modular platform based surface ship design
TRANSCRIPT
Modular Platform Based Surface Ship Design
by
Caspar Andri LargiaderS.M., Ocean Systems Management, June 1999
Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA, U.S.A.
SUBMITTED TO THE DEPARTMENT OF OCEAN ENGINEERING
IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OFMASTER OF SCIENCE IN NAVAL ARCHITECTURE AND MARINE ENGINEERING
at the
MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGYFebruary 2001
0 2001 Caspar Andri Largiader, All Rights Reserved
The author hereby grants to MIT permission to reproduce and distribute publicly paper andelectronic copies of this thesis document in whole or in part
Signature of the Author...............
Certified by...... .....
A
Certified by........
Department of Ocean EngineeringJanuary 31, 2001
Professor Clifford WhitcombProfessor of Naval Architecture
Thesis Supervisor
.................................Professor Kevin N. Otto
Professor of Mechanical EngineeringThesis Supervisor
A ccepted by ... . .................................................................Professor Nicholas Patrikalakis
MASSACHUSETTS INSTTt Kawasaki Professor of EngineeringOF TECHNOLOGY
I Chairman, Departmental Committee on Graduate StudiesAPR 1 8 2001 BARKER
L, LIBRARIES
MITL IbariesDocument Services
Room 14-055177 Massachusetts AvenueCambridge, MA 02139Ph: 617.253.2800Email: [email protected]://Iibraries.mit.edu/docs
DISCLAIMER OF QUALITY
Due to the condition of the original material, there are unavoidableflaws in this reproduction. We have made every effort possible toprovide you with the best copy available. If you are dissatisfied withthis product and find it unusable, please contact Document Services assoon as possible.
Thank you.
The images contained in this document are ofthe best quality available.
Modular Platform Based Surface Ship Designby
Caspar Andri Largiader
Submitted to the Department of Ocean Engineeringon February, 2001, in partial fulfillment of the
requirements for the degree ofMaster of Science in Naval Architecture and Marine Engineering
Abstract
Platform based-based product families have been implemented effectively by manycompanies as a mean to increase product variety and target specific customer needs, whilecontaining the resulting complexity of developing large number of distinct products. Aproduct platform can be described as a set of elements - components, processes, technologies,and resources - that are shared among multiple products offered by a company. End productsderived from the common platform are called variants and the entity of variants forms aproduct family.
This thesis presents a methodology for modeling the design of platform based surface shipswith regard to cost reduction associated with shipbuilding, particularly costs concerning thenaval design, acquisition, and construction process. Initially standardization of equipment andship systems is discussed, the concept of modularity is introduced and furthermore a methodon analyzing products with regard to their functionality as well as the potentialstandardization and module identification is discussed.
For an application to the presented methodology the Blohm&Voss' s frigate design is used.The modular design of the Blohm&Voss MEKO frigate family is functionally analyzed andthen a proposition for establishing modules is made.
Finally the advantages and disadvantages of modular ship design are discussed with respect tonavy and commercial applications.
Thesis Supervisor: Professor Clifford WhitcombTitle: Professor of Naval Architecture
Thesis Supervisor: Professor Paul Kevin N. OttoTitle: Professor of Mechanical Engineering
2
Acknowledgments
First of all, I would like to express my gratitude to my parents. All the love, support andguidance they have provided me throughout my education is the most precious inheritance Icould have ever had obtained from them.
This thesis is dedicated to my mother, Susette, to whom this two and a half years separationhave been especially hard, as it they have been for me.
Many thanks to the rest of my family, especially my aunt and my uncle, Dorothee andMichael, who where the first within the family to introduce me to the field of NavalArchitecture.
I wish to thank my advisor, Professor Kevin Otto, for all his help. With out his contribution Iwould have never finished this thesis. All insights to the problem he has provided me with,have been very helpful.
Professor Clifford Whitcomb has provided me with a lot of detailed knowledge concerningnaval ships and their systems. I would like to thank him for his entire valuable insightsdefining the vessel's and their system's functionality.
Furthermore my thanks are addressed to Professor Henry S. Marcus who continuouslyprovided me with information and data concerning my research.
I would also like to thank Ricardo, who has been reviewing my thesis, a couple of times andgave me some helpful insights on how to focus on the main topic without loosing the bigpicture.
Finally, I want to express my gratitude to Dirk, my roommate, and all my friends, that havemade my staying in Boston an invaluably great experience. Especially to those from MIT likeAris, Mike, Nikos, Pantelis, and Roar with whom I have attended this Master's Program andshared this wonderful last two years.
3
Biography of the Author
C. Andri Largiadbr was born in Winterthur, Switzerland on April 12, 1965. After completing
his high school education at the Kantonsschule im Lee, Winterthur, in 1986, Mr. Largiader
entered the Swiss Air Force to complete his mandatory basic training. His ongoing military
education was again at the Swiss Air Force where he attended the corporal education and
furthermore a four months training in the field.
In fall 1987 Mr. Largiader commenced his studies in the field of Mechanical Engineering at
the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology (ETH) in Zurich, Switzerland. Mr. Largiadbr
majored in system dynamics and combustion engineering and graduated with a diploma in
Mechanical Engineering (dipl. ing. ETH) in January 1993.
Parallel to his university education Mr. Largiader attended the Swiss Air Force Academy
where he graduated as a second lieutenant in 1992 and then returned for five months to
training missions. Mr. Largiader's current position in the Swiss Air Force is a company
commander in the rank of a first lieutenant.
After completing his military service, Mr. Largiadbr was self-employed for one year in the
field of software development. He then joined Andersen Consulting & Co. Zurich office as a
consultant where he worked on various projects until June 1997. In the fall of 1997 he
attended a two months trainee program with Sociedad Naviera Ultragas, a major Chilean
shipping operator engaged in global container transportation, liquid and dry bulk shipment.
Mr. Largiadbr was admitted as a graduate student to the Massachusetts Institute of
Technology in January 1998. He selected Naval Architecture and Marine Engineering, and
Ocean Systems Management as his majoring fields.
Mr. Largiadbr is fluent in German, English and French and has basic knowledge in Spanish.
