. www.sname.org/sname/mt

“You can’t be a good naval architect on your own. You have to be able to connect to other specialists and clients and people on the outside.”

A school up in Newfoundland, Memorial University, has a mandatory co-op program where the students are required before they graduate to spend almost two years in practical training, I think, within a five-year undergraduate program. We just had a group from Singapore who had to spend two or three weeks here in Houston, looking at what the offshore business is about. So I think there are pieces of that already. The biggest hurdle has been, when I go to a school and talk with the academics, they say, “Well, here’s our program … this is what we have to teach.

What do we leave out to add all this practical training value?” I think we’re seeing changes in how we train and in how education works. We’re seeing these mass markets, we’re seeing online education. I’m biased of course, but I see more passion in our people than I do in standard civil engineering or the other people I talk to around me. When I ask people to volunteer, to help students, I always get more than I need. People are ready to do that. What we need to do is have a framework to make that work better.

KELLY: This goes right back to the mentor question. What do you share with young engineers today, students who are coming into this sector? What are you telling them in terms of how to proceed, how to become a naval architect?

NOBLE: One is to get connected with SNAME, because we offer two things as a professional society. One is networking connectivity. I know when I get stuck with a problem, the first thing I do is go and ask somebody that I think probably has the answer or will know where to find it. That’s probably through a SNAME connection. The other thing we offer is the actual repository of knowledge that’s been collected in various forms, presentations and papers and the like. So that’s one piece of advice I give to young engineers. www.sname.org/sname/mt

The other thing is to expose yourself to as much as possible. Hang out with older members. Read as much as you can, go to conferences, all of that stuff because I think we’re in a world where you need to have broad experience. There are some places where you become a specialist, yes, you can do that. But most of the time, you’ve got to have a fairly broad exposure, or at least connections into the broader world. You can’t be a good naval architect on your own. You have to be able to connect to other specialists and clients and people on the outside.

KELLY: Even with advances in technology and social media and so on, face-to-face contact with other human beings is still the best way to go about this.

NOBLE: Absolutely. One of the things that I was very pleased to be involved with while I was president of SNAME was establishing two new sections, one in Italy and one in London, for Western Europe, and five or six new student sections. There’s a need for this face-toface contact. People actually are working together in teams and sharing ideas and sharing problems.

KELLY: The focus of this issue of (mt) is global collaboration. Based on your experience, what’s most important for successfully collaborating with international partners?

NOBLE: I think you have to have a good understanding of the world and how it works. We’re blessed that English is the working language of our engineering world, but it always helps if you can have additional language capabilities. I’m trying to convince my grandkids to learn Mandarin. We can’t always be arrogant enough to say, “Well, you have to speak English.” That’s an advantage we have and we should use it, but we should also be open.

April 2015 marine technology

(17)

(founders and leaders)

Peter G. Noble continued

“When we share things, people who have different backgrounds, we may share the language of naval architecture but we bring different things to the table.”

In my career, when I’ve been on teams that have been multicultural and also probably gender-mixed, we’ve had more success.

When we share things, people who have different backgrounds, we may share the language of naval architecture but we bring different things to the table. That’s how design works best. It’s not one person making all the decisions. It’s sharing, it’s exchange, and it’s tradeoffs. I was lucky enough to be able to travel internationally early on in my career, so that maybe has contributed to my worldview. The things we work with are actually things that connect the world. I remember one time being in Shanghai, talking to the Shanghai Society of Naval Architects. At the end, the president (through the translator) said, “This was really good. It’s a pity we’re separated by the large Pacific Ocean,” which was a perfect moment to say, “We’re not separated by oceans. The oceans are what join us together and we naval architects are part of using the oceans to join us together.”

KELLY: Peter, you wrote a great piece for us on the Northwest Passage (“The Long-Sought Route,” October 2014) and of course, Erebus was discovered around that time, after 170 years. What is it about the Northwest Passage that pushes your button?

NOBLE: I’m not sure. As a student, I actually first went across the Arctic Circle in 1965, and it just started to fascinate me. As I said before, I’m interested in new things, and this was a new part of the world that not a lot of people were in or knew about. It was a frontier. I’ve always been attracted by frontiers both technically and geographically. That’s probably where the seed was planted. It may be earlier … in my lineage, I’ve got the Peterhead whalers that went off in the 18th and 19th centuries to Greenland chasing whales, and so on. Maybe there are a few bits of DNA left over from that. The Arctic still is a fascinating place, maybe just because it’s so unique.

You don’t meet people in the streets that have been there. It’s a new experience for most people.

(18) marine technology April 2015

The other thing is, I went north of the Arctic Circle in 1965 in Norway and then when my wife, Mary, and I came to Canada in ‘69, I got a little job building a tug and barge in the Northwest territories.

Mary ended up as the cook and I was the engineer sailing that all the way through the Arctic Ocean. These little accidents in life, these occurrences, sort of push us in a direction. That’s probably what got me started in the Arctic and it just grew from there.

KELLY: I remember you writing that, even though there have been some transits, it’s going to be a long time before that can happen on any kind of regular basis. With the changing conditions up there and summer ice and with navigational aids, do you think there’s a chance of regular transits happening in your lifetime?

NOBLE: The short answer is no. There are two things. Things are changing in the Arctic but they’re not always going in the direction of making it easier. I’m not a believer in climate scientists being able to understand systems that actually have millennial type variances by measuring things for 20 or 30 years. I think things go up and down on a much longer term. But the big thing is, humankind needs a “need to do it.” There is no real positive benefit to sail from one ocean to the other along the Northern Passage. What we are seeing, and will continue to see, is an economic benefit in sailing in and out of the Arctic. So we’ll see (as we’ve seen before), lead, zinc, and silver mines being developed and people saying, “I’m going to go into the Arctic and then sail out.” We’re going to see oil and gas again, where people will go in and come out. We’ll see the ongoing re-supply of communities that need fuel and food and other things that will go in and out by ship, and we’ll see expansion of marinebased tourism in the Arctic. I don’t see much opportunity or push to actually develop or transform the routes used for continuous transit of the Northwest Passage. MT

www.sname.org/sname/mt

(mt notes)

In October 2014, naval and class society representatives met at the annual meeting of the International Naval Safety Association (INSA) in Stockholm.

The Global Commercial Model Applying commercial design and construction practices to naval combatant safety

BY RICHARD DELPIZZO

www.sname.org/sname/mt

O

ver the past few decades, many navies throughout the world have applied commercial industry design and construction practices to their naval auxiliary designs, and more recently, their combatant designs as well. However, most navies still address safety of life at sea issues through unique organizational requirements. How can they apply this same commercial model to naval safety requirements, and at the same time move towards more common requirements across many fleets?

Since the 1700s, the commercial shipping industry has employed the process of ship classification for ship design, construction, and lifecycle maintenance,

using the independent third-party services of recognized classification societies. These bodies establish and apply technical standards (known as rules) in relation to the design, construction, and periodic survey of marine related facilities (including ships, craft, and offshore structures). Classification addresses the lifecycle of a ship or offshore unit from design to decommissioning; only classification societies are able to class ships and other marine structures. As independent arbiters of standards, these organizations are a major stakeholder in the international network of maritime safety.

Since before World War Two, many navies have gained familiarity with the commercial process of April 2015 marine technology

(19)

(mt notes)

The Global Commercial Model continued

One of the first tasks for NSCA was to investigate recent accidents on navy ships, comparing them to similar experiences on commercial ships.

classification through naval construction programs using commercial standards and processes. While most of these ships were of a non-combatant nature, such as auxiliary support vessels, oilers, and stores ships, some navies have moved into using this process of classification for combatant ships as well. Since 2000, several classification societies developed rules to address a wide range of naval combatants. Among them are American Bureau of Shipping (ABS), Bureau Veritas (BV), Det Norske Veritas-Germanisher Lloyd (DNV-GL), L loyd’s Reg ister (LR), a nd Reg ist ro Italiano Navale (RINA). These rules have been applied to ships built for the navies of Australia, Canada, Columbia, Egypt, France, Germany, India, Oman, Saudi Arabia, Singapore, United Kingdom, the United States, and many more. However, while navies extensively employed classification society rules for hull, mechanical, and electrical aspects of their ships, marine safety requirements were typically maintained through standards and guidance unique to each naval organization.

Inception of the IMO In the commercial shipping industry, marine safety has been addressed in a global context since the mid-19th century.

However, a major effort began soon after (20) marine technology April 2015

the Titanic sinking in 1912, as this tragedy proved to be the catalyst for the adoption in 1914 of the first International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea (SOLAS). Attended by representatives of 13 countries, it introduced new international requirements dealing with safety of navigation; the provision of watertight and fire-resistant bulkheads; life-saving appliances; fire prevention; and firefighting appliances. The SOLAS convention is generally regarded as the most important of all international treaties concerning the safety of merchant ships.

Successive versions of SOLAS were released in 1929 and 1948. At nearly the same time, an international conference in Geneva (under the auspices of the United Nations) adopted a convention formally establishing the International Maritime Organization (IMO). The IMO convention entered into force in 1958 and the new organization met for the first time the following year.

The 1960 convention was the first major task for IMO after the organization’s creation, and it represented a considerable step forward in modernizing regulations and in keeping pace with technical developments in the shipping industry. A completely new convention was adopted in 1974 (attended by 71 countries), and many amendments have since been published. Today, IMO boasts 170 member states as participants,

and is responsible for measures to improve the safety and security of international shipping and to prevent pollution from ships. It also is involved in legal matters, including liabilit y and compensation issues, and the facilitation of international maritime traffic. But can these commercially derived marine safety standards be equally applied to naval combatants?

Starting in the late 1990s, several classification societies worked independently with various navies to develop naval classification rules; a few approached NATO’s (North Atlantic Treaty Organization) Naval Group 6 (NG6) on ship design to suggest possible opportunities for collaboration.

Both the societies and NATO NG6 agreed that the societies would be better served to coordinate their efforts, and by 2000 the Terms of Reference was signed forming the Naval Ship Classification Association (NSCA), an organization dedicated to addressing naval design issues specific to class societies. As a sort of naval-oriented counterpart to the International Association of Classification Societies, NSCA’s goal was to cooperate in areas related to the safe operation of naval ships.

Today, the NSCA is composed of seven classification societies: ABS, BV, DNV-GL, LR, and RINA, along with Polski Rejestr Statków and Türk Loydu. www.sname.org/sname/mt

One of the first tasks for NSCA was to investigate recent accidents on navy ships, comparing them to similar experiences on commercial ships. The NSCA determined that one of the principal reasons for these accidents was that the navy ships were not subject to the requirements of SOLAS as are commercial ships, as chapter one, regulation three to IMO SOLAS specifically exempts “ships of war and troopships.”

Indeed, the requirements of SOLAS were never envisioned to incorporate typical naval operations. Consider, for example, the SOLAS requirement to locate the ship’s emergency source of electrical power (as well as associated transforming equipment, transitional source of emergency power, and emergency switchboards) above the uppermost continuous deck and to make them readily accessible from the open deck

(IMO SOLAS chapter II-I, regulation 43).

Considering the exposure of a navy ship’s main deck to anything from small arms fire and rocket propelled grenades to artillery shells and missiles, it would indeed be a poor choice of location for emergency power on ships designed to go into harm’s way.

In a more general sense, it was recognized that many of the requirements contained in IMO SOLAS were incompatible

W&O INTRODUCES

by GF Piping Systems YOUR SOURCE FOR THE ONLY USCG APPROVED MARINE THERMOPLASTIC PIPING SYSTEM W&O is the proud North American distributor for the groundbreaking SeaCor™ piping systems from Georg Fischer – the first and only commercially available United States Coast Guard-Approved (USCG) marine thermoplastic piping system in the world. SeaCor is also the only thermoplastic piping system that meets the requirements of Transport of Canada. Light in weight and long-lasting, the corrosion-resistant SeaCor piping system is a unique, cost-saving solution to optimize vessel performance.

Transport Canada

No. 164.141/36/0

Pipe

www.sname.org/sname/mt

|

Valves

|

Fittings

800.962.9696 • wosupply.com |

Actuation

|

Engineered Solutions

April 2015 marine technology

(21)

(mt notes)

The Global Commercial Model continued

Figure 1: Goal-Based Approach to Developing the Naval Ship Code

0 Aim

Overall objective of the Naval Ship Code

1 Goal

Goal for each chapter

2 Functional Objectives 3 Performance Requirements 4 Solutions

5 Justification

Functional Objectives defined to create the regulatory structure The requirements for each functional objective Methods for verifying compliance with each requirement Statements to justify text

Source: NSC Introduction

with navy ships for reasons such as the fact that commercial ships typically have much smaller crews for comparably sized ships; crew training regimens for firefighting and damage control are very different, as military ships are intended to go into battle and continue operating while sustaining damage; some commercial ships (particularly cruise ships) must account for passengers very different from the typical navy sailor, such as senior citizens, children, and infants; and the list goes on. For these and other reasons, IMO added the exception clause noted previously.

The Naval Ship Code As there was no unified standard for naval ship safety (and no equivalent to the IMO (22) marine technology April 2015

in the naval world), NSCA decided to begin working on a naval document for addressing safety issues—in essence, to develop a naval interpretation of SOLAS— to be named the Naval Ship Code (NSC).

To better support this effort, as well as to create an open forum between the NSCA and interested navies, the International Naval Safet y Association (INSA) was established in 2008. In addition to the classification societies composing the NSC A, pa r t icipa nts of INSA include the following navies: Royal Australian, Ca nad ia n, Da n ish, French, Ita l ia n, Netherlands, Norwegian, Polish, South African, Swedish, and United Kingdom.

Today, the principal function of INSA is to continue to develop and maintain the

NSC, as well as to track its application to designs around the world.

The first edition of the NSC was published around the formation of INSA. Currently released as edition F (released in 2014), NSC is now published by NATO as A NEP (A llied Nava l Eng ineering Publication) 77, and approved by the nations in the NATO Naval Armaments Group. As opposed to prescriptive requirements, or a performance-based standard, the NSC is a goal-based standard. Rather than relying on existing rules, a goal-based standard considers what the ultimate safety intent of the designer might be, and considers a range of alternative design approaches that will reach this desired goal. The goals should represent the top www.sname.org/sname/mt

tiers of the framework, against which a ship is verified both at design and construction stages, and during ship operation. For the development of the NSC, a hierarchy of tiers has been adopted (see figure 1). Tiers one to three are addressed in part one of the NSC (general provisions); tier four is addressed in part two (solutions); and finally, tier five is addressed in part three (justification and guidance). The increasing width of the triangle as the NSC descends through the tiers implies an increasing level of detail.

By using this approach, the NSC can become prescriptive (if proceeding to the lowest tiers), or applied at a high level with reference to other standards and their assurance processes. This enables innovation by introducing alternative arrangements to be justified as complying with the higher level requirements. It is important to point out that the NSC need not be invoked in full; it is not mandatory, and any nation is free to implement all, or part, of the code as part of their national regulation for naval ships.

As the NSC has only been in existence for a few years, it is too early to determine how effective it has been in adequately addressing safety on new naval ships. However, the standard has gained enthusiastic support from the naval participants of INSA, and several have employed parts of the standard in the design and construction of their newer designs. Because of this interest, later editions have expanded into topics concerning navigation, communications, and dangerous goods. In addition, a naval submarine code is currently under development. MT

Learn More

For more information on the topics covered here, check out the following resources: Ashe, G. M., and Delpizzo, R. D., “Current Trends in Naval Ship Design,� ASNE Day 2013 Proceedings (February 2013; American Society of Naval Engineers) International Naval Safety Association (INSA) at www.navalshipcode.org International Maritime Organization (IMO) at www.imo.org

Richard Delpizzo has worked in both the naval and commercial maritime industries for 30 years, and is the manager for government operations and global gas solutions at American Bureau of Shipping. www.sname.org/sname/mt

April 2015 marine technology

(23)

(mt notes)

Figure 1: AUV Geometry Definition

AUV Design, Global Style Effective collaboration across the miles

BY DONALD MACPHERSON AND DR. STEFAN HARRIES

O

ur companies, Friendship Systems of Potsdam, Germany and HydroComp, Inc. of Durham, NH, have completed an international collaborative projec t for a n opt i m i z ed autonomou s underwater vehicle (AUV) hull design. This was done by using the principal software tools of both companies as a coupled solution. Geometric modeling and optimization was performed by the Friendship Systems CAESES tool with hydrodynamic analysis conducted in HydroComp NavCad. This study employed the new scripting module in NavCad (premium edition) and its ability to be run as a coupled solver.

The genesis of the study was a comprehensive university internship project for optimizing AUV hull form designs using an open-source computational fluid dynamics (CFD) module. It was found that the functional design space (that is, the scope of variants to be considered) was restricted by the computational time necessary to evaluate each variant. To narrow the scope of the design space before CFD analysis and also to establish quantitative benchmarks, NavCad was used for the automated prediction of resistance and propulsion for each of the CAESES design variants.

Initial discussions for the optimized AUV validation project began face-to-face at the COMPIT conference in England in spring 2014. The technical effort was coordinated by the authors. Upon leaving the conference,

(24) marine technology April 2015

all further communication and discussion was electronic—by e-mail, telephone, or by online services.

Team meetings between groups in Germany, the United States, and Greece required person-to-person discussion, file and screen sharing, and recording.

The popular collaboration services GoToMeeting and AnyMeeting were employed for these purposes. The parties involved in these online meetings were two teams of product developers (including staff acting as client proxies) and a Ph.D. student involved in a broader AUV optimization research project as the project client.

Direct communication between individuals relied on e-mail, telephone, and Skype.

AUV performance prediction Submarine and SWATH performance prediction recently was added as a supplemental tool in NavCad. The definition of this type of body-of-revolution submersible geometry uses three longitudinal regions—a forward ellipsoid-like nose, cylindrical mid-body, and an aft ogive-like tail (see figure 1). (The strut geometry is needed for SWATH analysis and is ignored for single body submersibles.)

Resistance and hull-propulsor interaction prediction uses a standard ITTC-1978 method with residuary resistance determined by one of two methods in NavCad: the first, a simple parametric prediction model and www.sname.org/sname/mt

the second, HydroComp’s recent reanalysis of the series 58 tests (including the extended parallel mid-body series). In addition to hull resistance and hull-propulsor interaction, NavCad’s existing function library was called on for added appendage resistance as well as propeller sizing and propulsion analysis.