4
Table of Contents
ABSTRA CT ............................................................................................................................................................ 2
A CK N O W LED G M EN TS ..................................................................................................................................... 3
BIO G RAPH Y O F TH E A UTH O R ...................................................................................................................... 4
TABLE O F CO NTENTS ...................................................................................................................................... 5
1 INTR O DU CTIO N .......................................................................................................................................... 7
2 PREVIO U S RESEARCH ............................................................................................................................ 13
3 STANDARD IZATIO N ................................................................................................................................ 15
3.1 STANDARDIZATION OF EQUIPMENT AND COMPONENTS..................................................................... 15
3.2 STANDARDIZATION OF SHIP PRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 173.3 BENEFITS OF STANDARDIZATION ............................................................................................................ 18
4 M O DU LA RITY ........................................................................................................................................... 20
4.1 DEFINITION ............................................................................................................................................. 20
4.2 TYPES OF M ODULARITY..........................................................................................................................24
4.2.1 Component Sharing M odularity................................................................................................. 244.2.2 Fabricate to Fit M odularity ........................................................................................................... 254.2.3 Component Swapping M odularity............................................................................................... 254.2.4 Bus M odularity...............................................................................................................................254.2.5 Sectional M odularity......................................................................................................................26
4.3 POTENTIAL BENEFITS OF M ODULARITY..............................................................................................33
4.3.1 Product Variety..............................................................................................................................334.3.2 Econom ies of Scale ........................................................................................................................ 344.3.3 Product Change ............................................................................................................................. 344.3.4 D e-coupling of Tasks ..................................................................................................................... 344.3.5 Component Verification and Testing.......................................................................................... 35
4.4 POTENTIAL COSTS OF M ODULARITY.....................................................................................................36
4.4.1 Static Product Architecture............................................................................................................364.4.2 Performance Optim ization.............................................................................................................364.4.3 Reverse Engineering......................................................................................................................374.4.4 Increase of Unit Costs .................................................................................................................... 37
5 FUNCTIO N A L M O D ELIN G ..................................................................................................................... 38
5.1 FUNCTION TREES....................................................................................................................................395.2 FUNCTION STRUCTURE ........................................................................................................................... 40
5.3 IDENTIFICATION OF M ODULES ................................................................................................................ 41
6 PRO D UCT D ESIG N ................................................................................................................................... 43
6.1 PRODUCT ARCHITECTURE.......................................................................................................................44
6.2 PRODUCT PORTFOLIO A RCHITECTURE.................................................................................................466.3 INTEGRAL VERSUS M ODULAR PRODUCT DESIGN....................................................................................46
6.4 PRODUCT PLATFORMS ............................................................................................................................ 47
6.4.] Pros and Cons of Platforms ........................................................ ......... ......... ........... 47
5
6.4.2 Integral and M odular Platforms ................................................................................................ 48
7 M O D U LA R PLA TFO R M S IN SH IP D ESIG N ......................................................................................... 49
7.1 A NALYSIS OF THE M EK O FRIGATE FAM ILY........................................................................................ 49
7.1.1 Functional D ecomposition....................................................................................................... 517.1.2 Proposed M odules..........................................................................................................................55
8 C O N C LU SIO N S .......................................................................................................................................... 64
9 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH ....................................................................... 66
10 A PPEN D IX ............................................................................................................................................... 67
M EK O FRIGATES ............................................................................................................................................... 6710.2 FUNCTION TREE......................................................................................................................................6810.3 M EK O FAM ILY FUNCTION STRUCTURE ............................................................................................... 7710.4 MEKO FAMILY FUNCTION STRUCTURE WITH PROPOSED MODULES..................................................8610.5 M ODULARITY M ATRIX (M EK O)......................................................................................................... 95
10.6 M ODULARITY M ATRIX (PRODUCT M ODULES)......................................................................................96
BIBLIO G R A PH Y ................................................................................................................................................ 97
6
1 Introduction
Navies around the world are faced with decreasing budgets and increasing production costs,
which leads to a diminishing industrial base within the shipbuilding industry worldwide.
Navies therefore must strive harder to reduce costs associated with naval ship design,
production, acquisition, operation and retrofits of their vessels. Methods to reduce the total
cost of ownership must be developed and implemented.
The Figures 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, and 1.4 indicate some trends referring to US shipyards with respect
to naval and commercial ship construction. As Navy construction has slowed down over the
past years, and for the U.S. commercial ship construction is nearly non-existent, the situation
could become considerably worse without successful efforts to improve ship design,
acquisition and production process. The potential impact on cost reduction of design and ship
production has been extensively documented. [20].
$K/TON (FY 90 CONTRACT DOLLARS)250
200 FFG 7CG 47 DDG 51
10 *CGN 9 +
*CGN 25
100 37 DD W63 N38100 DDG37 e CGN 36
2 +FFG 1 0 4, DOG 9930+CG 26 DD 963
so FF 1037
19W 1965 1970 1975 19W 1985 1990 1995 2000
Figure 1.1: Costs of Surface Combat Ships [25]
7
NUMBER OF SHIPS
56637
-4 6
\-20%473-25 %\
.. \417
DATA: GAO - 1975-1990
.I Ii ..........
76 78 80 82 84 86 88 90FISCAL YEAR
Figure 1.2: Number of US Naval Ships [25]
92 94
889796
79
Merchant Vessels under Construction or on Order
120 -
100 -
80 -
60 -
40 -
20 -600 111 11 1 11 1 11 1 -r- 1
II
I71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88
Year
72 706960
I49
35
2110107
11 I 0
Figure 1.3: Number of Merchant Vessels under Construction or on Order at U.S. Shipyards
[25]
8
600
550
500
450
400
350
300
4-
Ez
59
'I I I0 0 3 31
89 9091 92 93
NUMBER OF SHIPYARDS OR THOUSANDS OFPRODUCTION WORKERS
is 112110105
N % % Employment90
86
80 74
Number of Shpyards 61
55-
32 63 34 S 86 ? aS so S 91 94
YEAROCTOBER 1, EACH YEAR
Figure 1.4: Number of U.S. Shipyards; Number of Work Force [25]
The objective of the underlying study is to research the role of modularization in shipbuilding.
Modularization in design and construction of surface ships has been studied in Japan and
Korea although, according to Hyundai Heavy Industries (HHI), neither Japanese nor Korean
shipyards have successfully implemented this methodology [9]. Instead, a standardization of
parts on a very low level of ship construction has been applied with success. Girders,
stanchions, entire bulkheads, plates, and piping has been standardized to some point, which
facilitates (standardizes) the production process and, according to HHI, major cost savings
have been achieved [9]. Standardization at the production level assists primarily in reducing
the production costs, but does not leverage most of the degrees of freedom in an early stage
concept design for complex ships, such as naval combatants [28].
9
The US Navy has recently set new objectives concerning the design of future surface
combatants [11].
"Future system architectures enable concepts of modular design to be reconsidered in order
to achieve both flexibility in upgrading existing combat systems or in installing new systems
over the life of a naval ship and a significant reduction in building time and cost.
The architecture offuture technologies such as, integrated power systems, open architecture
networked combat systems, and multifunctional antennas and warrants enables addressing
modularity in ship design and construction.
Modularity and standardization in future ship design can be derived from a program in
modularity and standards, called the Ship Systems Engineering Standards Program, started
by the US. Navy in the early 1980s. The concept was to develop interface standards that
would permit the use of a wide variety of systems through the easy interchange of modules
anytime in the service life of the ship. Standards were developed for the current vertical
launch system, but the program was terminated before additional standards for electronics
and machinery were developed"
As mentioned initially, modularity in systems design for naval surface vessels has been
successfully used for the MEKO frigates (Figures 1.5 and 1.6), built by Blohrm & Voss
shipyards in Germany and for the Danish frigate Stanflex.
10
Figure 1.5: Modular Frigate Design MEKO -Front View
Figure 1.6: Modular Frigate Design MEKO -Side View
MEKO (Multi-Purpose Combination) refers to a family of advanced modular warship designs
and embraces the flexible installation of weapon, electronic and major ship service systems in
11
_L 4
the form of standardized modules and standardized interfaces. Modularity is the keynote of
the MEKO technology. So far, some 1100 MEKO modules have been installed on the 43
delivered or ordered frigates and corvettes, which have been either partially or fully designed
according to the MEKO design concept.
Blohm&Voss indicates that the major benefits of modularity during the development - and
construction phase are [6]:
" Reduction of design time through reuse of common modules/components
" Design flexibility
" Saving of time and costs during the production process
" Clear division of responsibility between the ship yard as prime contractor and the
manufacturers of the weapons, electronic and machinery systems.
The MEKO frigates will be used throughout this work to apply the hereafter-developed
frameworks and methodologies for modular product and system design.
12
2 Previous Research
Japanese and Korean shipyards have spent considerable amount of time researching possible
modularization of merchant vessels such as tankers and container ships. Their primary focus
was on modular hull structures considering the possibility of building a family of ships with
standardized bows and sterns but variable midbody sections [26]. According to Mr. Kim, head
of ship production at Hyundai Heavy Industries (HHI), all attempts to implement hull
modularity failed due to large impacts on stability and hydrodynamic boundary conditions. A
simple change in hull length by adding a modular midbody section affects the overall stability
of the vessel, the dynamics of the system and the sea keeping.
As mentioned earlier, Blohm&Voss has been a leading shipbuilder applying modular design
for surface combatants. Their MEKO concept is based on a product platform providing a
variety of weapon systems (missile launchers, guns, torpedo launchers), fire control systems,
radar, and communication systems. Modularity in this respect does not apply to the hull
design; in fact most of the hulls offered by Blohm&Voss differ by minor differences in
length, beam, and draught.
In the early 1980s the Danish Navy, faced with an aging and increasingly obsolete surface
fleet and a limiting defense budget, made the decision to introduce the 'Standard Flexibility'
concept (standardization of design and flexibility in operations). Operational planning
indicated the requirement to maintain the existing numbers of vessels, but realistic long-term
budgeting dictated that ship for ship replacement was not feasible. As a result, the basis of the
concept was to design a standard hull with standard propulsion which could be re-configured
to take a variety of containerized weapon loads to suit different operational roles.
Standardized containers and associated interfaces would then allow the role of the vessel to be
interchanged within a few hours to meet different operational contingencies.
Sensors common to all roles or not suited for containerization (e.g. hull-mounted sonars and
radar etc) would be permanently fitted. In addition, a modular and flexible C31 system, based
upon a data bus and standardized consoles and processors, would be fundamental to the
13
concept. Open architecture would allow the C31 system itself to have hardware and software
modules added, or removed, to meet changing requirements, or new technology.
Feasibility studies indicated that 16 STANFLEX 300 (approximately 300 tons displacement)
vessels would be sufficient to replace the 22 vessels, of three specialized types, which were
due to be taken out of service. As a result initial and through-life-costs would be reduced
correspondingly. In addition, modules not embarked could be stored ashore in ideal
conditions and maintenance reduced to a minimum. Furthermore, maintenance schedules and
up-grades for the modular systems would be independent of those for the platforms.
So far the Danish Navy has launched 7 vessels and claims to have reduced its acquisition,
production and life cycle costs [30].
14
3 Standardization
The thesis title refers to modularization approaches in ship design. In order to understand the
concept of modularity it is important to first focus on the methodology of standardization,
which is a prerequisite for successfully designing and building modules.
Standardization with regard to shipbuilding is the broad term used to describe a methodology
by which the number of unique guidelines, procedures, processes, drawings, documentation,
physical parts, components, equipment and systems necessary to manufacture a ship is
minimized. Again the principal objective is to minimize design, production, life cycle and
acquisition costs. The benefits of standardization are numerous and are documented for many
industries such as the automotive, computer, semiconductor and aerospace industries.
Concerning shipbuilding, standards have successfully been used in Germany (Blohm &
Voss), in Japan (Hitachi Zosen Shipyards) and Korea (Hyundai Heavy Industries). The US
Navy launched the "Affordability through Commonality" (ATC) program in the early 1990's,
which focussed on the design and use of standardized common modules across multiple
classes of ships within the navy. This policy of increased commonality was intended to reduce
acquisition, production, and life cycle costs for US surface combatants [20].
3.1 Standardization of Equipment and Components
The emphasis of this chapter is the identification of standardization concerning the design of
parts, components, and systems with regard to possible modularization, and its impact on ship
production.
Standardization with regard to ships may be implemented at different levels. The piece parts
making up ship equipment may be standard. The equipment itself may be standard. Structural
components (bulkheads, girders) may be standard. Entire ship hull zones could potentially be
standardized.
Equipment standardization may refer to the development of a family of standard designs to be
used throughout the fleet; it may refer to limiting the variety of equipment throughout the
15
fleet, within a class of ships or within a single vessel. It may also refer to standardizing
equipment dimensions and interfaces. Each of these varying levels of equipment
standardization has advantages and disadvantages. Developing standard families of equipment
reduces the design and logistics costs associated with the fleet that utilizes the standard
family. These savings come at the expense of the equipment development costs, and costs
associated with the use of equipment, which may not be performance or cost optimal for the
application at hand. Furthermore, this form of standardization is likely to result in some
degree of "lock-in" to a technology, which may not be state of the art. This type of
standardization by definition standardizes dimensions and interfaces, which has a dramatic
impact upon design and the production schedule. Shipyards cite the lack of timely information
concerning supplied parts from third parties. Standardization of critical characteristics allows
the shipbuilder to know what to design for even though the supplier of parts has not been
selected. Minimizing the proliferation of new equipment into the supply system for the
operator of a large fleet has the effect of reducing integrated logistics costs.
Standardization of equipment provides savings in life cycle costs through economies of scale.
This must be traded off against the use of over-rated or non-optimum components.
Standardizing equipment has many benefits beyond costs directly and traditionally attributed
to the equipment. The use of modules and zone construction is greatly facilitated by up-front
planning and design, which requires detailed information regarding equipment dimensions,
weights, interfaces and constraints. Standardization of equipment is the first step in this
direction.
The Japanese shipbuilding industry has used this approach to great advantage. Their use of
standards has been reported to greatly simplify their design and shipbuilding processes.
Japanese shipyards maintain files of vendor catalog items that have been pre-approved and
pre-used. For a particular application several vendors are listed in the file. Using special
agreements with suppliers, all the relevant "standard" information concerning parts is kept up
to date. Their savings relate to faster delivery and bulk orders.
16
In addition to controlling the timely supply of parts and equipment the Japanese shipbuilder
and designer is not as dependent upon specification of parts delivered since dimension
standards are maintained across different vendors.