CAESES is a computer aided engineering system for design studies and formal optimization. It calls third-party simulation (analysis) codes that can be run in batch mode, using their outputs to drive the design evolution. The software comprises variable geometry, pre-processing, software connectors, post-processing (for variant comparison) as well as optimization and design assessment. Several approaches are made available within CAESES for upfront CAD, such as defining and varying geometry as needed in engineering projects. In general, the user can set up parametric models either from scratch (a fully-parametric approach) as was performed here for the AUV project, or import existing geometry and only describe changes parametrically (a partially-parametric approach like morphing and free-form deformation).

Fully parametric models are powerful, as they enable both fine tuning at a late stage of the development process and investigation of larger changes at an early stage. Finding the best principle dimensions is ideally done on the basis of a fully-parametric model.

For the AUV, which arguably is a simple shape, parameters as shown in figure 1 are hierarchically combined to define the entire geometry. Several discrete hull form parameters (for example, the length, displacement, wetted surface, and so forth) describe the model, all of which are derived from forward (nose) and aft (tail) shape equations. The variables that drive the shape equations are body diameter, forward length, and aft length. All other hull form parameters are chosen to be dependent on these three variables.

Coupling to NavCad Two new features were introduced in the premium edition of NavCad in 2014 that enable the program to be run as a calculation engine or solver. The first is data and process scripting (macro, batch) and the second is running in quiet mode without the normal interface (server mode). The host program (CAESES for this example) is responsible for starting the NavCad server process; packaging the data and instructions into a script (including output parameters and file locations); feeding scripts to the NavCad server to initiate each variant calculation; polling for a change in the identified output file; and then using the output as the optimizing objective (minimum resistance or minimum shaft power).

PropElements propeller design code in 2015 is inspired by popular scripting languages such as VBScript. It is simple, logical, and object oriented. Launching NavCad in quiet-server mode runs it as a background application. (The process architecture developed for NavCad’s application as a server enables it to be shelled from www.sname.org/sname/mt

any platform that can read and write to a Windows computer, such as from a Linux computer on a common network.) The process is simple, computationally efficient, and mitigates typical crossplatform hurdles.

Design optimization The AUV design was investigated using different optimizing strategies in CAESES. As the NavCad calculation is very efficient (each calculation typically requires less than five seconds on an office-grade Windows computer), both an exhaustive search and a design of experiments (DoE) approach are feasible analysis options. The exhaustive search is analysis of a systematic series that interrogates the entire design space. Defined parameters are systematically varied in a multi-dimensional matrix, then evaluated and logged. Because the design space could reach thousands of potential design variants, an exhaustive search is generally only suitable when using highly efficient solvers. In cases where computation time is expensive, a DoE approach may be more appropriate.

For the DoE, a Sobol sequence as provided within CAESES was used. The Sobol is a popular approach to explore the design space. It is a quasi-random search, which means it produces a pattern in design space that looks random even though it actually is deterministic. The Sobol sequence fills up the design space such that the next variant is always placed in the region that is least populated so far. The idea is to gather as much information about the design task with as little effort as possible. Unlike an exhaustive search, the Sobol sequence does not proportionally increase the total number of evaluated variants with the number of free variables.

An optimization task typically has four parts: variables (what is to be modified); the objective function (the performance results predicted by the software); the goal (such as least resistance and/ or power); and its functional domain (including constraints). An

Online collaboration during design studies.

April 2015 marine technology

(25)

(mt notes)

AUV Design, Global Style continued

Figure 2: Successful candidate, with 2.17 m L, 0.40 m D, 22.0 N resistance, 45.6 kW power.

Figure 3: Successful candidate, with 2.32 m L, 0.36 m D, 24.6 N resistance, 51.4 kW power.

Figure 4: Unsuccessful candidate, with 3.70 m L, 0.28 m D, 47.4 N resistance, 108.3 kW power.

Figure 5: Unsuccessful candidate, with 3.79 m L, 0.28 m D, 61.7 N resistance, 148.5 kW power.

online design meeting between all of the principal stakeholders established the simplified set of design objectives and constraints for this AUV study: • Variables: body diameter, length/diameter of bow and aft bodies • Function: NavCad’s performance prediction algorithms • Goal: minimum resistance and/or power • D omain: fixed 180 kg displacement, 4 knots design speed, allowable ranges for the variables (for example, body diameter from 0.28 m to 0.40 m).

This rather simple set of three variables and few domain constraints was intentionally selected for this study. Commercial studies may require additional constraints, of course, such as for payload geometries (like a minimum mid-body length). Greater complexity would be accommodated by the coupled CAESESNavCad solution.

A na ly ses w it h such modest computat ion a nd t i me requirements can enable real-time observation of calculations in the U.S. by the development teams in Germany and the U.S., as well as the project client in Greece. The screen sharing features of the various online meeting services are engaged for investigation and review of the design alternatives by the entire team in a single session. Immediate review of the computational results promoted a reduced design and analysis cycle, as it enabled quick tactical revision to the strategic analysis plans.

Analysis, assessment, and candidate selection As the NavCad prediction is computationally very efficient, there were no limitations to the amount of variations to investigate.

A CAESES exhaustive search analysis was easily handled and ultimately provided results for the entire design space. This used the three variables (diameter, forward length, and aft length) and ran a systematic series of four values across the span of each variable range—for a total of 64 variants. Using a modest business-grade computer (3.3 GHz Intel-i5, 8 GB RAM, and 64-bit Windows 7), the computational time was 5 minutes 41 seconds for the entire search and analysis, or a cost of 5.3 seconds per variant. If rendering and saving of an image file for each variant is included, the time goes up to 12 minutes 27 seconds, or 11.7 seconds per variant.

(26) marine technology April 2015

Candidate selection The completed calculation session provided the following example variants. (Images are in correct relative scale.)

Figure 2 and figure 3 are two of the best geometries.

Figure 4 and figure 5 are two examples of the least successful forms.

For the given design objective and constraints, the best shapes are short and full. This makes sense as the resistance at the design speed is predominantly viscous. Therefore, minimizing wetted surface becomes an influential consideration.

At a different design speed or with different design constraints, the outcome may be ver y different. This example uses a simple AU V desig n opt im izat ion st udy to demonst rate not only the coupling principles between the CAESES and NavCad software tools, but also that real-time computational collaboration between distant partners is viable and effective. MT Donald MacPherson is technical director of HydroComp, Inc., with more than 30 years experience in applied hydrodynamic modeling of ship performance. Dr. Stefan Harries is co-founder and CEO of Friendship Systems. www.sname.org/sname/mt

(mt notes)

Export Compliance Developing a plan to support government project international collaboration

BY HARRY NELSON

I

nformation and resources are widely available on the Internet regarding compliance with export control regulations, in particular the U.S. Department of State (DoS) International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR) for defense articles, and the U.S. Department of Commerce Export Administration Regulations (EAR) for dual use and commercial items. Information is also available regarding other relevant export (and import) regulations such as the regulations issued by the Office of Foreign Assets Control, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, the Automated Export System, and others.

By way of reference, the export-related articles presented in the April 2010 and October 2010 issues of (mt), in the “Running Your Business” section, provide an

The plan provides the tool by which compliance support activity progress can be tracked and measured. excellent overview of the EAR and ITAR rules, including the impact of non-compliance. Although written in 2010, the information contained therein is still relevant.

There have been recent changes to the EAR and ITAR rules resulting from the Export Control Reform initiative, which began in 2010. Effective January 6, 2014, these changes have included the migration of military www.sname.org/sname/mt

vehicles, vessels of war, submersible vessels, oceanographic equipment, and auxiliary and miscellaneous items to the jurisdiction of the EAR by creation of a new 600 series of EAR Export Control Classification Numbers.

Assuming that an export compliance function is already in place, our focus will be less on application of the export control rules themselves, and more on the critical supporting activity that will enhance export compliance group success. This is particularly true if a group’s efforts are aimed at supporting a U.S. government-funded project when the project will be accomplished as an international collaborative effort.

The right team When an organization considers pursuing a government project, one of its first steps is to assemble a project team.

But frequently, an organization does not include a member of the export compliance group early enough in the process. This can result in compliance roadblocks later on in the project when they are time-critical and expensive, if not disastrous.

Export compliance group personnel understand practical application of the export (and import) rules. They may also understand the contractor’s business model and operational processes. However, they cannot know project specific compliance requirements, as they are interpreted by the project team, until they are collaborating with them.

The export member of the project team should work with the other team members, as well as with the export compliance group, and begin developing a project-specific April 2015 marine technology

(27)

(mt notes)

Export Compliance continued

An example of an export compliance plan and schedule.

export compliance plan and schedule. Plan development should begin at the earliest phase of the project and should include all project stakeholders (for example, contracts, engineering, and procurement). Participants from these areas should be in senior positions so the plan can be reviewed, approved, and implemented; and they should

Plan development should begin at the earliest phase of the project and should include all project stakeholders (for example, contracts, engineering, and procurement). include department process modifications, if necessary, to support the plan. The plan and schedule should undergo regular stakeholder reviews during its development, in conjunction with other early project reviews.

The primary goal of the compliance plan is to prevent the intersection of export control rules and project requirements from becoming a delaying or prohibiting factor in the project schedule. The plan provides the tool by which compliance support activity progress can be tracked and measured. Activities in the plan should begin well before the contract award date, and continue throughout contract performance.

(28) marine technology April 2015

As an example, compliance plan activity dates, such as those for defining technical data, conducting supplier screenings, and obtaining technical assistance agreements (TAAs), should be synchronized with early project key dates such as those for issuing technical data packages, identifying potential suppliers and issuing requests for quotes. The compliance plan should be a living document that remains in synch with other project plans and schedules.

If the project envisions foreign supplier engineering and design services, project stakeholders need to identify the technical data and defense services exports are required. Once identified, the export compliance group must prepare export authorization requests, such as manufacturing license agreements (MLAs), TAAs or DSP-5 technical data licenses, and submit them.

If a significant or sensitive area of controlled data and services needs to be exported, before submitting the authorization request to DoS, the contractor should consider soliciting pre-approval of the data owner—in most cases, a military office within the government.

This is critical because part of the DoS export authorization staffing process is to forward the request to the data owner for a preliminary approval or disapproval. If the data owner’s first knowledge of a private sector technical data export request is via a DoS MLA or TAA staffing action, a less than positive outcome can be predicted.

Key date When an export authorization approval cannot be reasonably expected, a compliance plan key date for www.sname.org/sname/mt

that authorization should be for obtaining data owner approval. That date should be before that of the export authorization request submittal, and well before the project technical data issue date. Obtaining data owner approval in support of an export authorization will, in itself, require an entirely separate and timesensitive strategy.

The completed compliance plan should be as operationally transparent as possible; namely, it should be designed to integrate with existing operational processes with little change to those processes. Significant process changes found to be required in support of the plan will necessitate training and may also require project funding.

Another activity that requires planning is foreign supplier identification and initial contact. If not properly coordinated, the supplier identification and contact process can quickly get out of hand and overwhelm the export group. For example, consider a scenario where a dozen engineers each want to communicate with four or five different foreign suppliers, several of whom have not yet been contacted; nor does the engineer or buyer have the correct supplier contact information. The export group receives the supplier lists from the engineers and buyers—in different formats, at different times, having varying amounts of contact information—which may or may not have been verified. The export practitioner may only know, in general terms, the nature of the supplier’s end product—for

Invest in Yourself

Increase Your Knowledge Base United States Merchant Marine Academy

Master of Science Degree in Marine Engineering

Ballast Tank Level • Draft Monitoring Tank Level/Draft Monitor • Intuitive operator interface • Ethernet communications • Rugged display panel (IP66)

Level Transmitters • Hybrid bubbler technology • Ballast, fuel oil, potable

Online Based, Distance-Learning Engineering Education

• ABS Type Approval

A blend of application and theory at the graduate level focused on advanced concepts in marine engineering. This 36-credit program is designed for working professionals and can be completed without the need to take a leave of absence from a job or relocate. It consists of seven required courses and five electives. A suitable thesis or design project may be substituted for one or two electives.

For additional information visit our website: usmma.edu/after-graduation/graduate-program

ATC King Engineering 304 -387-1200 Fax 304 -387- 4 417 marine@king- gage.com

ATC King Engineering

marine@king-gage.com

www.king-gage.com ® KING-GAGE is registered trademark of ATC King Engineering

www.sname.org/sname/mt

April 2015 marine technology

(29)

(mt notes)

Export Compliance continued

If not properly coordinated, the supplier identification and contact process can quickly get out of hand and overwhelm the export group.

example, that the supplier manufactures a product line of medium-speed diesel engines.

The supplier identification and contact process should have a gatekeeper, usually a project engineer, who verifies that a named supplier is indeed a supplier that the engineering and project managers want to solicit, and who verifies contact information, (company names, addresses, and contact persons). The gatekeeper also assigns a licensing priority to each supplier, relative to the other suppliers. For example, it is likely that a main engine supplier needs to be contacted earlier and have more permissions in place, relative to the lifeboat supplier.

Some of the company’s foreign suppliers may already be working with the contractor on an existing or recent government project, for which an export authorization such as a MLA, TAA, or DSP-5 is already in place. If so, export compliance personnel can analyze whether communication of the new project information falls within the scope of those export authorizations. If not, an authorization amendment will be required.

It is also possible that a new foreign supplier may be added to an existing authorization as part of an export authorization amendment (rather than a new) request. There will, however, be some instances when an amendment approval is not likely and a new export authorization is required.

Beware the pitfalls Another potential pitfall in determining whether an export authorization is required in the first place is when there is no exchange of controlled technical data or defense services and an export authorization is not required. The lifeboat supplier mentioned previously is a good example: A reasonable engineer (30) marine technology April 2015

could conclude that, insofar as the lifeboat is a purely commercial item, and the contractor simply wants to procure four of them from the supplier, there is no exchange of controlled technical data or defense services and an export authorization is not required.

But beware, this scenario has become an unexpected hurdle for many contractors. What happens when it becomes apparent during the production phase that a modification is needed, either to the lifeboat or to the ship under construction? How will that be resolved without a technical discussion?

When the export group contacts a potential foreign supplier, they will request certain information necessary to prepare an export authorization request. For example, the supplier will be requested to provide the nationalities, including dual and third-party nationalities represented by the company’s employees who will have access to the controlled technical data, defense services, or hardware in conjunction with a possible purchase order (PO).

In addition, the foreign supplier will be required to provide the same information for its second tier subcontractors that the supplier will use to perform the PO, when those subcontractors require the same technical data access. Foreign supplier provision of nationality information may be a bit tricky, particularly in Europe, where laws protect that kind of personal information. There are methods that the export group can use to navigate through these issues, but it will require more time in the export authorization process. Also, the foreign supplier will be required to obtain non-disclosure agreements (NDAs) from their subcontractors. NDAs have specific language authored by the DoS, and contain requirements that the supplier may not understand, or that may be perceived as ominous. Again, more time goes by. www.sname.org/sname/mt

The contractor should develop a foreign supplier export information letter that explains, in easy to understand language, the meaning and purpose of the requested information as it relates to U.S. export controls, and include the letter in the earliest informational packages provided by the contractor. Northern and western European country suppliers are generally already familiar with these requirements and have responded to them before. This is less true for eastern European suppliers and even less true for Asian suppliers (with some exceptions).

Project managers and the engineering and procurement teams should also understand that defense services associated with a defense article are also

www.sname.org/sname/mt

controlled by the ITAR and require an export authorization. The pitfall here is that the contractor can be judged as having performed a defense service, even though no export of controlled technical data has occurred. For example, discussing information in the public domain (which is not controlled by the ITAR) with a foreign person might constitute a defense service to that person, if the discussion is in furtherance of a defense article-related project.

Having said this, conversations regarding non-technical issues (contract, schedule, and availability) are generally not considered to be a defense service and do not require an export authorization. However, it is very

April 2015 marine technology

(31)

(mt notes)

Export Compliance continued

Foreign supplier provision of nationality information may be a bit tricky, particularly in Europe, where laws protect that kind of personal information.

easy for an engineer to inadvertently cross the defense service line during an informal discussion.

U.S.-based foreign suppliers Many foreign suppliers maintain a U.S.-based office or organization because they conduct significant business in the U.S. They have registered with the DoS, are incorporated to do business in the U.S., and therefore are legal U.S. entities. They are not a foreign person under the ITAR. It may therefore seem that an export authorization is not required. However, their engineering staffs, with whom the contractor’s engineering team must communicate, may still be offshore.

Private sector international collaboration in support of a government-funded project involving a defense article will almost always require involvement of an export compliance function. As we saw in the previous examples, the presence of a capable export compliance group is not necessarily enough to ensure a successful project. The examples provided here are only a few among many.

We have only begun exploring the issues surrounding export compliance here. There are a number of other related issues, including technical data transmission; manipulation; receipt and storage systems; engineerto-engineer telephone conversations; and the supplier screening process. Other areas include supplier training; top–down organizational support; development of contract terms and conditions; shipping and receiving; recordkeeping; additional export control reform issues; foreign country export control regimes; and (32) marine technology April 2015

other critical topics that have the potential to derail an otherwise stable project.

Just as no two fingerprints are exactly the same, neither are export compliance support requirements for a given project. However, the overall process to identify the support requirements is the same, and it includes early involvement of the export team, development of an export compliance plan, and the support of the entire enterprise. MT Harry Nelson is a retired Unites States Navy commander with 30 years shipbuilding experience, including management of export compliance on numerous international projects.

Export Compliance Tips DO: • Do control the foreign supplier identification and contact process • Do get data owner pre-approvals • Do help your supplier to understand their ITAR requirements • Do control casual conversations to avoid an unauthorized “defense service” DON’T: • Don’t wait to involve the export team • Don’t start a project without a compliance plan • Don’t let “commercial” data become a problem

www.sname.org/sname/mt

The FME manufacturing plant floor in Beloit, Wisconsin.

(mt notes)

Power Plant Partnerships How Fairbanks Morse Engine collaborates with international licensors

BY PAUL RODEN

www.sname.org/sname/mt

F

or more than 47 years, our company, Fairbanks Morse Engine (FME), has licensed engine technology from European engine companies. These arrangements have supplemented our own diesel engine technology and supported our manufacture and sale of engines and parts to the United States Navy and other customers.