3.2 Standardization of Ship Production
The production of a large ship such as a tanker, a bulk carrier or a naval surface ship involves
a complex and lengthy production process. In order to manage the construction of a large ship
it is important to break the production into effectively manageable tasks. In order to discuss
standard tasks and standard products, the concept of modular or zone construction must first
be understood. A module of a ship may be thought of as any structural assembly that will be
directly erected onto the ship or hull block. This module is built up from sub-assemblies,
interim products and piece parts. A simple analogy may be that the mentioned type of
production is similar to LEGO toy building blocks.
The size of modules used to construct a ship will depend on the physical capability of a
particular yard and the logical divisions present in the ship design. Standard modules with
applications across ship types and multiple application within a single ship may also be
developed. These should be flexible modules, which permit a variety of equipment to be used
as necessary, i.e. adaptable to changing technology. The design and use of the modules should
be such that they do not lock in the function of the final product, the ship, but do facilitate an
efficient production plan once the ship's function and gross characteristics are determined.
The use of modular construction permits the workforce to perform the production tasks
necessary for a particular module earlier than would be possible using traditional construction
planning. These production processes may also be conducted within closer proximity to the
required shops and resources, cutting transit times and generally improving the efficiency of
the workforce. Using a modular approach, workers have greater access to areas of the
modules they have already been working on, reducing the need to remove work already
completed to access a covered location. As the modules are completed they are erected onto
the ways of the hull. Because modules are outfitted extensively prior to being erected on the
17
hull, a greater percentage of the construction will be complete upon launch, which reduces
congestion problems during post launch work and shortens the overall time to delivery.
As modules are erected to the ways, they lose their individual identity. As modules come
together they form zones. Typically a zone is a more obvious partition of the ship hull. It may
be defined as one enclosed compartment or a series of compartments, a hull area or a deck
area, which has outfitting requirements that are distinct from neighboring zones.
3.3 Benefits of Standardization
The savings associated with standardization that have been identified for the mentioned
industries are also applicable to the shipbuilding industry, although no data have been made
available from the quoted companies. The most important benefits of standardization include:
Design and Engineering:
* Reduction of time in design of components and parts (girders, stanchions, bulkheads,
plates)
* Improvement of reliability of designed and pre-applied components
* Reduction of technical errors
* Increase of time available for special design tasks
* Reduction of errors concerning miscommunication between engineers and production
personnel
* Reduction in part and equipment testing time
" Reduction of redesign and redraft efforts
" Improvement of interchangeability of parts, designs and systems
" Facilitation of cost analysis through standardized procedures
" Increase of delivery speed referring to design and engineering tasks
Construction:
* Streamlining of production processes such as fabrication and assembly
18
" Reduction of rework
* Increase of automation and mechanization of production processes
" Reduction of production delays through stocked standard parts
Quality Control:
" Facilitation of quality control through use of standard designs of known quality and
specifications
" Decrease in errors of components supplied by third parties
" Improvement of quality control concerning the end product
" Reduction and simplification of inspection time
Inventories:
" Reduction of capital requirements and amount of capital tied up in inventory
* Reduction of record keeping
" Reduction in storage area
* Reduction in costs allocated to material handling
* Reduction of part obsolescence and spoilage hazards
* Facilitation of more accurate inventory management, planning and budgeting
* Provision of faster and better service
The benefits occurring through standardization obviously go beyond the improvement of
design end engineering. Not only the production process but also the organizational structure
of a shipyard is affected. The scope of this research is to focus on the design aspects of
standardization and modularity.
19
4 Modularity
Having introduced the concept of standardization of piece-parts, equipment, ship structural
details and foundations the next step would be to look at logical groupings of physically and
functionally related equipment, structures and systems.
Purely standardized products fail in many cases to meet customer requirements or to target
market segments adequately. Yet, standardized modules assembled to a final product or
system may, in its variety, properly target a specific market segment and meet customer
needs. If the modules are designed with adjustable features, then they become customizable to
each application. This concept, the production of custom products from common blocks or
modules, is referred to as mass customization; a term introduced by B. P. Pine [8].
Mass customization is the response to the realization that consumers no longer want
"standard" mass products. Another important point is that many industrial "mass" production
processes are easily duplicated and implemented in low wage countries, which makes mass
production in high price markets less attractive. It is therefore important for the shipbuilders
in the U.S. and in Europe, both high cost countries, to provide customized products at
competitive costs and at high speed in order to gain a competitive advantage over low cost
shipbuilders in Korea and China.
The best method for achieving mass customization - minimizing costs while maximizing
individual customization - is by creating modular components that can be resized into a
variety of end products and systems. Economies of scale are gained through components
rather than through end products; economies of scope are gained by using the modular
components repeatedly in different products. Customization is gained by the myriad of
products that can be configured.
4.1 Definition
Having discussed the rational for introducing modularity the question arises how modularity
is defined.
20
The term modularity is generally used in three different ways. In the design of complex
engineering systems the term is used with regard to interchangeable units such as space
station modules. With regard to construction and architecture modularity refers to
construction of systems by standardized components. In manufacturing modularity is referred
to the use of interchangeable units to create product variants; i.e. Volkswagen uses the same
engines, axles and chassis for the their Golf model, for the Audi A3 and for one of their Skoda
models.
Considering a product or a family of products modularity arises from how a product is
physically divided into components. One view is that products cannot be classified as either
modular or not, but rather exhibit more or less modularity in design. Modularity is linked to
the following design characteristics [13]:
1. Similarity between the physical and functional architecture of the design (one-to-one
relationship between physical and functional structure)
2. Minimization of interactions between physical components.
Products can be described functionally by a set of functional elements linked together by
flows of power, material, and signals. This kind of product description is referred to as
schematic description [13], as function structure [3].
21
7
Indb~w i____________
AWiary POXr t
- -W Fom1 4 -ad-_
-0ry'r " =to tat egre TQq electrca e oil - *tieA 'JetricalC In~~M r
Mer, oi ILidge~raor-at 1
POWt~
Figure 4.1 :Function Structure Auxiliary Power Unit
Figure 4.1 for example shows the functional description of an auxiliary power unit, used in
ships. The above structure consists of the main elements Convert fuel to electrical power,
Distribute Power, Transport electrical power. Further elements are Provide battery power,
Provide inertia to start engine, and Cool engine.
The degree to which this functional description is mirrored by the physical architecture of the
product contributes to design modularity. For example, if the engine and the transmission of
the power system were implemented as the same physical component then the design would
be less modular than if the engine and the transmission unit were separable.
The second characteristic of modularity is the degree to which the interactions between the
physical components are confined to those critical to the function of the product. All of these
interactions defined in the functional architecture of the product (function structure) are
critical. Even though the product may be physically divided into components corresponding to
the functional elements, there still may be other incidental interactions between the
components not directly accounted for in the function structure. For example the heat
produced in an engine (combustion process) will functionally be referred to as energy flow
22
I
from the engine to the cooling system to the ambient air; yet the heat has side effects to the
seals, joints and piping of the cooling system. This interaction between the engine and the
cooling system is entirely incidental to the function of the components (side effects). By
eliminating these incidental interactions a product design becomes more modular.