FME has a long history of building internal combustion engines in Beloit, Wisconsin. Once a supplier of locomotive diesel engines and various other products, we are now a primary supplier of propulsion and electric power diesel engines for the United States Navy and the United States Coast Guard. We build the largest medium-speed diesel engines in North or South America for power generation, nuclear power plant emergency backup, oil and gas operations, and U.S. government shipbuilding programs.

Since the late 1960s, we have been a licensee of SEMT (Societe d’Etudes de Machines Thermiques) Pielstick, a French diesel engine manufacturer. These engines, built in the U.S., became known as “ ColtPielstick” engines, which proved to be successful in maritime operations.

In addition, during the early 1990s, we collaborated with German engine manufacture MAN Diesel and Turbo on the development of dual-fuel capabilities in their medium-speed diesel engines. Based on this collaboration, MAN and FME entered into a license agreement in 1995 for medium-speed diesel engines for the military market. Under this license agreement, we manufactured and sold engines and parts for the navy’s dry-cargo ship known as T-AKE (MAN 48/60 medium speed diesel engines) and later the Mobile Landing Platform known as MLP (also MAN 48/60s).

In 2006, MAN Diesel and Turbo acquired SEMTPielstick as a division. Our license agreements, and strong personal relationships, still exist with each part of the MAN organization.

Conditions and restrictions A license agreement for engine manufacturing is simply a contract between the owner of intellectual property (in this case an engine design) and a manufacturer wishing to build that engine under certain conditions and restrictions. Some of these conditions and restrictions for an engine license agreement include the term length, April 2015 marine technology

(33)

(mt notes)

Power Plant Partnerships continued

An FME technician inspects components.

specified engine models, geographic region/market and agreed upon royalty payments. In the case of our license agreements with MAN, the license has specifically been applied to sales within the United States for U.S. government programs. An earlier agreement with SEMT-Pielstick additionally allowed for the sale of large mediumspeed diesels into the U.S. power generation market.

A primary benefit of the license agreements with SEMT-Pielstick and MAN is the expansion of the FME product portfolio into larger powered engines. Our in-house products range roughly from 1 to 3.5 MW, whereas the Pielstick-licensed products exceed 22 MW. An additional benefit of our license agreements is the access they provide to overseas engine design talent. Each company has benefited from mutual learning and collaboration, which also has resulted in benefits to the U.S. government. This collaboration has been reinforced through personal relationships and frequent overseas travel by both parties. To be successful, the licensing arrangement must include a strong collaborative spirit and mutual trust.

(34) marine technology April 2015

In recent years, we have integrated several licensed mediumspeed diesel engines into the manufacturing process at our Beloit plant. The process begins by establishing a chartered project manager responsible for forming the integration team and completing necessary milestones. The integration team is made up of a core team, including representatives from purchasing, sales, engineering, design/drafting, and manufacturing engineering.

Additionally, there is an FME support team with representatives from logistics, facilities, finance, quality, service, and training. The project manager directs the tasking associated with learning the engine, sourcing all components, and bringing it into production.

All of this involves significant collaboration with the corresponding divisions/departments at the licensor.

The tasks that go into integrating the product are extensive, but at a minimum, they require that everyone begin with an in-depth knowledge of the program-specific requirements, including any that may be in place from the classification societies. This is the first step in ensuring that all requirements are met. We then go through the process of obtaining the bill of materials and drawings from the licensor. These are then reviewed to gain a thorough understanding of the engine specifics, costs and component sourcing.

Next, there must be a full understanding of the licensor’s manufacturing and assembling procedures. This is gained through a review of the established work instructions, standards, project manuals, and operating manuals.

If classification society certification is required, we work with that society (in our case, the American Bureau of Shipping) to understand the requirements and develop the necessary test plans to ensure certification. In the case of recent government programs, we have qualified the licensed engines to Steel Vessel Rules and Naval Vessel Rules, as applicable. In addition, we performed the necessary shock, vibration, and electro-magnetic interference testing to meet navy requirements.

Determining sourcing As production planning continues, there are additional tasks for the integration team. This includes determining the actual sourcing of the components. Like other manufactures, we have detailed “ makeversus-buy� criteria to assist in deciding whether it makes sense to manufacture the components or obtain them from other sources. The license agreements often require that some components (for example, turbochargers) be obtained from the licensor. As material sourcing is determined, it is then entered into our procurement system.

In determining the sourcing of materials and components, there is close cooperation between the engine manufacturer and licensor.

This collaboration becomes critical in the selection and qualification of U.S.-based suppliers of engine and system components that serve to maximize U.S. content while ensuring that the technical standards of the licensor are met.

The production phase involves extensive onsite training from the licensor and includes the development of quality plans, quality www.sname.org/sname/mt

control inspections, gauging requirements, and visits from the classification society. Issues specific to the start of manufacturing in Beloit include the determination of proper machine tooling, shop tools, jigs, fixtures, assembly stands, and lifting devices to ensure the most efficient assembly process. There is simultaneous preparation for engine testing, which includes a review of our emissions permits and any necessary test stand conversions.

Throughout the manufacturing process, there must be extensive collaboration between the manufacturer and licensor to ensure all products are delivered to meet the quality and performance standards of the engine.

During the in-service phase, collaboration continues to be critical as the original equipment manufacturer (OEM) works to support the product in meeting the customer’s expectations. This often involves defining the preventive maintenance actions that are necessary to ensure that reliability goals are achieved. Corrective maintenance is an additional area in which technical collaboration is required, to ensure the resolution of any problems or failures that may result during operations. As the OEM works with the customer, they may collectively come up with improvements. As the licensee has no rights to modify the engine design, they work closely with the licensor to include any design improvements and upgrades that would improve performance.

An additional benefit of the licensee/licensor agreement is that the licensee gains access to the global license community for not only technical expertise, but also for the acquisition of certified parts or service. This can be beneficial to the customer in times of parts shortages or repair emergencies. The worldwide license network facilitates parts and service needs by naval ships that may be located anywhere around the globe. The licensor/licensee community can additionally leverage the value of combining component purchases into larger volume lots from suppliers, thereby achieving lower prices and greater availability and inventories.

Collaboration between licensee and licensor is not limited to just the manufacturing and in-service phases. We have had additional success with MAN in collaborating during the design phase. Examples of this include the development of the sequential turbocharging (STC) design and the expansion of dual-fuel capabilities into MAN products.

In the mid-1990s, we worked with SEMT-Pielstick on the development and application of STC on the PC2.5 engine for the LPD-17 ship propulsion platform. STC allows for one turbocharger to provide pressurized intake air during low-load operations, with the second turbocharger coming online at higher power levels. This now common design allows for more efficient operation at lower engine load. The design process included engine design modifications with SEMT-Pielstick, as well as turbocharger development with MAN, to arrive at an expanded operating envelope that would meet the navy’s required ship operating profile. We performed much of the design work through licensor collaboration, as well as joint prototype performance testing to verify the low speed/high torque profile at greatly improved fuel consumption rates. www.sname.org/sname/mt

Based on our knowledge and success with “gasifying” opposed piston engines, we worked collaboratively with SEMT-Pielstick/ MAN on joint dual-fuel engine development from the 1970s through the 1990s. This resulted in new dual-fuel capabilities for the PC2.2, PC2.3, PC2.5, and PC2.6 Pielstick engines—first in the 5% pilot fuel configuration, then in the FME 1% EnviroDesign configuration. We did further joint product development of the MAN 32/40 EnviroDesign dual-fuel engine in the 1990s.

Challenges to collaboration In pursuing a business strategy there is rarely only upside, which can be particularly true when it is a joint business strategy with another company. The fact that a licensee and licensor remain separate companies, with their own strategies for going to market, can challenge the collaboration process. This is not insurmountable, however, and is best mitigated by respecting the licensing contract and maintaining focus on those areas in which each company can mutually benefit through cooperation and collaboration.

As indicated previously, license agreements are typically written to be restricted to particular markets or geographic areas. In the case of our license with MAN, the agreement is designed to provide access to specific markets and geographies where we believe both companies are stronger than one. The result of this is a competitive advantage for defense shipbuilding in the U.S. Our companies also have developed strategic relationships to pursue markets outside of the defense shipbuilding market. During summer 2014, we decided to partner in the U.S. power generation market, where we believe the combination of our customer centricity, application engineering expertise, and service footprint partnered with MAN’s state of the art gas engine product portfolio offers customers a greater value than the competition.

These international license agreements have been of great value to each of the companies involved, and to our customers. Successful execution of such arrangements depends on effective collaboration at all levels of each of the companies. MT Paul Roden is vice president for Washington operations at Fairbanks Morse Engine.

The author would like to thank the following individuals for their contributions to this article: Patrick Bussie, FME director of business development; Frank Aboujaoude, FME engineering manager; and George Ferriter, FME sales manager.

Deeper Dive

To learn more about the history of Fairbanks Morse Engine, and the development of the power plants that led to today’s engines, check out “FME Through the Years” at www.sname.org/mt/webexclusive.

April 2015 marine technology

(35)

Practical Aker Philadelphia Shipyard, Inc. looks to foreign partners to improve efficiency and quality

By Michael LaGrassa

I

t is indisputable that shipbuilding is truly a global industry.

The majority of commercial shipyards, both domestically and internationally, consist of workforces with employees from a diverse range of countries and backgrounds. This is true for production workers, management, owner’s representatives, class surveyors, and equipment manufacturers. For our company, Aker Philadelphia Shipyard, Inc. (APSI), is a U.S. commercial shipyard constructing vessels for operation in the U.S. Jones Act market, this collaboration can be seen on multiple levels, including the yard’s layout created in the image of state-of-the-art European shipyards; build processes based on established Asian and German methods; and ships built based on proven Korean designs. Advances in technology over the last 20 years have nearly eliminated hurdles related to the exchange of information, making daily collaboration between international partners practical.

We recently completed the delivery of two 115,000 dwt crude oil carriers for SeaRiver Maritime, Inc. (SRM), ExxonMobil Corporation’s U.S. marine affiliate. The construction of four 50,000 dwt product tankers for Crowley Maritime is currently underway in all stages of fabrication, with steel recently being cut for the (36) marine technology April 2015

fourth vessel and dock trials set to begin in the spring for the first vessel. In addition, we recently secured construction contracts for two additional 50,000 dwt tankers with Philly Tankers to begin construction in 2015, before the start of two 3,600 TEU container vessels for Matson Navigation Company, Inc. Each of these vessels incorporate established designs from our South Korean design partners, including Samsung Heavy Industries (SHI), Hyundai Mipo Dockyard (HMD), and Korea Maritime Consultants Co. Ltd. (KOMAC). Continuing strong relationships and close interaction between all parties is essential to the successful completion of each design phase.

Our use of international design partners began in 1998 when the shipyard was established using technology and designs from German shipyards. German containership designs were used for the construction of the first four vessels, which were delivered between 2003 and 2006. Our approach evolved over the years, taking a significant step forward in 2005 when we partnered with HMD for the construction of fourteen 46,000 dwt product tankers.

It broadened further in 2011 with the involvement of SHI for the SRM tankers. Most recently, KOMAC has been providing design www.sname.org/sname/mt

Eagle Bay, one of two 115,000 dwt crude oil carriers that APSI built for SeaRiver Maritime, Inc., undergoes sea trials in preparation for a 2015 delivery.

www.sname.org/sname/mt

April 2015 marine technology

(37)

The author (left) tours a Korean shipyard, one of APSI’s partners in material acquisition.

support for the next series of containerships to be built at APSI. In these relationships and others, we’ve built a solid international community for the company’s shipbuilding efforts.

Design process It has been our standard to construct vessels using proven vessel designs. This provides a benefit to both the yard and the buyer by significantly reducing the time spent for the basic design stage and the overall performance risk for the vessel. In the case of recent vessels, we have been able to tour similar vessels under construction in the design partners’ shipyards, providing valuable insight from seeing the final product. This strategy for building ships helps reduce the duration of the project design effort, but does not completely eliminate the time required for detailed design.

The approval and review of drawings is a major collaborative effort between the shipyard and the design partner. We refer to this as the plan approval process. W hen work ing w ith previously constructed ship designs, one might think that all of the drawings are construction ready. However, it is our responsibility to complete a thorough review ensuring any and all changes made in the contract development stage are fully and properly incorporated into the design. As a result, daily correspondence between the shipyard’s engineers and (38) marine technology April 2015

design partner is required throughout plan approval to make sure drawings ref lect items such as correct manufacturers, equipment models, and system specifications.

When purchasing an existing design, it is standard that owners will customize the vessel, introducing their own requirements to match company standards or—as in the case of most of the foreign designs that we build—to incorporate features to meet United States Coast Guard requirements. Oversights in the design stage can lead to production issues if modifications stemming from these changes are not thoroughly reviewed by all parties.

Overlooking something small, for example, differing flange types at equipment connection points, can be fixed relatively easily. The yard’s production workers can cut and weld a new flange in place without losing much time. However, if equipment specified in a change is not properly integrated into the design, the chance for rework and modifications to installed systems can rise, costing the yard both time and money. For this reason, integration of changes to the design must be followed through to completion as early as possible in the design process.

Effective communication Communication is a core component of a successful design effort between the shipyard and its design partners. The first part of www.sname.org/sname/mt

Our use of international design partners began in 1998 when the shipyard was established using technology and designs from German shipyards. effective communication involves knowing the party responsible for individual design disciplines within an organization. This can be the difference between solving issues quickly and allowing them to linger as the right contact is determined.

The standard method of communication between that we use with our design partners is e-mail. Through meticulously tracked comment forms, w ith supplementar y marked-up drawings, we’re able to effectively communicate preferences for design changes to our partners. This communication method is useful for its expediency and tracking, but there are circumstances in which it is imperative to have our representatives on-site at the design partner’s office.

With every series of vessels, we rely on employees based in Korea to provide feedback to the main office and reduce delays in receiving information. Our Korea-based site teams share the responsibility for structural and outfitting design coordination, procurement and logistics oversight, machinery inspections, and more. The ability to sit face-to-face with designers and suppliers is a key factor in resolving design issues quickly and determining productive solutions.

Our site teams in Korea are typically composed of English and Korean speaking employees. Having both languages represented helps to overcome any language barrier that may be faced. It also helps that our design partners typically possess high levels of fluency in English, making business for non-Korean speaking employees possible when abroad.

Throughout the project, the level of communication between the designers and the shipyard determines the quality of the final design.

workflow. While we control this effort internally, it is with the help of essential Korean logistics and shipping partners that the acquisition of material is achieved.

Our procurement department is responsible for the purchase and control of every single item that is needed for the completion of a ship and the daily operation of the shipyard. The procurement team manages and tracks all material from the time an order is placed with a manufacturer, to its arrival at our shipping partner in Korea, to its being received by us, and ultimately delivered to the outfitting shop or dock where it is installed. With the assistance of our partners in Korea, all material is ordered, carefully packaged and shipped based on production staging determined by our planning department.

To manufacture the best possible product in a safe, cost-effective, and efficient manner compels shipyards to continually improve yard standards. For any shipyard to excel beyond its own capabilities, and those of its competitors, it must search for methods that will improve production in both the short and long term.

For these reasons, a yard must fill its team with a diverse workforce, bringing together the best in the industry to successfully execute the requirements of the design. When it is difficult to maintain this level of skill in-house, it becomes necessary to branch out in order to find the required talent or look to foreign partners to share information, techniques, and processes.

The South Korean shipyards, while significantly larger than APSI, have been successful by continuously improving

Planning, logistics, and material control A company must continue to challenge itself in order to raise the bar for the employees, the processes, and the final product that is delivered to the customer. We continuously look for ways to improve on our company’s processes and overall yard efficiency in order to reduce build time and minimize rework. This effort starts in the detailed planning phase and is regularly observed and monitored throughout the life of the build.

Properly allocating the necessary time and setting achievable dates for fabrication play an integral role throughout the entire life of a project. The planning of a vessel governs everything including purchasing of equipment, material logistics, build dates, block installations, and the ship’s launch. In a shipyard with finite storage and production space, the timing and movement of all material must be closely planned in order to maintain proper www.sname.org/sname/mt

Aker Philadelphia Shipyard, Inc. was established in 1998.

April 2015 marine technology

(39)

The level of interaction and communication with our design partners sets the stage for the quality of the design and overall construction of the vessel. engineers to determine ways in which to improve yard efficiency along the panel lines.

At the end of their visit, a final report was produced listing approximately 20 inefficiencies, with suggestions for improvement.

As examples, two of the items indicated involved the designation of selected conveyor lines for girders and rectangular floor sections to increase uniformity for welding machines in order to maximize production; and improving visibility of numerical control markings on cut parts and plates.

In regard to the second example, our standard was to use a dotted line printed on all parts to identify the piece number and its final installation location. The HMD representatives provided two suggestions to improve the visibility of these markings. The first was changing from an etched dotted line to a continuous line and the second was to use a marker to identify parts manually, removing the function from the cutting machine. It was later confirmed that the HMD yard standard is for all parts to be labeled by hand. Sometimes, even with state-of-the-art facilities, a tool as simple as a marker can make a difference in the production and tracking capabilities of a shipyard.

Members of the production team work in the Aker block assembly line.

and reducing build cost and duration with immense planning, organization, and coordination at the shipyard. Consequently, many lessons can be learned by evaluating the techniques and methods employed by our foreign design partners. We evaluate these techniques and methods to determine which investments and improvement initiatives can increase efficiency, quality, safety, and cost competitiveness.

Steel fabrication efficiency At the end of 2013, we enlisted the help of several senior shop managers from HMD’s Steel Fabrication Department. They visited the yard in Philadelphia to observe our methods in the steel prefabrication shops. After touring the facilities and understanding how our production line functions, the HMD representatives collaborated with our production supervisors and structural (40) marine technology April 2015

Quality control and accuracy While design practices may be similar, different shipyards’ standards and methods for construction will vary. Having now worked with HMD, SHI, and the German yards, we’re well versed in adjusting to meet the needs of each build. We incorporate the best practices from each set of build standards, using input from foreign partners to improve efficiency and production accuracy.