To illustrate this definition and to the differing degrees to which designs can be modular an
automotive engine and the corresponding alternator are considered in three different design
variants. In the first variant the engine shaft is used as the shaft of the alternator directly
connecting the latter with the engine block. The second design uses a separate component
housing the alternator, which is then mounted to the engine block. The third approach is to
have the alternator in a separate casing that is attached to the outside of the engine; with a belt
physically connecting the engine and the alternator shaft and transmitting the power from the
engine to the alternator. The major difference lies within the physical de-coupling of the
systems. In the first configuration the engine and the alternator are physically integrated and
interact thermally, structurally, kinematically, and spatially. Some of these interactions are
function critical to the system and some of them (thermal flows) are incidental. The second
configuration shows reduced interactions between the engine and the alternator. The heat flow
is reduced; due to the separation of the shaft, the coils of the alternator no longer influence its
stiffness. The third design variant is reduced to the exchange of mechanical power; all other
incidental interactions are minimized or eliminated.
Engine Alternator
Figure 4.2: Increase in Modularity of an Engine-Alternator Design
23
A completely modular design implies a one-to-one relationship between each functional
element and a physical component [24], in which every interaction is critical to the function
of the system. As mentioned earlier, no product is completely modular; some may be
completely integral such as custom designed luxury products, others, like computers, achieve
a relatively high modularity.
4.2 Types of Modularity
Ulrich has done significant research into discrete product modularity. He has developed a
typology, which classifies six types of modularity [13]. Similarly, Pine has applied and
extended this classification of which the most important ones are discussed hereafter [8].
4.2.1 Component Sharing Modularity
Component-Sharing Modularity refers to the same component being used across multiple
products to provide economies of scale. This form of modularity is useful in controlling a
proliferating product line whose costs are rising even faster than the number of products. This
type of modularity reduces cost while allowing variety and faster end-product development.
One example referring to this type of modularity can be found in General Electric's program
to reduce costs associated with its circuit breaker production by replacing 28,000 unique parts
and 1,275 components shared across 40,000 different circuit breaker box designs [7]. Another
example concerning this type of modularity is found at Komatsu, the Japanese heavy
equipment manufacturer, which found its costs increasing dramatically throughout the 1970's
as its end product variety increased to meet the challenges of different markets, and market
segments worldwide. Komatsu chose to standardize several key modules, which could be
shared across product lines. They found that this allowed them to provide design variety in
their end products, which met their market needs at lower costs. The U.S. Navy's introduced
the Affordability Through Commonality (ATC) program which refers to using component
sharing modularity in naval ship design and production [24].
24
4.2.2 Fabricate to Fit Modularity
Fabricate-to-Fit modularity refers to a product in which one or more standard components are
variable within pre-set limits (dimensions, configurations). An example of this type of
modularity is used at Matsushita's bicycle production. Matsushita provides its customers
bicycles tailored to their individual needs through the use of flexible modules. They are
capable of producing 11,231,862 variations on 18 basic models or color patterns. The
customer provides the sales person with preferences and key dimensions, which are then
entered into a computer system that matches the customer requirements with the respective
components. The drawing of the specific model is then automatically done and workers then
assemble the finished components. The custom detailing is then done and the final product is
then sent to the customer. In ship production where customers always have demanded
customization, the idea of fabricate to fit modularity should serve as a model and basis for
further research and development.
4.2.3 Component Swapping Modularity
Component swapping modularity refers to the use of two or more alternative component types
being used in the same basic end product creating different product variants belonging to the
same product family. An example in ship production would be different radar systems used
for the same frigate model, and different propulsion systems used for a type of tanker built. In
computer manufacturing this type of modularity would refer to the use of different hard disk
types, monitor types and different keyboards, with the same basic CPU [13].
4.2.4 Bus Modularity
Bus modularity refers to standard interface systems, which allow different components to
quickly be assembled. The computer industry has taken advantage of bus modularity: a
standard platform or motherboard allows easy and quick attachment of standard components.
The car manufacturing industry has moved along the same direction. Volkswagen uses a
standardized chassis for some of their models, which allows them to "plug in" a variety of
25
standardized components. Nissan is even looking at using a variety of modules to produce a
pallet of custom cars.
In ship production bus modularity can and is obviously applied for equipment and systems
(weaponry, radar, and communication systems). Whereas it is more difficult to apply to the
complex and detailed hull structure due to major changes in boundary conditions for different
hulls (different loads between modules and zones at different hull dimensions).
4.2.5 Sectional Modularity
Sectional modularity refers to the configuration of a number of standard components in
arbitrary ways through standard interfaces. Lego toy building blocks and the many similar
systems are examples of this type of modularity. While interface modularity emphasizes the
quick attachment of standard components to a standard base framework or structural system
(car chassis), sectional modularity no longer requires a primary structural system. The
structure itself is incorporated in the modules, which then can be assembled. Vibtech, Inc. has
researched a ship structural system concept, which incorporates a similar panel construction
approach, which could facilitate method mounting attachments directly to the panels
themselves through the use of standard method mountings. While it may be difficult to
envision an entire vessel hull being built by modular sections, it is more easily seen that zones
are made out of standard components or modules.
Different ship types may be broken down into obvious zones. Tankers, for example, can be
broken down into its machinery space, accommodation space, the bow and stem section, the
steering gear, propeller shafting and housing, tank compartments and the deck, and its
associated machinery. This approach is not new, but, as mentioned earlier, it has never been
fully implemented neither in Japan, nor in Germany.
The Bethlehem Steel Corporation produced a standard family of tankers in the 1960's and
1970's [18]. In the late 1950's a series of 12 identical 35,700 DWT tankers were built for a
variety of owners. They offered few options with these ships, but for all practical purposes the
products were completely identical. In the 1960's the demand for liquid carriers changed and
larger tankers were demanded. A 62,000 DWT tanker was developed based upon the earlier
26
"standard" ship. The major difference was a new and more powerful propulsion plant and a
lengthened and deepened hull. For the outfitting the same machinery was used when possible,
and if that wasn't practical, the same prior vendors were used. The overall layout of the ships
was maintained identical. Three of the 62,000 DWT tankers were built, and then the size was
increased further to a deadweight tonnage of 70,000 DWT by adding larger tanks to the
parallel midbody. Six of these ships were built. The trend towards larger tankers continued
and Bethlehem Steel saw a demand for 120,000 DWT vessels, of which four were
constructed. In the latter case more powerful propulsion plants were installed in an identical
engine room. Again, the ship was a lengthened version of the previous version but with a new
bow and stern design.