Similar to our efforts with the steel production line, we enlisted the services of a senior quality assurance and accuracy supervisor from HMD in summer 2014. The goal of his visit was to provide insight into improvements around the yard. The supervisor shadowed employees in our production department for a week and had the ability to observe our in-house accuracy and measurement procedures. The supervisor’s observations resulted in a list of items that could benefit from small changes to the standard yard procedures. For each issue, a suggested resolution was provided. All of the issues were incorporated into our E330 continuous improvement program.

Our ships are composed of many blocks that are made up of smaller assemblies and subassemblies. At each stage of design, these assemblies are inspected for quality and accuracy to ensure www.sname.org/sname/mt

A steel production line at Aker Philadelphia Shipyard.

that they meet required tolerances before they are moved on to the next stage of assembly. Even with rigorous standards and inspection checkpoints, there is always room for improvement.

Based on feedback from our partners, we identified development areas in APSI’s practices from measurement principles applied at the design stage through to best practices for rectifying deviations during construction.

Another area that was identified suggested better visibility of quality standards for production workers to assist in the fabrication process. The report proposed posting applicable standards on display boards in visible areas to benefit overall awareness. While it is standard that all installation drawings highlight applicable standards within the drawing’s margins, following the visit, laminated steel and outfitting standards were created and distributed to production workers in the shops for additional reference.

The future International partnerships and open lines of communication are beneficial not only in the physical construction of a ship, but also in forecasting trends for future new builds. The U.S. market for www.sname.org/sname/mt

commercial vessels is limited in vessel size, quantity, and variety compared to other nations around the world. However, vessels currently under construction in this country are on par with those of any other location, pushing the limits of fuel efficiency and exploring and incorporating the usage of alternative fuels.

There are benefits to be gained by U.S. shipyards looking to foreign partners in order to improve efficiency and overall production quality. Such improvements can be incorporated in the methods used to construct the vessel, and also in designing for efficiency. The success of a project will be determined by the foundation upon which it is built. For us, the level of interaction and communication with our design partners sets the stage for the quality of the design and overall construction of the vessel. Close attention to detail in the design stage and accepting lessons from experts in the areas of manufacturing, accuracy, welding, and planning enables us to continually improve when it comes to delivering the final product. MT Michael LaGrassa is an outfitting and project engineer for the MT50 Product Tanker Series at Aker Philadelphia Shipyard.

April 2015 marine technology

(41)

HYDRODYNAMICS

ACROSS BOUNDARIES Bringing together expertise and skills for the advancement of the industry

By Frans Quadvlieg and Ingo Drummen

(42) marine technology April 2015

www.sname.org/sname/mt

A segmented backbone model of USCGC Bertholf is readied for testing in the MARIN basin.

www.sname.org/sname/mt

ur organization, Maritime Research Institute Netherlands (MARIN), is a provider of advanced expertise and independent research. Through the use of test facilities and simulators, and working together with our research network, we develop cleaner, safer, and smarter ships and maritime constructions.

We’re based in Wageningen and employ approximately 350 people.

Apart from contract work and basic research, MARIN is known for organizing joint industry projects (JIP) and cooperative research forums. Our purpose here is to explain how these projects are organized and how they work to the benefit of the participants.

Customers often come to us for the optimization of the hydrodynamic properties of ships and offshore structures; reduced resistance; improved propulsion efficiency and performance; improved seakeeping; and maneuvering performance. These activities, including full-scale measurements and simulator research, have always have always at the core of our business, and are often done on a contract basis for customers.

However, 25% of our turnover consists of joint research, in which tools are developed and matured through cooperation with several participants in a project. The fundamental belief is that learning occurs through knowledge sharing and cooperation with partners. A continuous loop exists between contract research, fundamental research, and cooperative research. In contract research, ideas are formed for new innovations and new techniques. In fundamental research, concepts are investigated and tested for their merits, and the feasibility of approaches is verified.

In cooperative research (or JIPs), hydrodynamic concepts are developed, and tools and applications are developed together with the industry. This will lead back to contract research, together with the industry.

To design and operate ships as eff icient ly as possible, broad expertise is needed. We’ve observed April 2015 marine technology

(43)

The annual meeting of Cooperative Research Ships (CRS) in one of MARIN’s model testing facilities.

that, through pre-competitive cooperation, research and knowledge goals are achieved faster, more efficiently, and more cost-effectively.

We facilitate cooperation in several ways. There are cooperative networks, such as Cooperative Research Ships (CRS) and Cooperative Research Navies (CRNAV). There also are JIPs, and networks such as the FPSO Research Forum.

Cooperative networks Few organizations bring together so many sectors of the maritime industry in a non-competitive environment. CRS tackles problems of common interest and furthers research. The practical knowledge and tools that emerge from CRS are then used by its members. Currently, 27 organizations are members

A continuous loop exists between contract research, fundamental research, and cooperative research. of CRS, including shipyards, suppliers, classification societies, navies, research organizations, and the largest ship operators.

We play a facilitating role by taking care of the chairmanship and secretariat. From the United States, the following organizations are members: the American Bureau of Shipping (ABS), DRS Technologies, the United States Coast Guard (USCG), and the United States Navy (Carderock Division).

Initiated by MARIN in 1969, the organization is a true cooperative. All of its members are actively involved and fund the (44) marine technology April 2015

research work equally. They then get the benefits directly. Results are exclusively available to the CRS members.

CRS has a simple and democratic organization, with as little bureaucracy as possible. Anyone can come up with an idea for research. Approximately a dozen items are selected and voted on at the mid-year open meeting and then a limited number of proposals are presented at the annual general meeting in December. Each year, three new projects are chosen to run alongside the existing ones.

A steering group organizes the two main annual CRS meetings, monitors working group progress, and facilitates the flow of information and creation of research proposals. One representative from each industry segment sits on the steering group for two years.

For each working group, organizations can choose to be a full member, which entails active involvement, or a corresponding member. All members can obtain research updates through frequent meetings and through access to the CRS site at www.crships.org.

Members have to be in agreement with new candidates, but already many competitors work together in CRS. Often they find the informal contacts very useful. CRS also provides a training ground for young engineers. They learn not only the technical side, but also about working in international teams. As of 2010, each member will pay €60,000 (US$68,000) each year for funding between 10 and 14 projects. Approximately €100,000 (US$114,000) to €400,000 (US$456,000) over a three-year period is provided for each project.

By the members, for the members Collectively, within the 27 members, CRS possesses a wide range of expertise and facilities, ranging from practical design, engineering, construction and operation, to fundamental research in many maritime related areas. This is used to optimum advantage in carrying out the work scope of each project. Developments in www.sname.org/sname/mt

the maritime industry can be followed up directly, as is illustrated by ongoing projects on performance in extreme conditions (ice), energy and emission, survivability, and broadband propeller noise.

Although working groups run for approximately three years, in reality most build on past CRS research. For instance, in the area of seakeeping, CRS has worked on related projects for more than two decades, so there is a continuous accumulation of knowledge and tools.

Knowledge is also combined effectively between projects, for example by bringing together the working groups on propulsion and maneuvering. These features are unique in the R&D world. Over the decades, there have been many highlights. New insights have been gained into complex phenomena related to cavitation and broadband excitation, using combined numerical and experimental techniques.

The effect of propeller-induced vibrations is a big problem for yards and owners. The current PROCAL tool development enables CRS members to predict with accuracy the propeller loads and

eventually, cavitation and impact on ship response. The programs PRECAL and PRETTI and previous slamming and green water on deck research, provide vital building blocks on seakeeping research in combination with structural dynamics.

The real international collaboration takes place in the working groups. The working group covers a multi-disciplinary scope of work, and the expertise of various members is tapped. The scope of work is iterated between the members to ensure that general objective, scope, and timeline are realistic. When the project gets the go-ahead, the working group (led by a chairman, vicechairman, and a secretary) meets approximately every three months. In this working group meeting, the (competing) proposals for sub-tasks of the scope of work are presented and discussed, and the best proposal gets awarded the task.

The work is spread among the different participants. For example, the development of software and the validation and use of

Attendees at a meeting of the FPSO forum gather in front of the FPSO Akpo in South Korea.

www.sname.org/sname/mt

April 2015 marine technology

(45)

A long-term monitoring campaign was performed on the USCGC Bertholf to evaluate fatigue life prediction methodologies and to forecast structural maintenance needs.

the software are not done by the same parties. This enables a much better spreading of the knowledge and the expertise. So within one working group, different members have different expertise in developing theory; development of software; gathering model scale validation material; gathering full-scale material; and finally validating the software and checking for user friendliness. This approach ensures that the tasks are allocated to the members with the best expertise and that interaction happens between all members to bring the total project to a success.

Every three months, the progress and results are presented and discussed. The subtasks are also rounded off in these working group meetings. These working group meetings therefore act also as the arena where the course of the project is steered, when needed.

These working group meetings are made up of presentations and discussions on dedicated topics. In these presentations and the following discussions, new technological material often is brought to the table, ensuring that each CRS member benefits from the technology that is developed and learns from the multidisciplinary approach chosen in these working groups.

Cooperative Research Navies CRNAV is another example of cooperation. This consortium was established in 1989 to study the mechanisms of capsizing and to develop guidelines for safe ship design and operation at sea, including extreme conditions.

Stability requirements can have a major impact on decisions made during the design of these ships, such as the location of the center of (46) marine technology April 2015

gravity. In addition, such criteria dictate the inherent levels of safety against capsizing. Therefore, there is a clear need to develop dynamic stability criteria for practical design purposes on a rational basis. The objective of the Dynamic Stability Simulation project is to develop physics-based stability criteria for intact and damaged ships based on realistic and validated computer modeling in order to assess capsize risk associated with new ship designs over the lifecycle of the ship. The Naval Stability Standards Working Group provides the framework for CRNAV with regard to the development of design criteria.

The principal simulation tool developed by CRNAV is FREDYN, a non-linear simulation method in six degrees of freedom.

Although designed for frigate type hull forms, FREDYN allows for its use for other hull forms as well.

Safe operation of a ship in extreme seas in combination with highest possible speeds and various loading conditions requires sound knowledge of the expected dynamic behavior of the vessel.

Operational procedures will benefit from knowledge gained on the dynamic stability related risk in various operational environments. The Operator Guidance and Training Working Group provides the framework for CRNAV with regard to research aimed at improving operational issues.

The work program and the research program of CRNAV is broadly defined for three-year periods (phases) and closely defined for each coming calendar year. The work includes fundamental, design, and operations oriented projects. Fundamental work deals with the further development and validation of FREDYN for prediction of extreme motions for intact and damaged ships. www.sname.org/sname/mt

JIPs enable participants to be involved in new technological development based on fundamental research programs.

Design oriented work focuses on capsize risk assessment of intact and damaged ships, while operations oriented projects deal with operational guidance and training.

The CRNAV group currently consists of the following participants and associate members: • Canadian Navy (DMSS, Ottawa and DRDC-Atlantic, Dartmouth) • French Navy (DGA-Hydrodynamics, Val de Reuil and DGA, Paris) • D efence Science Technology Organisation (Department of Defence, Melbourne, Australia) • Royal Netherlands Navy (Department of Defence, The Hague) • Royal Navy U.K. (U.K. MoD, Bristol and QinetiQ, Haslar) • United States Coast Guard (Engineering Logistics Center, Baltimore) • MARIN (Wageningen, the Netherlands) Participants contribute their expertise and technology to the group’s research efforts. We provide the CRNAV chairmanship and secretariat, as well as overall project management. More information can be found at www.crnav.org.

Forums The intention of the organization of forums is to identify and discuss common technical issues and to foster JIPs that focus on the common good of the industry.

In the FPSO Research Forum, oil companies, operators, contractors, yards, research institutes, and safety authorities share their experience with FPSOs (floating production storage and offloading). Subjects covering the complete lifecycle from concept development to operation are presented in the forum. New ideas and development plans are discussed.

The idea for this forum was born out of the shared desire of many industry players for a means of communicating areas of technical challenge and participating in the development of targeted joint industry studies. In January 1998, the FPSO Integrity JIP Working Group meeting decided to pursue this initiative and invited other companies to join the open forum. A special hospitality party was organized for this purpose during OTC 1998 and hosted by ABS, Houston. Since then, the FPSO Research Forum has met twice a year, in the midst of the so-called “JIP week,” when the steering teams of a number of joint industry projects gather. The forum’s open meetings form a part of the FPSO JIP week. The FPSO JIP week and forum meetings are hosted by one of the participating companies. During these open meetings, progress reports are given on several ongoing FPSO JIPs, such as FPSO Integrity (MARIN), Fatigue Capacity (DNV), and LNG FPSO (Chevron). New proposals for JIPs also are identified and discussed. In addition, open discussion is fostered on technical issues facing the industry. www.sname.org/sname/mt

The forum is open to all in the industry (no press). The only requirement is that participation must go both ways—sharing experiences as well as taking away lessons learned. During its 17 years of existence, the FPSO JIP week has evolved into a wellvisited network. It functions as a pre-competitive clearinghouse for ideas, where technical issues can be identified, commonality gauged, and JIPs spun off where independently supported. JIP ideas can be presented very efficiently to the right people in all the organizations involved at one time.

An illustration of the success of this forum is that in the upcoming JIP week, there will be 25 JIP meetings in one week. The open meeting in the FPSO-JIP week will be visited by a maximum of 150 people. More information can be found at www.fpsoforum.com.

VOF The Vessel Operators Forum (VOF) is a platform for shipowners, operators, designers, yards, suppliers, R&D institutes, regulatory agencies, and class societies to exchange experience on operational aspects of ships and to discuss the common need for new technology for future ship operations. The forum meetings are combined with progress meetings of relevant JIPs initiated and supported by the vessel operators. The VOF was officially launched in November 2007 in Gothenburg, on the occasion of the progress meetings of the Lashing@Sea JIP and the Service Performance Analysis JIP hosted by Stena. At present, this forum meets twice a year. Currently running projects within this network are the TT propeller series and the CD propeller series extensions. More information can be found at www.vesseloperatorforum.com.

JIPs The offshore industry works closely together to share knowledge, experience, and costs. Although no two JIPs are organized in exactly the same way, they share certain characteristics: • results are shared • costs are shared • by sharing cost and benefit, research that would be unaffordable alone now is within reach • resources are pooled at a pre-competitive level based on the expertise of the participants • J IPs enable participants to be involved in new technological development based on fundamental research programs • t here is a good mix between operational experience and technology development • t he number of participants ranges from 3 to 30, and the run time of a JIP typically is approximately 3 years.

April 2015 marine technology

(47)

Given the structural arrangement and planned operational tempo, the USCG initiated an effort to evaluate the fatigue life of the NSCs.

Know-how flows in two directions. For instance, full-scale monitoring provides information on the behavior of ships and offshore floating platforms, which sometimes leads to new information that then ignites new hydrodynamic R&D at MARIN and at universities. On the other hand, new physical models for hydrodynamic phenomena that we develop can be implemented in design tools and validated in JIPs. This is an ideal way for the industry to learn about technology, to trust the results, and work with the new tools. Today, JIPs form a significant part of our business, constituting 25-30% of our turnover.

On average, approximately 40 JIPs are in various stages of realization, while some 20 ideas and initiatives are in preparation.

The VALID project The USCG initiated the Fatigue Life Assessment Project (FLAP), a project to assess fatigue design approaches for its new national security cutters (NSC). The project began in 2007 and was finalized in 2013.

Predicting the fatigue life of a ship hull structure involves the prediction of hull loading in a seaway, and comparison of this with the structural capacity. The former, in particular, is an effort requiring information from a multitude of disciplines. Therefore, we were contracted to support FLAP, and we reached out to involve

A History of Research MARIN was founded in 1929 as the Netherlands Ship Model Basin by the Dutch government and industry. Work was started in 1932, following completion of a deep water towing tank. To cope with the ever-increasing demands of the industry for research in the fields of powering performance, seakeeping, and maneuvering (including shallow water effects, cavitation, vibration, noise, and so forth), a series of special test laboratories was built. This included a deep water towing tank extension in 1951; a seakeeping tank in 1956; a shallow water basin in 1958; a wind/wave and current basin in 1964; a high-speed basin 1965; and a depressurized towing tank in 1972. A new seakeeping and maneuvering basin became operational in 1999, and the wave and current basin was replaced by a new offshore basin in 2000. An upgrading of the depressurized towing tank was completed in 2001.

In 2012, this basin was converted to accommodate waves

(48) marine technology April 2015

other subject matter experts and stakeholders in a JIP. ABS, BAE Systems, Bureau Veritas, Damen Shipyards, Defence R&D Canada, DGA Hydrodynamics, Lloyd’s Register, Ingalls Shipbuilding, and the Office of Naval Research all participated in the VALID JIP. The broader goals of the project were to forecast structural maintenance needs of USCG cutters, further improve the understanding of wave loading leading to fatigue damage, and increase the confidence level in predicting wave loading leading to fatigue damage on a naval frigate type hull form and structure.

The traditional approach used to design naval ship structures relies on a prescriptive quasi-static wave approach with safety factors developed from previous experience. Fatigue is not considered explicitly in the design process. Current naval ships have significantly different house structure, are operated at an increased tempo in more harsh environments, and are being used well beyond their original service life. These factors have increased the occurrences of fatigue cracking in older USCG cutters and are problematic in naval ship structures in general.

Therefore, it became necessary to evaluate the current practices in naval ship structures as applicable to the USCG operational environments, profiles, and structural configurations associated with the new class of NSCs.

in depressurized conditions, and the converted basin was opened in 2012, now called a depressurized wave basin.

As early as 1970, we extended our activities to include nautical research and training. For this purpose, a modern vessel traffic simulator and two full-mission, full-size simulators are available today. In addition, there are two fullmission tug simulators and several tug stations.

The development of computational fluid dynamics (CFD) was a game changer for hydrodynamic research institutes. Our organization was one of the first to use CFD in an industrial base.

The first developments in CFD were carried out in the early 1980s and the first practical application was done on the America’s Cup challenger Australia II, in 1983. Since then, the optimization of ships using CFD has grown significantly. The most recent new facility at MARIN is a 4000 core supercomputer cluster, which became operational in 2015 and which complements our extensive model basins, simulators, and full-scale monitoring tools. The dedicated purpose of this computer cluster is CFD.

www.sname.org/sname/mt

Structural fatigue was not a specific consideration in the initial NSC design. However, given the structural arrangement and planned operational tempo, the USCG initiated an effort to evaluate the fatigue life of the NSCs. This was supported by the Naval Systems Warfare Center Carderock Division (NSWCCD) and their spectral fatigue analysis (SFA) approach. The USCG used this fatigue life prediction approach to design enhanced structure in specific locations, to improve the fatigue life of the NSCs. To evaluate these elements of the SFA design approach for a new NSC class, the USCG recognized this validation effort would require an extensive program of full scale and model scale testing, measuring, simulation, and analysis. A long-term wave measurement sample was needed to assess the operational profile and environment encountered by the cutter. These topics were addressed within the VALID JIP. Key elements of the USCG FLAP project and the VALID JIP were: • full-scale trials on a fully instrumented ship • monitoring campaign for five years on the same ship • m odel tests in waves with a segmented model to measure structural loads and responses • a nalysis efforts by JIP members to correlate measurements, to make and compare lifetime predictions.

Measurements taken during the trials have provided data for correlation with model experiments and numerical simulations.

A long-term monitoring campaign was performed on the USCGC Bertholf to evaluate fatigue life prediction methodologies and also to forecast structural maintenance needs.

In 2010, model tests were carried out in three phases with a flexible model with a length of 4.7 m. In order to achieve this flexibility, the model was cut into six segments. Each of these was connected to the backbone. The properties of the backbone were tuned in such a way that the two and three node horizontal and vertical global flexural vibration modes matched those of the Bertholf. These had been determined during the dedicated trials. More than 300 runs in regular waves were performed in different headings, speeds, and wave heights. In irregular waves, approximately 60 tests were done consisting of several runs in significant wave heights of between 3 m and 9 m, again with different headings and speeds. Furthermore, 10 tests in multi-directional, irregular waves were used to compare to the trial results.

Results One of the excellent results of the monitoring campaign is a good overview of the wave directions and wave height that the cutter has encountered during its years of operation. Knowledge about the encountered waves is important in calculating the history of the consumed fatigue life and consequently forecast the residual fatigue life. The encountered waves are dependent on the deployment and mission area of the ship. However, it is clear that the encountered conditions are quite different from the global wave statistics. In order to derive the actual wave energy www.sname.org/sname/mt

from the installed wave radar, a fusion technique was developed and is used.

The model tests and the full-scale tests gave accurate measurements. Comparison of the bending moments in calm water and waves, and the actual bending moment RAO in waves showed good agreement. This had to be done by carefully checking that the wet global flexural vibration nodes were in agreement between model scale, full scale, and finite element calculations.

The influence of whipping vibrations on fatigue life can be quantified by dividing the total damage by the wave frequency damage. Insight in this whipping factor was an important result of the project, which increases fatigue damage. Furthermore, from investigations into the spectral shape, it was concluded based on measurements and long-term spectral fatigue analysis that shortcrested waves reduce the fatigue damage by approximately 25%.

The VALID JIP turned out to be a success, based on synergy between the project participants. It furthered knowledge on structural integrity and fatigue life using full-scale measurements, model-scale measurements, and calculations. The project partners have decided to continue with a new initiative, named VALID 2.

The way MARIN operates demonstrates that it is not only contract work that is important. When performing pre-competitive work or gaining fundamental insights, cooperative projects are often the way to go. This calls for an international collaboration where all project partners can participate within their cores of expertise and together, key research goals can be achieved. We continue to play a pro-active role in the organization of these programs and JIPs. MT Frans Quadvlieg is knowledge coordinator for maneuvering of ships at MARIN. Ingo Drummen works in the area of hydro structural loads on ships and offshore constructions at MARIN.

Learn More

For more information on the topics covered in this article, check out the following presentations from the May 2014 Ship Structure Committee Ship Structures Symposium, which can be found at www.shipstructure. org/2014sscsymposium_agenda.shtml “Full Scale Trials, Monitoring and Model Testing Conducted to Assess the Structural Fatigue Life of a New US Coast Guard Cutter” “Structural Fatigue Loading Predictions and Comparisons with Test Data for a New Class of US Coast Guard Cutters” “Structural Fatigue Life Assessment and Sustainment Implications for a New Class of US Coast Guard Cutters”

April 2015 marine technology

(49)

Damen FCS 1605 in the assembly hall at Blount Boats in Warren, Rhode Island.

(50) marine technology April 2015

www.sname.org/sname/mt

Source Globally

BUILD LOCALLY Netherlands-based company provides U.S. shipyards with proven vessel designs

O

By Jan van Hogerwou

ur company, Damen Shipyards, is no stranger to international cooperation, with its 32 ship and repair yards worldwide, but this is particularly the case when it comes to Damen Technical Cooperation (DTC), or building onsite. We can supply vessels ex-yard, from one of our own shipyards; or, if local circumstances require, we can assist clients in various ways with building our vessels locally.

International collaboration is an important part of our business, as our client base mainly consists of other shipyards. We can deliver everything from the license and vessel design to a partial or full material package.

Alongside this, we can provide building assistance through all levels of the shipyard’s organization. If required, services such as yard consultancy and upgrades can be delivered to facilitate these projects.

Our full portfolio, ranging from tugs up to the latest generation of offshore vessels, can be built this way. Projects have ranged from remotely operated vehicle support and oil response vessels in Brazil, to tugs in Vietnam.

To date, we’ve carried out more than 1,000 projects in more than 60 countries.

The United States has been an important market for us for many years. We naturally recognized the vast potential of this market; but at the same time, the Jones Act prevents us from delivering complete vessels ex-yard. Licensing

www.sname.org/sname/mt

arrangements therefore provided a suitable tool for us to enter and gain a position in the U.S. market. DTC has three licensing packages available. One provides the basic design, lines plan and weight calculations; a second in which all the drawings have been approved by class; and a third includes the detailed engineering design.

These are popular with yards that do not have engineering departments or which don’t have the required skills/knowledge for this engineering phase. Packages from our standard designs are already class approved, saving the yard time and money. “DTC differs from other engineering firms, we are not just supplying the drawings but the knowledge and support to actually build the vessel,” says David Stibbe, the business development manager at DTC. “Damen has experienced a lot of issues and knows how to quickly and accurately resolve them.”

Customers choosing our designs—even engineering/design offices that supply vessel designs—often do not actually have building experience. In contrast, we have the feedback from the thousands of vessels we have built, so we are continually improving our designs. In addition, our drawings are very detailed, so a production yard can start almost immediately with the vessel after receiving them.

We’re familiar with the construction details of each vessel, so we can advise about best practice during construction. Support can

April 2015 marine technology

(51)

Five Damen FCS 1204 vessels, ready for delivery from Horizon shipbuilding in Bayou La Batra, Alabama.

involve information about areas such as welding, installing pumps, engines, prop shafts, electrical parts, and so forth. We typically send our engineers out to assist in the construction of the first few vessels. Then, as the project goes along, the shipyard benefits from the transfer of knowledge and we see the progression of their learning curve. After the first few vessels, the construction process is faster and more efficient. Additionally, if required, we can supply material packages containing such things as lights, windows, doors, or entire superstructures.

First agreement One of our longest and best-known collaborations is with Bollinger Shipyards, which dates back to the 1990s. However, this first licensing agreement, which eventually covered 80 vessels, wasn’t a direct result of the Jones Act, as patrol vessels are exempt from it. Instead, it came about because at the time, the United States Coast Guard (USCG), a major Bollinger client, was considering a new type of patrol vessel and wanted a proven design concept for a parent hull.

We a lready had bui lt la rge numbers of 26 m high-speed patrol vessels for the Royal Netherlands Navy and the Hong Kong Marine Police. This 26 m vessel was really the first one designed for (52) marine technology April 2015

seakeeping, says Jaap Gelling, our director of high-speed craft. “Bollinger knew we had been ca r r y ing out intensive research and design into seakeeping and resistance, together with the Technical University of Delft and that we could have a suitable, modern vessel for the USCG.” So Bollinger turned to DTC. The basic design of these vessels was adapted to the USCG requirements, which led to it having a higher speed and capacity for a larger crew. These vessels also come under the U.S. Foreign Military Sales Program, so many have been sold to foreign governments under the security assistance initiative. To date, 80 Coastal Patrol Boats (the 87 ft. or marine protector class) have now been built under our license.

More recently, we were awarded a contract for licenses for 58 fast response cutter Sentinel class (Stan Patrol 4708) vessels. The first of these was delivered to the USCG in 2010. Built in batches, 12 of these were built

by Bollinger in 2014. Three Sentinel class vessels have already been built for the South African government. “The Stan Patrol 4708 is based on the ‘enlarged ship concept’ from the highly successful 26 m (87 ft.) smaller version,” says Gelling. “The USCG was very familiar with our design features.”

Through our naval builder, Damen Schelde Naval Shipbuilding, we also are

participating in the tender for the offshore patrol cutter (OPC) program, which involves 25 of the 340 ft. OPC vessels. A decision for this tender is expected during 2015.

Fast Crew Suppliers In 2012, we were awarded contracts with a broader scope of services from two U.S. shipyards, for 55 crew boats to be

As the project goes along, the shipyard benefits from the transfer of knowledge and we see the progression of their learning curve. www.sname.org/sname/mt

USCGC Bernard C. Webber is the first of the United States Coast Guard Sentinel class cutters with the design based on the Damen Stan Patrol vessel 4708.

delivered to CITGO Petroleum. Horizon Shipbuilding, which is based in Bayou La Batre in Alabama, built 40 of the Fast Crew Supplier (FCS) 1204 vessels, while 15 were constructed by Gulf Coast Yards (previously TY Offshore, part of Trinity Offshore of New Orleans). All 55 vessels had to be delivered in just 24 months.

These contracts involved a much more intensive cooperation, especially for the first few vessels in the series. DTC provided both the drawings and some of the component parts such as complete superstructures, as well as supporting the yards with technical knowledge transfer and onsite building assistance. This building assistance for the first batch helped the yards to get their production started, avoiding long building times for the series.

Blount collaboration Based in Warren, Rhode Island, Blount Boats, Inc. specializes in a broad range of small and medium sized vessels. We provided to Blount the entire drawing and engineering package, as well as partial material packages.

Building assistance, both onsite and from the Netherlands, was also provided to assist with the first batches.

In fall 2012, Blount Boats took on the largest contract in the shipyard’s 63-year history with an order for 25 of our FCS 1605 www.sname.org/sname/mt

vessels, which was to be completed over a two-year period. Now, nearing the end of the contract, Bob Pelletier, vice president of Blount Boats, believes our assistance was essential in completing the boats on a timely basis, while assuring quality construction. “The assistance of DTC was very beneficial in terms of supplying everything from highly detailed drawings and procedures to materials. Everything about the boats was already thoroughly considered and presented concisely. Drawings outlined all facets of construction, allowing our team to begin work quickly.”

The hull structure was broken down into organized parts to be CNC cut and processed by Blount’s local aluminum provider immediately after the contract was finalized.

Several aspects of the build series proved to be quite challenging. “Assembling a team and establishing levels of organization to complete the contract on schedule was a large task,” says Pelletier. “In terms of the vessels themselves, the drawings clearly defined every component to be used. However, certain specialized parts were items manufactured overseas that often proved difficult to locate and/or ver y expensive.” Additionally, a deckhouse of fiberglass construction was a first for Blount Boats.

Upon contract signing, Blount Boats took immediate steps to ensure the vessels would be completed on schedule. Additional team members were hired into its purchasing and engineering departments to source materials and begin planning. A satellite location was leased where the deckhouses could be completely outfitted before being transported to the shipyard for final installation. Offsite subcontractors were located to augment the hull and deckhouse construction teams. When all the pieces were in place and the construction in full swing, the Blount Boats team had almost doubled in size to meet the needs of such a large project.

Our staff worked with Blount Boats in material sourcing and construction to keep the project running smoothly. “For many of the overseas items that were either not available in the U.S. or found to be too expensive to import from overseas distributors, Damen sold us these parts directly at a fair price,” says Pelletier. “Availability and communication were never issues and their staff worked with our purchasing department to meet our needs.”

Full deckhouses Our assistance proved vital during the early stages of the contract when the schedule required deckhouse outfitting to commence. Although a local composite builder April 2015 marine technology

(53)

was employed to construct the deckhouses, a mold needed to be built and the first few could not be completed within the time allotted. However, we arranged the purchase of two assembled deckhouses and Blount Boats was able to stay on pace with its rigorous timetable.

Engineering differences also were apparent with the electrical one-line diagrams. At Hull Damen FCS 1605 ready for outfitting at Blount Boats.

Blount’s request, we adapted the electrical design to U.S. standards to ensure the smooth functionality of the vessels. We also assisted with construction by sending members of our technical staff to the shipyard to guide it through certain production techniques.

“This was invaluable for certain aspects such as attaching the fiberglass deckhouse to the aluminum hull,” emphasizes Pelletier.

Looking back over the last two years, the level of cooperation we provided to Blount was substantial, according to Pelletier. “The assistance was always prompt and addressed whatever difficulties we faced. We have streamlined many aspects of organization, planning, material handling and construction.

Confidence in our building capacity and workforce is higher than ever. Blount Boats looks forward to using these lessons learned in conjunction with Damen in continuing its long history of shipbuilding in the United States.”

U.S. yard licenses

The United States Coast Guard Marine Protector class of cutters are built to the Damen Stan 2600 design.

As well as dedicated license agreements concerning certain vessel t y pes, we recently introduced yard licenses to the U.S. market, as in the case of agreements made with Great Lakes Shipyards and Metal Shark Aluminum Boats (see “Yard Licenses” sidebar). The move to offer these broader yard licenses is a new addition to our portfolio.

In addition, we have identified several markets to explore in the U.S. to further expand our international collaboration.

Yards and operators in the U.S. have always been open to working with European yards.

But recently we’ve seen an increasing demand for quality vessels that meet the highest HSEQ standards, such as offshore vessels suitable for the harsh conditions common in the North Sea. The U.S. offshore industry seems to be looking for more international partners, and European maritime companies recently have opened offices in Houston.

Talks are taking place with yards exploring offshore design options that would be suitable and tailored to the U.S. market.

Future markets Offshore wind is getting off the ground in the U.S. as a number of projects get u nder way, a nd t his is a not her ma rket where we’re likely to team up with U.S. shipyards. Our Twin Axe Fast Crew Supplier 2610 has made an impact on the (54) marine technology April 2015

www.sname.org/sname/mt

Blount-built Damen 1605 vessels ready for shipment at the Senesco shipyard loading facility in Rhode Island.

European offshore wind industry since its introduction in 2011, and is largely recognized as the industry standard. Some 30 of these high-speed catamarans have been delivered in the past two and a half years, and we continuously build new vessels so we can provide quick deliveries from stock. “Potential customers know that the FCS 2610 is very good quality and that there aren’t really dedicated offshore wind vessels available in the U.S. market,” says David Stibbe. “DTC is also not tied to one shipyard, unlike some competitors. The ‘learning curve money’ paid in Europe could easily be avoided by using proven designs in the U.S. market.” Talks also are ongoing regarding the FCS 2008, the smaller sister vessel of the FCS 2610.

The pushboat sector in the U.S. is another potential market for our designs.

We already have delivered pushboats in the Netherlands and in African countries such as Sudan and Nigeria. In the U.S., this market is particularly interesting when it comes to the transport of shale gas along the Mississippi River to the refineries in the Gulf of Mexico.

Additionally, talks are taking place with U.S. yards concerning building our ASD Tug 2810. We have built more than 120 of these vessels and are keen to see them in U.S. waters. MT

Yard Licenses In December, we reached an agreement with Metal Shark Aluminum Boats to market our designs, which Metal Shark will construct at its Franklin, Louisiana shipyard. “We are proud to offer globally proven Damen designs as we expand our footprint in new markets,” said Metal Shark president Chris Allard at the time of the announcement.

“Damen’s impressive portfolio serves as the perfect complement to our own designs, and our location on the Gulf of Mexico puts us within easy reach of many of the most important players in the offshore commercial sector.”

Metal Shark’s new Franklin shipyard became operational in July and is currently producing multiple 45 ft., 55 ft., and 75 ft. monohull and catamaran vessels. The company will market a range of our designs, including Fast Crew Suppliers, harbor and terminal vessels, wind farm support vessels, offshore patrol boats, pushers and tugs, barges, and other specialty vessels.

Earlier in 2014, we entered into a five-year partnership with Great Lakes Shipyard, authorizing them as an official builder of our designs. Great Lakes can build our entire portfolio for their U.S. customers. The agreement also provides for building assistance, material packages, and other services.

The agreement will include vessels for the following markets: • Harbor and terminal: towage and ship assist services such as Stan Tugs, launches, pilots, and boats; and harbor services such as work barges, skimmers, dredgers, and high-speed craft • Offshore: Fast Crew suppliers and deep sea anchor handlers • Offshore wind: wind farm support vessels, fast crew boats, shoalbusters, and wind farm maintenance barges • Defense and security: the full range of security and patrol vessels, such as interceptors and Stan Patrol ships to amphibious support ships and naval auxiliaries • Public transport: ferries, water taxis, water buses, and double-ended ferries • Fishing: trawlers and research vessels • Pontoons and barges: truckable products, custom pontoons, multi-purpose and submersibles, and crane and specialty barges.

Jan van Hogerwou is sales manager at Damen Shipyards Group. www.sname.org/sname/mt

April 2015 marine technology

(55)

MSC London, a 16,000 TEU containership built at STX Offshore & Shipbuilding shipyard in Korea, was delivered in July 2014.

BY JEOM KEE PAIK, TOBIN R. MCNATT, AND TAPIO HULKKONEN

(56) marine technology April 2015

An ambitious joint industry project targets ship hull structural design and the next generation of the world’s largest containership www.sname.org/sname/mt

T

oday’s shipbuilding and shipping industry has three primary goals: to achieve greener shipping by addressing the CO 2 emissions that cause global warming; to make operations safer by eliminating the accidents that cause casualties, property damage and environmental pollution; and to make shipping more economical by lowering the operational expenditures that cause revenues to decline.

Several methodologies for achieving greener shipping have already been applied to meet the requirements of the energy efficiency design index and emission control areas: • t he use of an alternative propulsion power (for example, LNG or nuclear power) to conventional heavy fuel oils • t he reduction of ship structural weight to improve fuel efficiency • t he improvement of operational systems, including hull formation and propulsion equipment.