In the early 1970's the largest tankers of these series were built at 265,000 DWT. Bethlehem
Steel successfully introduced the modularity concept, although in the beginning of the process
it was not clear that the outcome had been envisioned. The shipyard was able to keep the
design and engineering costs low through repetitive use of baseline designs. Production costs
were kept low through the repetitive use of standard components and processes. Use of the
same source of suppliers further simplified the engineering and design and assured customers
of significantly reduced acquisition and life cycle costs, especially for those customers having
purchased a number of ships. While this success story of "accidental" use of modularity in
shipbuilding illustrates the feasibility of the concept, planning for a family of ships based on a
common platform - product platform architecture is discussed in Chapter 6 - up front would
provide even greater benefits and allow the shipyard to develop an optimum strategy for
designing building and ships. Detailed planning, the application of new technology and a
move closer to the ideal of " mass customization" would provide true flexibility and a final
product tailored to specific customer needs.
While the general approach to looking at a modular ship division is not new, advances in
manufacturing processes and procedures, and a better understanding of production have
sparked new interest in this approach. Recognizing that a shipyard is not in control of wage
rates and material costs, but does have some control over labor hours, component transport
27
times and throughput rate, there is an incentive to adopt a design and production approach that
emphasizes production improvements.
Conventional outfitting, or the planning and implementation of production plans, which is
functionally based (a system would be installed at a particular time, even if it was distributive
and located at a variety of places throughout the ship), inevitably leads to delays and
interference between trades as discussed earlier. Conventional outfitting stresses on board
installation of each piece-part leading to highly inefficient tasks. Since final assembly of parts
did not occur until they had been brought to their installation location, final adjustments could
be made to insure that they would fit. By contrast pre-outfitting stresses the outfitting of large
structural sections or pallets within a workshop prior to erection onto the hull block. While
this is a more efficient system, it places more stress on the planning function. Furthermore it
places stricter requirements and tolerances. Since the outfit package is being built in the
respective work shop according to the ship's drawings rather than at the installation site, it is
important that the final actually matches the drawings. Modules must be designed not only to
allow flexibility with regard to equipment but also with regard to integration with the ship.
Zone outfitting refers to an approach in which everything within a pre-defined three
dimensional space is planned and outfit based upon its location rather than its system.
Sectional modularity is more easily and obviously applied to commercial ships. Traditionally,
the first major milestone in this approach is to determine the ship types and sizes for which
major patterns or panels could be developed for each of the zones as outlined above. This is
essentially a market trend issue. A shipyard wants to focus efforts on ship types and sizes that
will be marketable. It is important to incorporate as much flexibility into the designs as is
feasible and economically possible and to allow them to rapidly be applied to unforeseen
applications. Ideally one would like to develop a set of common building blocks from which
custom and highly specialized products could be developed. This is especially true in the
shipping industry, in which ship owners often demand specialization if they can get it at a
reasonable price.
Market surveys will reveal the customer requirements for specific ship types (tankers, bulk,
and gas carriers). After completion of a market survey the some overall specifications may be
28
plotted. Ratios such as Length/Beam and Draft/Deadweight are standard factors that initially
specified ship type. Based on previous designs these ratios are used to develop new vessels
showing similarities in relative design proportions. Figure 4.1 shows the envelopes for
different Length/Draft ratios with different drafts plotted against the respective deadweight
tonnage.
15
100 5 10 DWT (x1OOO)
Figure 4.1: Ship Hull Variations [27]
After defining the envelope of the requirements, which are to be satisfied by the "standard"
series, the next task is to define major elements, which can be adjusted and matched. For
example, a flexible series of stem propulsion units could be developed which could cover the
range of power required to propel the anticipated ship types and configurations. Wartsila/NSD
has realized the concept of modular propulsion units. The company developed a fully
modularized propulsion system under the name ProPac [14]. The ProPac concept offers
maximum operational efficiency and full compatibility between all components such as power
plants, reduction gears, shafts, controllable pitch propellers (CPP), and control units. The
29
modular concept rationalizes construction, saves time and money during the design phase, and
makes installation easier. Wartsild/NSD also provides a service to manage the building of
these modules on site at any shipyard in the world [14].
Associated with each of these propulsion modules could be accommodation space modules,
which correspond to the crew sizes anticipated for the propulsion modules and their
associated ship types. Tank compartments and/or container hold modules could be developed.
A set of bow modules could be designed, which ideally would be applicable to all the
anticipated ship types. It is important to mention that these modules would need to be not only
"stackable" lengthwise at the parallel midbody, but would also need to be expandable to
adjust the ship's beam. As mentioned in the introduction, this has been one of the major
obstacles for Japanese yards to fully apply modularity to hull design and production.
One option of maintaining length to beam ratios would be to build modules with integrated
wing tank modules. This could be necessary for a variety of reasons such as straight/canal
requirements. This would also allow cargo capacity to be a function of both length and beam,
rather then length alone. This would facilitate satisfying the envelope of anticipated customer
requirements.
Ishikawajima-Harima Heavy Industries (IHI) of Japan of has a system in place, which takes
advantage of some of these introduced modularity concepts, and has been using it in design
since 1987. IHI's future oriented refined engineering system for shipbuilding aided by
computer (FRESCO) integrates standard modules and arrangements with information
regarding the availability of the equipment [10]. The system also produces drawings and
production planning information. For example, collections of fittings to be assembled separate
from the hull structure as outfit units are represented by machinery and piping dimensions,
which are frequently encountered, but these dimensions are automatically updated once the
actual equipment has been selected from the database. The output includes material
definitions and work instructions for pipe-piece and outfit assembly work, and this
information is linked to the benchmarks which estimate man-hour requirements. As of
February 1991, seventy modules were implemented in FRESCO. Even more (150) are
30
expected to be available in the near future and will include classifications such as equipment
modules and piping modules. Human engineering aspects could be integrated into the
program such that appropriate clearances are generated for walkways, handrails, controls and
displays.
These standard arrangements represent modules and zones as illustrated in Figure 4.3. There
is an opportunity to identify modules and zones which may be applicable to a range of ship
types.
LASSEMBLY L U
Figure 4.2: Ship Zones [33]
31
ZotIE CONSmUCTo ND OU -TPROCESS FLOW LAWS
4d a.~.Machine4
Space TAMIINO 3rANOc21
AlP/
Machine
Space-
Af
/ I
iAnK 0a
.9
Tna rMa arc a PaI
1' \SAMachine S g
I.Li U Ye
r NO 4 nAM NO 3 rAW PO :k rnc
NK
///
I -
MachineSpace
N Tanker
MachineSpace
A P $A-
I,
Container Ship
n4. 2 A&a .ii.US
PI
= == =Z=
1 1 'V7I
Ballast
Bulk Carrier
Figure 4.3: Standard Families of Ships [33]
32
2.~m
//
IiWI
UW6
A P
Figure 4.3 illustrates the discussed section modularity [10]. By studying equipment
characteristics, and moving progressively from a single item to an item and its associated
equipment, modularity begins to take shape. The criteria developed for evaluating equipment
standardization would also be applicable at the module level.
4.3 Potential Benefits of Modularity
4.3.1 Product Variety
The design for product variety with much lower numbers of components is one of the motives
for modularity. The variety in design of different end products arises from the ability to use
different component options (combinations) and achieve the functional element of the design.
The substitution of components is possible due to clearly defined and identical interfaces (bus
modularity).
Swatch was the first company to introduce the modular concept in the 1980's. With watch
prices dropping dramatically, as a result of the introduction of cheap quartz technology, watch
buyers became increasingly fashion conscious, often having more than one watch and using it
as an accessory that also happened to indicate time. Swatch introduced a collection of
fashionable watches that was changed every spring and fall. In the course of development
Swatch introduced a new collection every six weeks. This was only due to their ingenuous
design and production process, using modules to vary the end product in such short life
cycles.
For the shipbuilding industry, product life cycles are definitely longer, yet the technology
change rate concerning naval equipment may increase. Using a modular approach for weapon
systems would facilitate not only the design for variety and different customer requirements
but also the introduction of novel equipment and systems.
33
4.3.2 Economies of Scale
Modularity allows one component to be used across multiple products and different product
lines, if the "standard" component's function is clearly defined and the interactions (flows)
with other components or the product have been minimized. Using the component in different
product lines leads to an increase in production volume per component, which allows fixed
costs (R&D and capital expenditure) to be amortized over a larger number of components. As
a consequence the unit costs per component will decrease.
4.3.3 Product Change
Related to design for variety is the change of end products. Modularity benefits the ease at
which a product can be changed. The rates of change may vary from component to
component within a product. These differences in change rates may result from customer
preferences or technology change rate.
For the shipbuilding industry, product life cycles are definitely longer compared to the
example of the watch industry, yet the technology change rate concerning naval equipment
may be high. Using a modular approach for weapon systems would facilitate not only the
design for variety and different customer requirements but also the introduction of novel
equipment and systems.
4.3.4 De-coupling of Tasks
Dividing products into components requires definition of interfaces. These interfaces enable
design and production tasks to be de-coupled. De-coupling of tasks or grouping of related
tasks results in manageable and less complex tasks that can be processed in parallel. For
shipyards this would imply the organization of the production site (shop) into production
cells. Each production cell would have a number of machines capable of performing the
processes associated with a particular type of component, without having the machinery
dedicated for a specific design. This approach minimizes transport time since all necessary
machinery is collocated, but provides more flexibility. Group technology is defined as means
34
for improving productivity by classifying parts according to their common characteristics and
production processes. By performing this grouping shipyards would be able to more
effectively distribute work among its machines and labor.
4.3.5 Component Verification and Testing
Because components in a modular design correspond to particular functional elements, the
function of the component is well defined and a functional test should be possible. Due to the
restriction of interactions (input, output) between components in a modular design to those
that are critical to its function, the interface of each component is clearly defined. Therefore
the interface between each component can be relatively easy simulated.
This is critical for weapon systems aboard a naval vessel. Figure 4.4 shows such a weapon
system during test trials. As seen on the picture the entire main gun is designed to be a
Figure 4.4: Main Gun
35
modular unit including the loading mechanism and the ammunition provision. The electronic
interfaces are designed such that the unit can easily be connected to the radar module and the
fire control module at the test site. The foundation on the test site provides a similar
mechanical interface in order to absorb all mechanical forces from the gun unit.
4.4 Potential Costs of Modularity
Having introduced the potential benefits of modularity, the question arises what the potential
cost implications on modular product design may be. The following paragraphs will outline
some possible cost factors as a consequence of applying a modular design to a product.
4.4.1 Static Product Architecture
A modular product design is based on a particular functional and physical architecture (the
definition of product architecture will be further discussed in Chapter 6.2). This particular
architecture, although modular, may be difficult to change and therefore might provide an
obstacle to future product innovation. Since each product architecture also defines production
processes, logistics and the organization of a firm an innovation in product design might be
difficult to realize [16].
4.4.2 Performance Optimization
A product's performance can usually be improved by reducing its modularity since a highly
modular product generally is of bigger dimensions and incurs a larger mass. Improvement of
product performance is also achieved due to the possible reduction of redundant functions that
might appear in a highly modular product. The reduction of mass is critical for space systems
such as modular satellites or orbital stations, since payload of space transportation is one of
the mission critical factors. To a lesser extent mass affects performance of ships: reducing the
overall weight and displacement will reduce the propulsion power required.
While highly modular products provide all the mentioned advantages such as variety in
design, ease of product change, testability, and economies of scale they might be off the
36
optimal performance. Finding the right degree of modularity without substantially decreasing
the product's performance characteristics is therefore key.
4.4.3 Reverse Engineering
Any modular design has the advantage of clearly defined functions and flows; the functions of
components are usually obvious and their interconnections are well defined. This makes it
fairly easy for competitors to copy the product and gain a competitive advantage by saving
R&D costs.
4.4.4 Increase of Unit Costs
When modularity is used to exploit economies of scale by using components over an entire
product family, several of the end products may have excess capabilities. This is due to the
fact that components have to be designed to meet the application with the most stringent
demands; many of the products therefore might incorporate components that have excess
functionality not required for the end product. For example electrical cables used for a family
of cars have to be designed to carry the highest current required by the product in the family.
This requirement might only be for one specific car, whereas the other family members could
very well use an electrical distribution for lower currents. The cable system will require more
copper, and maybe a more costly production process. This may lead to higher unit costs for
the cables whereas a specific design for each application may have been cheaper, although the
overall cost for providing the functionality for the product family may still be lower.
37
5 Functional Modeling
Having introduced the concept of modularity in a general way and discussed some potential
applications in the shipbuilding industry, the question arises as to how to describe a product or
technical system and how to identify modules. When defining modularity it was mentioned
that a product can be described functionally by a set of functional elements linked together by
flows of power, material, and signals (schematic description). A functional element or a
function is a property of a product, and describes the product's ability to fulfil a purpose: to
convert an input into a desired product output under clearly defined conditions. This
interpretation shows some similarity to the concept of a mathematical transfer function as
defined for dynamic systems [3].
Each function may be assigned to a certain level of complexity in a hierarchy of complexities.
The lowest level represents the elementary functions, those that cannot be subdivided or
(usefully) resolved into more limited functions. At the highest level, the product is described
by the product function, which represents the overall function of a product
Inputs hkh., I Product Outputs(Mass, Energy, Signals) Function (Mass, Energy, Signals) P
Figure 5.1: Product Function
Based on the overall function at the highest level, a product can be functionally decomposed
into subfunctions, down to a level where, each function represents the most elementary task,
which cannot be broken down further. This process is often called functional decomposition
[19].
38
Each of the subfunctions represents a component of its related higher order function. An
overall function most often has to be divided into identifiable subfunction, in order to
understand the complexity of tasks performed by a product. The relationship between a
subfunction and its higher order function is often determined by a constraint or by input and
output relations. The impact of such constraints on the function must be carefully considered.