In terms of safer operation, the following areas present challenges to current ship structure design practices: • The engineering and design process is too cumbersome, and there is room for automation to decrease human error and uncertainty • The scantlings of structural members have not been fully optimized. Some are too strong and others are too weak or barely strong enough • Both weight minimization and safety maximization should be achieved simultaneously • The design requirements associated with goal-based standards must be met and common structural rules must be followed • In addition to functional requirements, health, safety, environmental and ergonomic (HSE&E) requirements should be met where functional requirements address operability in normal conditions and HSE&E requirements represent safe performance and integrity in extreme and accidental conditions.

Ship sizes should be increased to make shipping more economical. Operating costs do not increase proportionally with ship size, and subsequently bigger ships present

www.sname.org/sname/mt

April 2015 marine technology

(57)

a greater economic benefit. A typical example is the evolution of containership size, as shown in Table 1. A growth in container traffic leads to a rapid growth in containership size, as ship owners prefer to use bigger containerships to lower cargo transportation costs. The largest containership currently has a capacity of 19,000 TEU. Containerships are getting bigger because it is more economical and fuel efficient to carry cargo in bigger ships. The latest Triple E containerships ensure economy of scale, energy efficiency, and environmental improvement. The further evolution of the Malaccamax class containership is expected to carry 30,000 containers through the Strait of Malacca between Malaysia and Indonesia.

A number of ship accidents have occurred in recent years despite significant efforts to prevent them. A typical example is the hull girder collapse of the 8,000-TEU containership MOL Comfort, which occurred on June 17, 2013. Extensive investigations into the cause of the accident have been undertaken, but it remains in dispute, while a number of large containerships have reportedly met similar accidents.

For traditional types of ship structures with normal purposes, common designs, well-known materials, and wellproven maintenance, relevant design codes and practices are available. However, such practices are not available for unusual designs with exceptional structures, which are associated with new purposes, new materials, and new maintenance.

Additionally, such new types of ship structures demand greener, safer, and more economical ship operations.

Consortium of partners A three-year international joint industry project (JIP) has been initiated with the intention of solving these problems. It will involve a consortium of partners from academia, engineering companies, shipyards, and classification societies. This team will collaborate using past experience with previous collaborations among team members, and through active project direction and leadership from one of the authors, Professor Jeom Paik.

The JIP encompasses several objectives. The first is to develop and demonstrate practical methodology for incorporation of structural ultimate limit state (ULS) based safety measures into the structural design of modern merchant ships.

The second objective is to use a multi-objective optimization approach to quantitatively determine the tradeoff of structural weight savings and safety measures. Third, the JIP team aims to develop algorithms and frameworks to link and integrate firstprinciples-based analyses, including seakeeping load analysis; finite element strength analysis; panel ultimate limit state evaluation; hull girder ultimate strength analysis; and multi-objective optimization. Lastly, the team wants to demonstrate the practical validity of the proposed system and methodology through a 25,000 TEU containership hull structure as an applied example.

(58) marine technology April 2015

TABLE 1: EVOLUTION OF CONTAINERSHIP SIZE TYPE

NUMBER OF CONTAINERS

YEAR OF INTRODUCTION

SIZE (LxBxD)

Early containership

500-800 TEU

1956

137 x 17 x 9m

Fully cellular

1,000-2,500 TEU

1970

215 x 20 x 10m

Panamax

3,000-3,400 TEU

1980

250 x 32 x 12.5m

Panamax Max

3,400-4,500 TEU

1985

290 x 32 x 12.5m

Post Panamax

4,000-5,000 TEU

1988

285 x 40 x 13m

Post Panamax Plus

6,000-8,000 TEU

2000

300 x 43 x 14.5m

New Panamax

12,500 TEU

2014

366 x 49 x 15.2m

Triple E

18,000 TEU

2013

400 x 59 x 15.5m

The objective of improving fuel consumption is addressed by reducing structural weight to increase the efficiency of cargo transportation, or by increasing safety measures to have longer service life. A combination of these two also would accomplish the objective.

The developed technologies can be readily applied to any other type of ship structure, as the objective of the JIP is to develop a revolutionary technology that would fully optimize the structural design of the ship’s hull in a way that minimizes its weight and maximizes safety. The applied example is a prototype 25,000-TEU containership, which would be the world’s largest. It is believed, with such a new ultra-large ship example, that the developed technology will be fully recognized as a revolutionary technology. Also, the causes of recent large containership accidents will be evaluated by taking advantage of the developed technologies, and to define relevant solutions that could prevent such accidents.

The project will be undertaken as follows.

Year 1, phase 1: • development of optimization algorithms and implementation into the MAESTRO structural design computer program • v alidation of MAESTRO optimization applied to a single ship structure • conceptual design of the prototype 25,000-TEU containership hull structure.

Year 2, phase 2: • i mplementation of the class loading and strength criteria associated with class rules and direct calculations • v alidation of the MAESTRO structural optimization to applied examples of current ship structures • preliminary MAESTRO structural optimization of the hull design of the prototype 25,000-TEU containership. www.sname.org/sname/mt

MSC Oscar is a 19,224 TEU containership, built by DSME shipyard in Korea and delivered in January 2015.

Year 3, phase 3: • buckling and ultimate strength analysis and safety check for the prototype ship hull structure • class review and approval of the prototype 25,000-TEU containership structure.

In terms of multi-objective design, the interest in reducing structural weight while enhancing safety also has increased as the demand for modern ships grows to meet the challenges of greater reliability, fuel efficiency, and economy. Ship structural optimization is usually a mixed discrete-continuous design problem constrained by buckling and ultimate strength, and involves the optimization of a large number of variables such as (continuous) plate thickness, scantlings of stiffeners and frames, and the (discrete) number of stiffeners and frames. Further complication arises when the structure is constrained by buckling and ultimate strength under compression, and subject to practical design rules. Traditionally, safety measures are formulated as a set of constraints of the weight optimization. Inclusion of safety measures, not only as design constraints but also as a design objective, exposes multiple design solutions (non-dominated designs). This facilitates the important design decision-making of weight and safety tradeoff for a given investment, from both the ship owner and societal points of view.

Multi-objective frameworks can include through-life structural cost drivers in the trade space discovery process, as such www.sname.org/sname/mt

tradeoffs are significant. Furthermore, for some ships, singleobjective optimizers may significantly increase through-life costs while chasing the last few tenths of a percent of reduction in build cost or weight. Thus, including relevant through-life measures such as corrosion or structural fatigue cracking is a key advantage of the multi-objective framework.

Integrating analysis and optimization It is important to integrate multi-discipline analysis and optimization as the next step in leveraging global threedimensional finite element models, which have become a de facto standard for ship structural design. A synchronized multi-discipline analysis on a single generic finite element model (for example, the Nastran data model), including seakeeping analysis; accurately transferring seakeeping loads to the finite element model; 3D finite element stress analysis; panel ultimate limit state evaluation; hull girder ultimate strength analysis; and multi-objective structural optimization, becomes one of the most practical and comprehensive approaches for the design community. A multi-objective optimization procedure was proposed and developed on an oil tanker structural design. It was demonstrated that it is possible to simultaneously increase the safety margin and reduce the structural weight.

Seakeeping design loads will be determined by direct analysis as well as class rules. Accurately predicting extreme seaway April 2015 marine technology

(59)

loads is one of the dominant factors for the structural analysis, design, and optimization. In current design practice, the seaway extreme loads are often derived from linear frequency domain strip theory methods and/or 3D panel methods.

Ultimate limit state evaluation will be made by accurate and efficient methods as well as class rules approaches.

Although general finite element tools are widely available and provide reliable results for structure instability analysis, their application can be prohibitive due to the computational time and the limitations of mesh auto-generation. This justifies the interest in more time-effective strategies, for which the main idea is to replace the finite element method with approximation techniques. The use of an analytical or semi analytical approach results in an attractive strategy due to its effectiveness in terms of computational time, especially if compared with conventional numerical procedures such as the finite element method. This aspect becomes even more important when dealing with highly nonlinear analyses and in the context of optimization procedures, in which repeated analyses are required.

A generic finite element model is not suitable for panel ultimate limit state analysis within the framework of design variables optimization for an entire ship hull structure, where a base evaluation unit is bounded by bulkheads, frames, and deep girders. Algorithms have been developed in the MAESTRO software to automatically identify ULS base evaluation units. Each unit consists of a number or group of low-level finite elements. The proposed research will demonstrate an innovative framework that seamlessly integrates/couples seakeeping analysis and finite element analysis, advanced ultimate limit state technologies, and multi-objective optimization, for conducting structural performance optimization.

While such approaches have been theorized and experimented with, the proposed research is intended to demonstrate a level of capability that meets the complex requirements of actual ship structural design, rather than as a conceptual approach.

The tool to be developed in the project will apply full structural design optimization techniques based on buckling and ultimate limit state (ultimate strength) evaluations. This will involve the following: • application of hull loading based on class rules • optimum design and adjustment of primary structural scantlings for members that are too strong and/or weak • weight and building cost minimization • safety maximization • fulfillment of rule requirements (constraints 1) • direct calculations of the ultimate limit state (constraints 2) • prototype designs and class approval.

(60) marine technology April 2015

Algorithms have been developed in the MAESTRO software to automatically identify ULS base evaluation units.

The constraint conditions for optimization will include: • design variables including the dimensions of the plate panels, stiffeners and support members, and the spacing of the stiffeners and support members • strength criteria including structural member failure (for example, buckling, yielding, and the ultimate strength of plates, stiffened panels, and support members), hull girder collapse and ultimate strength, and impact-pressure-induced failure (for example, slamming, sloshing, and green water) • applied requirements, which will include class rules and direct calculations.

The effects of whipping and springing and hull girder loads including torsional moments shall be taken into account in the ultimate limit state design of the JIP. Other types of limit states are beyond the scope of this article.

The JIP is expected to provide the following direct and indirect benefits: • development of the next generation of the world’s largest prototype containership • automation of a limit-state-based design optimization process, resulting in design time savings and the removal of human error • structural weight and building cost savings • safety improvement • i mprovement of operational efficiency and operational cost savings • CO2 emission reductions. MT Jeom Kee Paik is a professor of the Department of Naval Architecture and Ocean Engineering at Pusan National University in Busan, Korea. Tobin R. McNatt is a senior director at the Advanced Marine Technology Center of DRS Technologies, Inc. in Stevensville, MD. Tapio Hulkkonen is senior product manager at NAPA Group. www.sname.org/sname/mt

Connect with Colleagues

Connect

Join Our Team

Military Sealift Command will be recruiting for a variety of ashore positions, including: Marine/Mechanical Engineers and Naval Architects.

with Content

Join the top notch engineering team that oversees maintenance, repair, and design of government owned and operated ships of the Department of the Navy’s Military Sealift Command (MSC). Our ashore engineering staff of Federal civil service employees provides critical support to MSC ships. Headquartered in Norfolk, VA, with opportunities worldwide, we offer competitive salaries, excellent Federal benefits and other incentives, such as student loan repayment.

Over 120 years of Technical Content.

Thousands of Networking Opportunities.

MSC is looking for outstanding candidates with experience, background, or education as a Marine/Mechanical Engineer or Naval Architect.

Requirements:

• Must be a U.S. citizen, able to obtain and maintain a security clearance.

• An engineering degree or equivalent is required.

To learn more about our employment opportunities visit:

ashore.sealiftcommand.com

Get Connected. www.sname.org www.sname.org/sname/mt

MSC is an equal employment opportunity employer and a drug free workplace.

April 2015 marine technology

(61)

(focus on education)

The UM group poses in front of a Buddhist temple.

Cultural Immersion University of Michigan partners with Korean colleagues to give students the experience of a lifetime

BY DANIEL J. DABROWSKI

S

peaking for the group of 10 selected University of Michigan (UM) naval architecture and marine engineering (NAME) students who visited South Korea for 4 weeks in July 2009, I can tell you we had some amazing experiences. From the cultural tours to the group bonding to the knowledge gained, everyone participating came away with memories that will serve them well and last a lifetime.

In 2008, UM, the University of Ulsan (UOU), and Hyundai Heavy Industries (HHI) formed a partnership for the exchange and education of NAME engineering students. UM sends NAME students to South Korea annually to be hosted along with Korean UOU students

by HHI for seeing and learning how one of the best shipbuilding companies in the world builds a ship. In exchange, UM receives UOU students for studying NAME at one of the top programs in the world. The 2008 and 2009 exchanges involved 10 UM students and 5 UOU students. Although it seems that the number of students

(62) marine technology April 2015

has been scaled back a little, the program appears to be very much alive and well.

For the first three weeks of our excursion, we were given guided tours and presentations at HHI during the weekdays on a normal office-hour type of schedule. We were free to plan our evenings with local things to do or whatever else we wanted. Group outings usually included the grocery store, department store, pool, noriban (or karaoke), bar, club, or Ulsan beach. Or we could stay at the dorm to enjoy ping-pong or a quiet evening.

Noriban is a big thing over there. They have clubs where you can rent a room by the hour with a group of friends and be served finger foods and refreshments as you sing whatever songs you like from a projector screen. At many of the public places we went to, we often would get surprising stares and second glances. Some people would even venture to say hello; however, when attempting to engage in a little friendly chatter, most would just be too shy or giggle in embarrassment for not www.sname.org/sname/mt

South Korea is not the rustic country that many of us had envisioned before arriving, but rather a first-world industrial superpower.

knowing enough English to respond. Still, it was evident that English was taught there because just about everybody we came across spoke much better English than we spoke Korean.

Weekends were spent taking in as many experiences as we could squeeze in to our time in that beautiful country. South Korea is not the rustic country that many of us had envisioned before arriving, but rather a first-world industrial superpower.

Rural villages and tranquil temples lie just minutes outside of vast and densely populated cities. We made many organized trips to villages and temples, led by our HHI liaison, Mr. Jeong.

After the presentations, we were treated to a walkthrough of their building(s) with Q&A, and sometimes a demonstration.

We watched ships bringing in steel with great frequency, along with depositing plate stock to the prep shop and large ingots to the foundry for smelting and forging. The construction of enormous crankshafts was an impressive part of the foundry, which starts all the way from scratch by forging its parts out of the intensely bright orange ingots heated in huge brick ovens. Plate

steel is intricately torch cut and welded in long assembly lines with automated robotic arms for block and sub-block assembly. Other plate steel is line heated for complex curvature by highly skilled and experienced craftsmen.

Incredibly stout transporters carted heavy assembled blocks to pre-outfitting departments before they hit the dr y dock, because it is far easier to do outfit as much as possible with the ship still in pieces. Then, from pre-outfitting, these

Size and organization Now, as a professional with a few years in the industry under my belt, I realize that much of the construction processes were well executed and the massive yard was well organized and impressive. As a student, seeing these processes was an invaluable experience and the sheer size and organization of HHI was aweinspiring. Our day usually would begin with a sunrise over the East Sea and the ring of an alarm clock at 6:30AM. We put on our HHI-issued personal protection equipment and uniforms and piled in a bus to the yard. On a daily basis, we were given personal shop tours from Korean engineers, as well as presentations and demonstrations of design experiments.

We a lso were able to ask a l l of t he questions our academically entrenched minds could conjure. The tours would start with the department heads giving us presentations on what they did and how they fit into the shipbuilding process. www.sname.org/sname/mt

April 2015 marine technology

(63)

(focus on education)

Cultural Immersion continued

Group activities included Tae Kwon Do sessions.

blocks are moved over to a dry dock where HHI’s massive goliath cranes lower the blocks in, one by one, to be connected.

We v isited t heir engine department, where HHI constructs diesels with piston cylinders large enough to stand inside.

Propeller casting was one of my favorite tours, where we saw the transition from expensive model scale testing props to full sized sand mold alloy casted anticorrosive beauties being machined with the highest of precision tolerances.

Our third and final week at HHI was spent at the Hyundai Maritime Research Institute (HMRI) and Hyundai Industrial Research Institute (HIRI). HMRI was about the closest thing we experienced to our normal academic lives. Similar in focus to the Marine Hydrodynamics Laboratory at UM, HMRI has a huge towing tank, model shop, model propeller shop, cavitation tunnel, circulating water channel, gravity wave tank, and more. At HIRI, one of the high points was the materials testing facilities. Our guides provided us with interactive tours, in which we performed calculations and industry standard tests; (64) marine technology April 2015

set up experiments; inspected damaged mater ia ls; judged cor rosion; took a bunch of measurements; and even put on extremely heav y protective wear to shot blast steel (which was awesome).

Visiting these institutes really enabled us to experience some of the rigors that go along with testing and research on a commercial level.

Wrapping up During the final week of our trip before returning to the U.S., we did not go to the yard. Instead, we spent our time at UOU with our Korean peers taking in cultural demonstrations put on for us by the university and again exploring as much as we could. “History of Korean Shipbuilding” and “Mindset of a North Korean Citizen” were just two of the interesting presentations given at UOU. During the evenings and in our free time, we explored Ulsan. We visited a local market and a couple of city shopping districts, and we found more Korean restaurants where one could even tr y dog if one wished (a few of us were brave

The UM students enjoyed the beautiful landscapes of South Korea.

enough, including yours truly). We took in a Hyundai Ulsan Tigers soccer game where we were able to practice some of the more colorful Korean phrases we had learned while onlookers giggled.

Visiting the yard and research facilities was easily the high point of the trip for me.

This program for the NAME department at UM was an invaluable highlight of my education and I hope it continues so that future students can gain from it as I did. My month in South Korea was a lifetime event that I reference fondly to this day and will continue to for the rest of my life.

Gun Bae, my colleagues, and Go Blue! MT Daniel J. Dabrowski is a naval architect with Alan C. McClure Associates, Inc. in Houston, TX.

Learn More

For more information on the 2009 UM South Korea trip, check out www.umnamekorea2009.blogspot.com.

www.sname.org/sname/mt

(focus on education)

Global Dialogue Bringing together the University of São Paulo and Webb Institute

BY KERRI ALLEGRETTA

www.sname.org/sname/mt

I

n spring 2014, Webb Institute, an undergraduate institute specializing in naval architecture and marine engineering in Glen Cove, NY, welcomed its first exchange student from Brazil. Leonardo F. A. Tinoco, a student at the University of São Paulo, is the first student to attend Webb through the Brazilian Scientific Mobility Program.

The program began in 2011 and is a multiyear initiative funded by the government of Brazil, which sends Brazilian University students abroad for training in science, technology, engineering, and math fields. According to the Institute of International Education (IIE), the goal of this program is to “promote scientific research, invest in and fund educational resources within Brazil and outside of the country, increase international cooperation in science and technology, and engage students in a global dialogue through international education.” Dr. George Campbell Jr., chairman of the Board of Trustees at Webb Institute, is a member of IIE Board of Trustees.

Webb Institute Professor Matthew Werner learned about the program through Stevens Institute of Technology and immediately applied for Webb to be a host institution. According to Werner, “The program seemed a natural fit for Webb. The structure of the program and its management made it very easy for Webb to add highly qualified students from Brazil to our educational community. The upside potential was very large with very little in the way of risk and cost. Participation in the program will help Webb increase its international exposure while diversifying our student body and enriching the overall educational experience. From my perspective it was an opportunity that was too good for Webb to pass up.”

Leo Tinoco heard about Webb from the dean of his college, who had worked with Webb previously. Other schools he considered included the University of Michigan, the University of New Orleans, and Stevens Institute of Technology. Webb, which offers one major in naval architecture and marine engineering, was his top choice because of the intense curriculum that focuses on technical and practical industry knowledge. Tinoco’s initial interest in naval architecture began when he was a child

Leo Tinoco came to Webb at the beginning of the spring 2014 semester.

in Santos, Brazil, where he would pass the large commercial ships on his way to school. By the age of 15, he wanted to take part in designing and building those ships, and he devoted himself to becoming a naval architect.

He arrived at Webb for a full year of study at the start of the spring semester 2014, where he joined three single-semester transfer students from the University of Southampton, an engineering college in the United Kingdom. During his first semester at Webb, Tinoco got to witness firsthand the unique living experience that every Webb student enjoys. He liked the intimate size of the college. “Everyone knows each other, “ he observes, “the relationships developed between the students are something closer to brotherhood than to friendship, and the interaction between students and professors is much closer and direct.” All 90 students at Webb live on a 26-acre campus located on Long Island’s Gold Coast. With the student-to-faculty ratio of 8:1, the accessibility of the faculty is a valuable resource at Webb Institute.

Travel and networking In May, Tinoco, along with the Webb Institute class of 2015, attended the Offshore Technology Conference in April 2015 marine technology

(65)

(focus on education)

Global Dialogue continued

In summer 2014, Tinoco worked as an intern surveyor for the American Bureau of Shipping at Aker Philadelphia Shipyard for seven weeks.

Houston, Texas, where he was able to network with naval architects, marine engineers, and offshore engineers from around the world. During their time in Houston, the students visited the Chevron engineering offices for a presentation on the offshore industry by a Webb Institute alumnus.

In between studies, Tinoco has had many other travel opportunities, including visits to New York City, Philadelphia, Washington D.C., San Diego, and Miami. Memorable moments that left impressions on him include the first time he saw snow and ice and his participation in Founder’s Day, a celebration of thanksgiving for William H. Webb, when Webb students and staff work together on community service tasks throughout the campus.

In summer 2014, Tinoco worked as an intern surveyor for the American Bureau of Shipping at Aker Philadelphia Shipyard for seven weeks. “Back in Brazil,” he explains, “during the three years I’ve been in the naval architecture program, my classmates and I never stepped on a ship or into a shipyard. During this last spring semester I was able to visit two ships and work the entire summer in one of the most modern shipyards in the U.S., surveying the construction of three oil tankers.”

During this past fall semester, he was completing his thesis titled “A Mathematical Tool to Calculate Static Stresses in Mooring Lines for Docked Ships.” For his thesis, he developed a computer program in MATLAB that calculates static stresses in mooring lines for docked ships.

Calculating the stresses present in a ship’s mooring lines system is important in defining the most appropriate way to berth a ship, to size lines and fenders, or even to project berth. The mathematical tool uses several simplifying considerations in order to make the mooring analysis faster and simpler, without losing accuracy for the case of any particular berthed ship.

marine engineering; electrical engineering; mechanical engineering; and civil/structural engineering, giving him the foundation to be able to troubleshoot any situation during his professional career. In his Ship Design 2 course, under Professor Neil Gallagher’s guidance, Tinoco created a preliminary design of a containership, which includes producing the general arrangement, hull form, weight estimate, powering estimate, and stability analysis for a modern vessel. In the Ship Propulsion course, along with learning the basic theory of marine diesel engines, he performed the main propulsion plan selection, the auxiliary systems designs, and machinery arrangements for the containerships of the Ship Design 2 project. These courses exposed him to the naval architecture software currently used in industry.

Tinoco also attended the SNAME Maritime Convention in Houston with the senior class during the fall semester, various recruitment events at Webb Institute with maritime firms, and numerous volunteer and social events–which included a camping trip in West Virginia during the fall break recess. He will return to Brazil to complete his undergraduate studies at the end of the fall semester in late December.

This exchange program has been a beneficial experience for both Tinoco and the Webb community. Dean Rick Neilson reflects, “Leo was a pleasure to have at Webb. He mixed extremely well with the students here and rapidly became an integral part of the current senior class. I believe they have learned from his behavior that adapting to a new culture can be achieved by respecting the differences from your own, while remaining true to the person you are. He will be missed by students and faculty alike.”

Funding for the program is provided by the Brazilian Ministry of Science and Technology’s National Council for Scientific and Technolog y Development, and the Ministry of Education’s Federal Agency for the Support and Evaluation of Graduate Education. MT

Variety of disciplines Webb’s curriculum exposed Tinoco to several engineering disciplines including ship design and systems engineering; (66) marine technology April 2015

Kerri Allegretta is director of media relations and communications at Webb Institute. www.sname.org/sname/mt

(running your business)

Working Big, Staying Small What do international activities look like for the small naval architecture firm?

BY SPENCER SCHILLING AND ROBERT TAGG

D

eveloping and maintaining a commercially competitive and relevant international presence can be a challenge for any business. Attempting it with the limited staff resources and capital of a small ship design and engineering company presents additional challenges. This is especially true if the goal of the firm is not rapid growth, because the usual business models for corporate expansion don’t apply in such a scenario. Still, there exist numerous examples of small and medium sized ship design and engineering firms that have a successful international presence. Our purpose here is to provide an example of how our firm,

Employee ownership provides us with more freedom to pursue work that is professionally challenging, interesting, and rewarding.

Herbert Engineering Corporation (HEC), addresses these challenges. We hope it will demonstrate how even the small can work large and worldwide while retaining a small company culture, provide work that is professionally challenging and rewarding for its employee owners and a valuable service for its clients, and be supportive of our global industry.

We’ll start with a brief history of HEC for context.

R.N. Herbert Naval Architects was formed in 1963 in San Francisco as a traditional commercial ship design company, working for shipowners and operators. Some of the firm’s earliest work was for non-U.S. owners building large commercial vessels overseas. The company was incorporated in 1973 as an employee owned enterprise—5 employees each with a 20% www.sname.org/sname/mt

stake. Everyone was vested in its success. For 40-plus years now we have maintained our core business as an owner’s design agent, added key engineering specialties, grow n modest ly in size (to 45 staff worldwide), and continued our employee ownership (shared by over 30 employees and former employees).

In the late 1970s, we started developing engineering software for our own use. Those efforts evolved into a software business for ship design and salvage response software and loading instruments of all types. The software evolved organically and synergistically with our engineering and was important to our success internationally. A few years ago, the American Bureau of Shipping (ABS) became a 50% owner in our software business in order to support its growth beyond what Herbert Engineering alone could accomplish. The software company, Herbert-ABS Software Solutions LLC, now has direct exposure to and support from a largescale international business partner, but it and HEC still operate as small businesses.

Since its founding more than 50 years ago, our firm has been active internationally. So this is not the case of a domestic U.S. company looking to expand overseas, but rather of a small company finding ways to stay active globally. Several characteristics of our business have helped us achieve this.

Employee ownership Employee ownership provides us with more freedom to pursue work that is professionally challenging, interesting, and rewarding. We are not driven solely by profits, although we certainly appreciate getting paid for our efforts and strive to provide a reasonable return to our shareholders. If we were driven solely by profit targets, our efforts internationally may have developed differently, perhaps making us less likely to take on business risks. It may be one of our faults as well as April 2015 marine technology

(67)

(running your business)

Working Big, Staying Small continued

In the last 10 years, we have developed a low overhead, distributed engineering model workforce.

our strengths, but we have followed the interests of our employee owners more than a cold, hard evaluation of the fiscal metrics would justify.

We developed a st rong sof t wa re component to ou r busi ness, wh ich enabled synergies and flexibilities with engineering services. The synergies of an engineering/design business with software development play out through our history of internationalization. Some of the software products we developed are sold just as any other vendor supplied equipment. While this is quite different from the business approach required for selling to and servicing engineering clients, it has often provided our first step into a new foreign market. The vendor/product model lends itself to agent representation; through an agent network, we were able to learn firsthand about the various global markets and players. This information enabled us to make better informed decisions about how and when to pursue engineering opportunities.

We have maintained our involvement with international shipping regulations.

Sh ippi ng a nd sh ip reg u lat ions a re inherently international and we have been actively involved in the review and evaluation of international shipping regulations on behalf of owners and designers. We are active participants in the United States Coast Guard ship safety and environmental working groups, and over the past 25-plus years have volunteered (68) marine technology April 2015

ou r t i me on va r ious I nter nat iona l Maritime Organization committees and subcommittees. We also have actively participated in many related research efforts (several led by SNAME).

In the last 10 years, we have developed a low overhead, distributed engineering model workforce. We work seamlessly as a single company across 6 offices and 3 continents. We can quite literally work a project around the clock. This has helped us to be active in markets where our local presence might seem too small—we work bigger than we look. It also means we can hire and employ talented engineers wherever we find them. Leveraging Internet bandwidth is key to making this work.

How it has played out The path we have followed has not been without bumps and missteps. Each one, however, was a learning experience that did no worse than financially burn our fingers a bit. Through the 1980s and ‘90s, HEC continued its international activity with newbuildings, conversions, and maintenance and repair (M&R) support for owners, mostly in Northern Europe but with Asian activity ramping up. We employed a range of third party agents worldwide to support our software sales. But many of our clients were U.S. and Canadian ship owning companies operating overseas flagged fleets.

In early 2000s, we tried for growth in our software business through a merger/ acquisition process. Herbert Software

Solut ions, Inc., a spin-of f company wholly owned by HEC, joined forces with Kockumation of Malmo Sweden. The new company was officially headquartered in the U.S., co-located with us. However, despite our best efforts to evaluate cultural and product compatibilities and manage a successful merger of both, the effort ultimately failed. The two companies never successfully merged. In the end, we realized the respective product loyalties among both staff and our customers were too strong to overcome. We parted amicably after a few years and our software business again pursued its own course.

At about the same time, we also set up a U.K. subsidiary. It provided software agency services in Europe and also gave us t he opportunit y to participate in interesting engineering R&D projects being well supported in the European Union. At that time, the workload never reached the necessary critical mass and we pulled the plug after several years.

Thinking ourselves wiser for the effort, we continued to evaluate the market and reinvested in a second try at a European off ice in 2008. Current ly residing in Glasgow, this office is active in both engineering and software support. We had to hold out through the 2008 meltdown and now we’re looking at another possible pullback due to the fallout in the North Sea offshore oil business. However, we’re still encouraged by the opportunities for doing interesting work in Europe and finding good talent that we can use to support clients globally.

I n t he late 1980s, we for med a partnership with Pacrim Martec to advance international sales for our software, mostly in China and Taiwan. Our relationship with Pacrim (run by two former HEC employees) and their experiences selling in Asia www.sname.org/sname/mt

In the late 1980s, we formed a partnership with Pacrim Martec to advance international sales for our software, mostly in China and Taiwan.

highlighted the necessity for international labor content with a lower cost to compete globally. It was not until 2004, however, that we finally took the chance and created a wholly owned foreign business in Shanghai.

At that time, we felt there were opportunities for both engineering and software that could support our enterprise.

Our longstanding relationship with Pacrim was key to the success of this startup, as they had all the local knowledge.

After 10-plus years, this office still provides a lower cost software production center, although both labor and facilities costs have risen substantially with the emergence of the Chinese economy and currency valuation. We also have been pleased with the engineering and drafting capabilities we have with our own local staff of Chinese naval architects. They’re able to support our clients in country for drydocks, repairs, conversions, and newbuilding plan approval services. They also form an integral part of our global distributed engineering workflow.

Our latest forays in Asia are in Singapore and Busan, Korea. We have a loca l presence on the ground as we investigate if our business approach to distributed engineering and business development will work. There have been some initial successes with these endeavors, but the jury is still out on the potential for longterm success.

The marine business is spread out across the globe, but still quite concentrated in only a dozen or so major international www.sname.org/sname/mt

hub locations. To be globally active, our experience is that you need to have a physical presence in these hubs to be taken seriously. A small service company can do this, while staying small, by leveraging a lean distributed workforce, using Internet bandwidth and the latest tools to stay

coordinated, and working big while staying small. It’s not always easy, but it is our chosen path forward. MT Spencer Schilling is president of Herbert Engineering Corporation. Robert Tagg is chairman of the Herbert Engineering Corporation group of companies.

What are USCG/IMO Horn Requirements?

USCG and IMO Regulations require a minimum output for horns on all vessels over 40 feet long. Surprisingly, many boats are fitted with horns and loudhailers that do not meet these requirements.

Kahlenberg Horns are available in air and all electric versions for all types of vessels 12 to over 200 meters L.O.A.. Each shipment includes ABS Certificates to USCG and IMO Rules.

Have a virtual blast...see and hear them at www.kahlenberg.com.

USCG/IMO compliant, ABS Type Approved sound signals

Kahlenberg Industries, Inc. Two Rivers, WI USA

Ph: 920-793-4507 www.kahlenberg.com April 2015 marine technology

(69)

(professional development)

The sun sets over the Burj Khalifa Lake in downtown Dubai.

In the Shadow of the Arabian Sun A recent grad’s perspective on going international

BY HAMPTON K. DIXON

A

November 2009 phone interview catapulted me into involvement in the restoration of the 1947 Bath Iron Works-built motor yacht, Haida. The project was based out of the United Arab Emirates (UAE) office of InterMarine Sharjah Ltd., an offshore supply vessel operator. This was my first time abroad, and the memory of landing in Dubai in January 2010 is still quite strong. As I exited the air conditioning of Dubai’s glitzy airport terminal, a wave of heat and humidity swept over my luggage, my glasses, and finally over me. While the temperature itself was not foreign, the realization that Houston’s winter high was Dubai’s winter low reminded me that I was now working in the shadow of the Arabian sun.

Throw out all preconceived notions that the Gulf countries are dangerous or backwards, places where everyone drives a Porsche or Bugatti, or that summer time in the desert brings a dry heat. During that first internship in Dubai, I was immersed in a different, yet oddly familiar, way of living and working. The big American shopping and restaurant brands are juxtaposed against traditional Arab markets and cafes selling fresh juices and shawarmas. Likewise, modern ship production facilities are commingled with basic ship repair yards—the latter favoring throwing more labor at a project over working more efficiently.

Shortly after I arrived, Haida was taken to one of Dubai’s oldest shipyards, Al Jaddaf, for drydocking and

(70) marine technology April 2015

class special surveys. I was tasked with making computer aided design schematics of Haida’s auxiliary systems and the occasional as-built drawing as new stabilizing fins and other gadgets were added during the refit. I immediately noticed that the UAE benefits from plentiful and relatively cheap manpower; sometimes it was easier to work “harder than smarter.” The abundant manpower still required careful organization, and the shipyard provided a great hands-on experience to see the results of good and bad management decisions.

The shipyard also provided an opportunit y to appreciate the diversity of workers in the UAE: European and American management, Filipino electricians, Polish mechanics, Indian carpenters, Pakistani welders, and others. All of these different nationalities worked together on the project cohesively and surprisingly, without much of a language barrier. Only at meal time could you see the different nationalities breaking into camps to enjoy their own regional dishes.

Almost anything Inevitably over the course of the drydock, requisitions for replacement parts and spares arose that were not available locally. This is where the UAE excels. As a trade hub for the Middle East, local suppliers pride themselves on being able to source almost anything. When looking for that hard to find, out of production spare part, one must only ask, “How long and how much?” Usually, parts www.sname.org/sname/mt

Yacht designer David Pedrick (left) and Hampton Dixon inspect the concrete originally poured in the bilges of M/Y Haida.

could be sourced out of the U.S., U.K., or Far East and delivered in under a week.

I returned to the UAE for two more 60-day internships with InterMarine before weighing job offers for after graduation. Interning abroad had provided a time warp of work and life experience, and I felt ahead of some of my classmates who didn’t travel abroad. When I joined InterMarine as a naval architect and marine engineer, I was slightly disappointed as I was told that I would be based at the corporate office in Houston, TX. Then I was told that my other office would be an airplane. Within the first six months, I had racked up some 50,000 air miles in regular runs between Houston, London, Dubai, and Fuzhou, China.

Traveling for business rarely provided an opportunity to see more than the airport, the shipyard or office, and the hotel, but even in those lightning trips around the world, I was able to sample the local flavors.

In one case, a colleague and I were scheduled to make a ship inspection of one of InterMarine’s newbuild anchor-handling, towing, and supply (AHTS) vessels in China.

He had been there many times for the first delivery, so I was looking forward to someone who knew where to go, how to navigate there, and what (not) to eat. Unfortunately, his visa wasn’t released in time, so I packed up and flew solo from Dubai to Fuzhou. My late night arrival spared me from the initial shock of Chinese traffic, but the morning ride to the shipyard made for a quick cure for jet lag. Never had I seen so many people using different modes of transport all vying to be in the same space simultaneously!

The shipyard excelled in modular construction and resembled the optimized processes I had heard about in ship production lectures. The scary part was that this wasn’t even one of the efficient yards. I spent almost a week there inspecting the progress of our new AHTS, eating alongside the engineers in the shipyard cafeteria, and walking around www.sname.org/sname/mt

the bustling city of Fuzhou. Everything in the yard seemed to run smoothly except when the topics of change orders or rework arose.

Having to do something twice or, worse yet, deviating from the standard plan really caused problems for the shipyard.

More permanent basis Shor t ly into my mont hly commutes between Houston and Dubai, another project forced me to spend more and more time in Dubai. The inevitable phone call came that I should plan to stay in the UAE on a more permanent basis. Once stationed in the UAE, the experience time warp ramped up again. I was soon leading the conversion of one of InterMarine’s specialized well stimulation vessels from a class I dynamic positioning system to a class II. The project was a test of marine engineering as well as patience, but it was tremendously rewarding as I gained an appreciation for the contracting side of the business.

I think that few of the challenges and opportunities thrust upon me in my short time out from college would have existed if I had followed the typical route of seeking employment in a U.S.-based engineering office. Interning and working abroad has fast-tracked my career and provided a decade’s worth of work and life experience in less than half that time.

Life in the shadow of the Arabian sun provides tremendous insight into the cultures and

MV BigOrange 25 undergoes trials offshore Sharjah, UAE in May 2014.

history of the Middle East and the power struggles at play here. It is a fascinating time to work abroad, to see how other countries perceive the United States, and to watch our industry become more globally connected. MT Hampton K. Dixon is operations manager at InterMarine Sharjah Ltd. in Sharjah, United Arab Emirates.

April 2015 marine technology

(71)

(professional development)

Borobudur is a ninth century Buddhist temple near Yogyakarta, Indonesia.

International Waters An experienced professional on overseas assignments

BY STEVE PAGAN

S

hipping is the ultimate interchangeable activity—design and construction can be and are accomplished in almost every corner of the world. So it’s no surprise that many professionals end up working overseas; I have had the good fortune to have done that on two long-term assignments. The first was for an offshore oil and gas development project, where I spent two years living in Seoul, Republic of Korea. A year after my return, I accepted an assignment and worked in Jakarta, Indonesia for just over three years.

At the moment, I’m back in the U.S., but still dreaming of those international waters.

There are many positive aspects of international assignment. First and foremost is the tremendous professional experience you will gain. In your home organization, you will quickly become the expert on that country and/or region, and you will develop relationships with shipyards, designers, and vendors that that can help you for the rest of your career.

I attended college in the U.S. and then spent the first 18 years of my career working exclusively in the USA, except for a few weeks of training in Germany and Finland. I was starting to think I had things figured

(72) marine technology April 2015

out; but after a few weeks working in another culture, I realized I had just scratched the surface of my industry.

You also will get to meet some fascinating people.

With the advent of social media, staying connected to them is easy, even though you may be thousands of miles away.

If you enjoy sightseeing, you will have the ability to travel and see amazing places. Traveling from the U.S. to northeast Asia takes the better part of a day, and getting to southeast Asia can take two days or more.

But once you are there, there are hundreds of destinations that are now only a two-hour flight away—close enough to visit on a long weekend. Even near your adopted home, there can be great opportunities for sightseeing; for example, my favorite activity while in Seoul was to explore the nearby mountains with the Seoul International Hiker’s Club.

Strategies for success Learn about the culture. The single most important thing to have a successful assignment while overseas is to learn as much as you can about the culture. Culture can be defined as the way in which a people interpret their surroundings, and every culture is different, molded by its www.sname.org/sname/mt

Traditional Pinisi cargo ships at Sunda Kelapa port, Jakarta, Indonesia.

history and development. It can be difficult for an individual to understand that his or her fundamental view of the world is not shared by everyone, but that is the heart of what culture is.

Intercultural experts describe culture as an iceberg. The part of the iceberg that you actually see is only 10% of the whole; most of it cannot be seen. Like an iceberg, the biggest and most important part of a culture cannot be directly observed. Many aspects of culture are not intuitive to outsiders, such as the role of the individual versus a group, and the amount of hierarchy or egalitarianism.

One of the biggest pitfalls of living and working overseas is to look at things through the lens of your own culture. This can cause stereotyping, regression, and general failure. You need to find the empathy to see things in a different light and only then can you be successful.

Learn the language. Some languages can be very difficult for westerners to learn. From my personal experience, Korean is one of them because it is written in Hangul (not roman) script and there are almost no cognates. But with a few weeks of practice, almost anyone can read it, as the characters are phonetic. For my second assignment, I vowed to learn the language and worked with a tutor for the whole time I lived there.

The Indonesian language is written in roman script but also has very few cognates. One of the aspects of that language that originally made no sense to me was that the verbs are not conjugated.

Instead of “I went,” you would say “I already go” or “I not yet go,” and soon I realized how simple this makes communication.

I found that, even if you use only a few basic words and phrases, the people in your host country are appreciative and proud that a foreigner is trying.

Keep your sense of humor. On several occasions I have tried new restaurants, only to receive something that I was not expecting, resulting in my going home hungry. Rather than going back and complaining about how miserable the food is where you are, keep www.sname.org/sname/mt

Sunrise at Borobudur, near Yogyakarta, Indonesia.

your sense of humor. And always have a can of Spam and some crackers in your apartment.

Possible pitfalls Out of sight, out of mind. Being away from the main office means that your company might forget about you. You may be doing a great job out in the field, but if nobody knows it, this could be a recipe for disaster. You can mitigate this by frequent, detailed communication with your colleagues and especially your supervisor. Try to dial in to as many meetings as you can, even if they are at midnight.

Family matters. An overseas assignment is not for everyone at every stage in their career and life. Your spouse may have a career that he or she cannot pursue while overseas or may not be legally authorized to practice due to visa restrictions. Children need stability during high school years, or parents may need to have someone nearby to help take care of them.

Emotional rollercoaster. Moving is always a difficult process, and moving overseas is even more so. Before departure, there is the rush of excitement looking forward to a new challenge. Once in country, everything is new and exciting; this is a “honeymoon” period. But a few months in, many people hit an emotional valley. The excitement has worn off and you are hit with the experience of a large workload, possibly a lack of support or understanding from your home office, and the prospect of being away from friends and families for a long period of time. I was able to cope with this by talking to friends and family a lot, and writing a blog about my experiences.

I never expected my career to have an international component.

However, now that I have lived it, I can’t imagine what my life would have been like without these experiences. MT Steve Pagan graduated from Webb Institute in 1988 with a degree in naval architecture and marine engineering, and since 2004 he has worked with an oil and gas producing company.

April 2015 marine technology

(73)

(glossary)

Acronyms, names, and terms appearing in this issue APSI: Aker Philadelphia Shipyard, Inc., a U.S. commercial shipyard constructing vessels for operation in the U.S. Jones Act market Blount Boats: Rhode Island shipbuilder that partners with Damen Shipyards CAESES: computational fluid dynamics integration platform produced by Germanybased Friendship Systems

DTC: Damen Technical Cooperation, a building onsite program of Damen Shipyards

FREDYN: simulation tool developed by CRNAV, MARIN’s cooperative network

Eagle Bay: one of two 115,000 dwt crude oil carriers that built by Aker Philadelphia Shipyard, Inc. for SeaRiver Maritime, Inc.

HMD: Hyundai Mipo Dockyard, Korean yard partnering with Aker Philadelphia Shipyard, Inc.

EAR: U.S. Department of Commerce Export Administration Regulations

INSA: the International Naval Safety Association, established in 2008 and focused on developing and maintaining the Naval Safety Code, as well as to track its application to designs around the world

CRNAV: Cooperative Research Navies, a cooperative network of MARIN, established in 1989

FLAP: Fatigue Life Assessment Project, a MARIN project to assess fatigue design approaches for the United States Coast Guard national security cutters

CRS: Cooperative Research Ships, a cooperative network of MARIN, established in 1969

FME: Fairbanks Morse Engine, Wisconsin-based engine manufacturer

Damen Shipyards: Netherlands-based shipbuilder

FPSO Research Forum: a network of MARIN

ITAR: U.S. Department of State International Traffic in Arms Regulations KOMAC: Korea Maritime Consultants Co. Ltd., Korean company partnering with Aker Philadelphia Shipyard, Inc. MAESTRO: ship design software used in joint industry project headed by Jeom Kee Paik of Pusan National University in Korea

SNAME HEADQUARTERS STAFF The Society of Naval Architects and Marine Engineers 99 Canal Center Plaza Suite 310 Alexandria, VA 22314 www.sname.org Phone: 703-997-6701 Fax: 703-997-6702 Erik Seither Executive Director eseither@sname.org 703-997-6703 Jodi Lane Executive Administrator jlane@sname.org 703-997-6704 Mike Hall Director of Membership mhall@sname.org 703-997-6707

(74) marine technology April 2015

Carole Herzog Membership Coordinator cherzog@sname.org 703-997-6708

Sofia Iliogrammenou SNAME European Regional Office siliogrammenou@sname.org 0030 210 4528205

Susan Evans Grove Director of Content sevans@sname.org 703-997-6706

Brittany Greer Scholarship Coordinator bgreer@sname.org 703-997-6709

Kristin Walker Publications Coordinator kwalker@sname.org 703-997-6710

Lia Vang Director of Finance lvang@sname.org 703-997-6713

Alex Landsburg Technical & Research Program Coordinator alandsburg@sname.org 703-997-6715

Han Choi Staff Accountant hchoi@sname.org 703-997-6714

Alana Alissa Yoshiko Anderson Director of Events aanderson@sname.org 703-997-6705

MARIN: Maritime Research Institute Netherlands, a provider of advanced expertise and independent research NavCad: vessel design and analysis software produced by New Hampshire-based HydroComp NSC: Naval Safety Code, an NSCA naval document addressing safety issues NSCA: Naval Ship Classification Association, an organization dedicated to addressing naval design issues specific to class societies NG6: Naval Group 6, a NATO working group focused on ship design SHI: Samsung Heavy Industries, Korean shipyard partnering with Aker Philadelphia Shipyard, Inc. VALID: a MARIN joint industry project involving such organizations as ABS, Damen Shipyards, and Ingalls Shipbuilding VOF: Vessel Operators Forum, established by MARIN in 2007

www.sname.org/sname/mt

(historical note)

A worker at Avondale Shipyards, Inc. applies line heating, a process for accurately producing curved plates that was quickly mastered by American shipyard workers. Photo by Louis D. Chirillo.

Efficient Shipbuilding Bringing together expertise from around the world

BY LOUIS D. CHIRILLO

www.sname.org/sname/mt

I

received a message, written in what I call “Jinglish,” on in Tokyo, “It’s time for us to assist Poland’s shipbuilding November 22 1994: “Winter of Poland will be cold you industry.” JPC inquired about available expertise and was don’t like I also but they want to do general review and informed that IHI was believed by many to have the most seminar as early as possible. I need your help as same effective shipbuilding system in the world. Due to a large as Spain’s Astilleros Españoles.” The message was from a number of commitments, IHI could not spare anyone and Japanese retiree, H. Kurose, then self-employed as a ship- recommended retiree Kurose. The latter asked me to assist building consultant. Kurose had a significant role in the because I had already identified and, with the assistance development of the world’s most effective shipbuilding sys- of an IHI cadre, published the logic and principles upon tem during his three decades with Ishikawajima-Harima which the IHI manufacturing system is based.

Heavy Industries Co., Ltd. (IHI) of Japan. I then learned that the sponsor was a unique government agency, The Japan Analytical approach Productivity Center (JPC), which was established in March I also had ascertained that the IHI approach was ana1955 and was dedicated to productivity improvement. lytical in nature and based upon ideas introduced by According to its Web site, “Since startup in 1955, managerial gurus from America. Chief among them were JPC upheld its basic philosophy of maintaining and Peter Drucker, who had created and defined the term respecting the human element in economic activities. It “knowledge worker;” the statistician W. Edwards Deming; launched a nationwide productivity movement centered and super-practical Elmer Hann, the former construction on Japan’s industrial society based on three guiding superintendent in Henry Kaiser’s Swan Island Shipyard principles: expansion of employment, cooperation in Portland, Oregon during World War Two. between labor and management, and fair distribution Drucker and Deming were first brought to Japan after of the fruits of productivity among labor, management, the war by the occupation authorities. In 1951, after a postand consumers. As a neutral tripartite organization rep- war search in Europe in behalf of National Bulk Carriers resenting labor, management, and academic experts, it (NBC), Hann began building ships of unprecedented size contributed greatly to the development of Japan’s econ- in Japan’s former naval dockyard in Kure. Hann readily omy and the improvement of people’s lives.” accepted Drucker’s vision of a knowledge worker and the In September 1990, the JPC Project for Productivity Deming-introduced statistical tools that provided workers, Improvement Assistance in the former Soviet Union and their immediate supervisors, and top managers with inforEast European Countries commenced. Four years later, the mation, commensurate with their levels of responsibility, JPC representative in Warsaw advised JPC headquarters about how work was being performed. When NBC’s ten-year April 2015 marine technology

(75)

(historical note)

Efficient Shipbuilding continued

attention. It should be in the hands of all shipbuilders and steel fabricators, whose managers should be made aware, that a practiced eye in viewing welded components for further assembly, can immediately determine the quality of their finished products by the conditions of such components. If such weldments are not neat, without weld distortion, further problems will persist and cost control will be difficult.” That is typical of how Elmer Hann complimented, encouraged, and instructed.

There is another outstanding individual. When approached by project managers for the U.S. National Shipbuilding Research Program, Dr. H. Shinto, then the IHI chief executive, allowed the American researchers complete access to the IHI shipbuilding system. When he died more than 20 years later, I was asked to contribute to a testimonial to the man whose former subordinates referred to as teacher rather than boss. The following is part of what I submitted: “Dr. Shinto’s demeanor indicated that he did not have the kind of ego that required an exalted atmosphere about him. I sensed that he had a profound respect for the people who performed physical work and lease expired, IHI acquired the shipyard and continued operation of because of that, he was constantly aware of management’s obligation the constantly improving shipbuilding system. to create a system in which people ‘work smarter not harder’ as one I am fortunate in having met and corresponded with Hann, so of his mentors, Dr. W. Edwards Deming, urged.

I can advise some pertinent history in his words. In response to my “I learned from Dr. Shinto that an effective shipbuilding system inquiry, Hann wrote in a May 17, 1977 letter: “Our all-welded construc- features organization of people, information, and work that facilitate tion was introduced into Japan for the first time, to the fullest extent analyses by participants at every level and constant acceptance of allowed by the classification society. We used the American Bureau ideas for improvements based upon factual evidence regardless of of Shipping… as most of our machinery came from the U.S.A. for the who submitted the ideas. Dr. Shinto advocated need to constantly first several years. Job and material controls were organized into one improve the system as being more important than anything else, even department. Sequence and scheduling of work was carefully planned more important than himself as the chief executive. He exhibited true and closely monitored along with quality control and inspection that leadership; he knew the methods for effective management and he were kept separate from production departments. employed them for the benefit of his employees.”

“To recount all would fill a book; basically we adhered to: When I last met Dr. Shinto, during a University of Michigan ship• careful analysis of vessel as to size blocks and shape with refined building short course in October 1980, he advised, “The behavior drawings or sketches of each weldment, together with machinery, of the American worker is excellent. The only thing necessary is to piping, etc., to be installed at assembly shop or area change the minds of management… that’s all!”

• coordinated material control The 1967 issue of Technical Progress in Shipbuilding and Engineering, • allocation of labor and time scheduled for each operation published by The Society of Naval Architects of Japan, reported in • installed machinery, piping, and other equipment to a great extent English that statistical control “epoch makingly improved quality, laid before erection the foundation of modern ship-construction methods and made it pos• reduced staging to a minimum sible to extensively develop automated and specialized welding.” The • introduced inorganic zinc coating in the assembly line author of that item should have added, “Thank you Peter Drucker, thank • t he key to rapid construction is how to weld without distortion you Dr. Deming, and a special thanks to Elmer Hann.”

I would like to credit Charles S. Jonson, who had significant shipand shape of weldments or modules that defy or resist distortion especially when such affects the vessel’s measurements and yard planning experience, as being the first American to understand locked-in stresses. the logic shift being exploited by IHI managers; that is, from system “We used a group of junior engineers with one or two to each by system to zone per stage classified by problem area, so as to permit department or area to study methods and procedures and shifting the effective application of group technology. MT them frequently from one department to another. Most became topnotch supervision over the years.”

Louis D. Chirillo is a retired United States Navy engineering duty officer. He is best known for In a January 7, 1983 letter, Hann added: “Your ‘Line Heating’ is his post-navy accomplishments as an industry project manager for the Maritime Adminisby far, the best publication on the subject matter that has come to my tration’s government/industry National Shipbuilding Research Program.

Workers at Avondale Shipyards, Inc., circa 1980. Photo courtesy C.S. Starkenberg, Avondale Shipyards, Inc.

(76) marine technology April 2015

www.sname.org/sname/mt

Save the Date

November 3-7, 2015

Rhode Island Convention Center Providence, RI

Will be held in conjunction with WMTC 2015

For more information: www.sname.org/2015WMTC Queries regarding the technical program should be directed to the Technical Program Co-Chairs: Roger Basu – roger.i.basu@gmail.com and Krish Thiagarajan – krish.thiagarajan@maine.edu For general inquiries, please contact: Alana Anderson, Director of Events, SNAME – aanderson@sname.org/ +1 703-997-6705

13th International Conference on Fast Sea Transportation September 1-4, 2015 FHI 360 Conference Center, Washington DC, USA For more information: www.sname.org/FAST2015 Queries regarding the technical program should be directed to the Papers Chairs: Dr. Chris McKesson – chris@McKesson.us

For general inquiries, please contact: Alana Anderson, Director of Events, SNAME – aanderson@sname.org/ +1 703-997-6705

More About SNAME Join

Renew

Contribute

Share the Benefits

SNAME 99 Canal Center Plaza, Suite 310 Alexandria, Virginia, USA 22314/ +1 703-997-6701/ www.sname.org

(historical note)

ENGINEERED COOLING SOLUTIONS.

Photo courtesy of Eastern Shipbuilding Group

OVER 65 YEARS COOLING THE MARINE INDUSTRY

GRIDCOOLER速 Keel Cooler

R.W. Fernstrum is committed to providing long-lasting, quality cooling systems. Our sales and engineering team will work with you to custom design a solution that meets the needs of your vessel and operating conditions.

WEKA Boxcooler

fernstrum.com 906.863.5553 (4) marine technology April 2015 sales@fernstrum.com

Tranter速 Heat Exchangers

www.sname.org/sname/mt