Functions, as defined above, describe what the product does. Since a product in general
represents a customer requirement, functions also represent the product functionality
according to the customer needs. On the other hand they might be customer needs that are not
met by the products functionality but rather by its form. Customers of ships, for example,
require a certain weight of the vessel. Since there is no function to reduce or make weight, this
requirement cannot be identified as a function but rather as an intrinsic property of the ship
components. This system requirement is also called a constraint. Further examples of product
constraints are cost, mass, reliability. For ships there are many hydrodynamic constraints such
as drag, wave resistance, and frictional resistance. These constraints cannot be functionally
described, but are an inherent property of the design.
5.1 Function Trees
One approach of functional product description is to decompose the product function
hierarchically into the relevant subfunctions. The entity of all subfunctions will then fulfill the
overall product function. Each subfunction or group of subfunctions will then represent a
physical component of the product. As mentioned earlier, this process can be repeated until
the functions become elementary functions (lowest complexity), unable to be further
decomposed.
39
Figure 5.2: Function Tree
Function trees are fast and simple to construct. Yet, the ease of construction is gained at the
cost of understanding the interactions (flows) between the expanded sub functions. The
interconnection among the subfunctions, such as material, energy and signal flows are not
considered. Therefore the approach is not as effective in helping to establish specifications
and structuring the development process. Yet, function trees help understanding the
hierarchical relationship between functions and subfunctions.
5.2 Function Structure
The function structure, as opposed to the function tree, initiates the technical understanding of
a product based on its inputs and outputs (mass, energy, and signal flows). Starting from the
overall product function the product is again functionally decomposed at a specified level of
abstraction. The question arises, which level of abstraction to choose in order to get the
required level of detail represented in the function structure.
For most purposes it makes sense to initially set up the function tree (see Appendix 10.2) and
then to choose the level of functions to be used for the function structure. Otto and Wood [19]
have introduced a method to develop a function structure based on tracing the respective
flows through the product or system. Following the flows, while maintaining the perspective
40
z _
[~ 411-.
. M 2
L-93 Lj j
jW4
of the product or system itself, leads to all relevant functions and their interconnections.
Subsystems can be analyzed independently as long as the relevant flows are clearly identified
at their boundaries.
Function structures are so generated for each product concept. The identification of modules
through clustering of subfunctions will be discussed in the following chapter. The defined
modules then form the modular architecture of an individual product.
Once the function structures for each product within the family have been developed, they
must be merged into the family function structure. The unification of the individual function
structures yields a single diagram that represents every function of every product in the
family, including all flow interactions.
5.3 Identification of Modules
When considering one single product, Stone et al. identified a set of three heuristics that can
be used to cluster functions and find modules. The heuristic methods applied to modularize
product function structures are divided into three categories: dominant flow, branching
flows, and conversion-transmission.
The dominant flow heuristic examines flows through a function structure, following flows
until they either exit from the system or are transformed into another flow. The subfunctions
through which a flow can be traced, define a module. More specifically, a set of subfunctions
through which a flow passes, from entry or formation of the flow to exit or conversion of the
flow within the system, define a module.
The branching flow heuristics examine the flows that branch into or converge from parallel
function chains. Each branch of a flow can become a module. Each of these modules
interfaces with the product through the point at which the flow branches or converges.
The conversion transmission module examines flows that are converted from one type of flow
to another. A conversion-transmission module converts a type of energy or material into
41
another form, then transmits that new form of energy or material. In many instances, this
conversion-transmission module is already housed as a module, as in the case for an internal
combustion engine or a gas turbine for example.
When considering a portfolio of products, an additional set of rules can be used to help in
module identification. The heuristic methods applied to modularize portfolio function
structures are divided into two types: shared function and unique functions.
Shared functions can be used as a means to define portfolio modules. Functional groups that
share similar flows, and that appear multiple times in a portfolio function structure, should be
grouped into a single module. This module can then be reused throughout the portfolio of
products.
Variant functions are those functions that are unique to a single product or a subset of
products. Such functions should be grouped into a module. Isolating variety in this way refers
to the idea of delayed differentiation in design for variety [31].
42
6 Product Design
A popular way of achieving product variety is the design of multiple products as a family,
meaning that all representatives of this family share some commonality such as components,
production processes, technologies, and organizations. Within a product family the set of
common elements and interfaces is generally called a product platform. The individual
product is referred to as the product variant. Examples emphasizing the usefulness and the
advantage of using platform designs are numerous. Sony has introduced three platforms to
design its line of Walkman and its different stereo products [22]. As mentioned earlier,
automotive companies have used platforms to reduce cost for certain product lines, but also
across different brands (VW, Audi, Skoda) [22]. According to Gonzales platforms are applied
for complex product lines such as aircraft and satellite designs [23].
Figure 6.1 refers to the platforms used by Volkswagen, presenting different models from the
VW and the Audi product family that use common components. The right side of Figure 6.1.
shows the Black and Decker Versa Pak family of tools. Otto and Dahmus [29] analyzed and
identified the Black and Decker versa Pack product platform and its modular components
used.
43
Figure 6.1: Platform-based Product Families from Volkswagen and Black and Decker
6.1 Product Architecture
A useful concept for understanding the implications of variety in product design is that of
product architecture. Product architecture relates to a product's functions, its physical
structure and the interfaces between interacting physical components. The way a product is
broken up into subsystems or chunks has implications for all phases of its lifecycle, from
design to disposal and recycling. Breaking up a product into smaller subsystems can make the
design process for each individual system easier, but interfacing more components may
become increasingly difficult. Similarly, if a function of the product is distributed over several
44
components, it may be more difficult to implement the functionality than if it were
accomplished by a single subsystem.
Product Architecture is the scheme by which the function of the product is mapped onto
physical components. More precisely one could say product architecture refers to the
arrangement of functional elements, the mapping of functional elements to physical
components, and the specification of interfaces between these components [21].
Integral product architecture is commonly referred to as architecture where multiple product
functions are accomplished by one physical element. Modular product architecture is one that
exhibits a one-to-one relationship between each of the functions and each of the physical
components or modules [21].
The main advantage of integral product architecture is that the overall product function can
generally be better optimized as compared to a modular design. This is due to the elimination
of interfaces and the integration of multiple functions into fewer parts, which can result in a
more efficient use of materials and space. On the other hand, modular products are generally
easier to change than integral ones, since only those modules requiring change, have to be
modified instead of the entire (integral) product. This has implications for the amount of
variety that can be offered with limited resources, as well as for the costs of design, repair,
production, and disposal or recycling.
Product architecture is a useful concept for analyzing the design of a single product and the
impact of these design choices on product change, variety, and commonality. However, it
does not fully address the issue of how variety will be offered by multiple products or a
product family provided by a firm. Assuming a specific product is modular and the company
decides to offer variants of this design, this could be achieved by having different
configurations (instances) of modules that could be swapped to create a variety of end
products. In order to explain how variety and commonality are handled across multiple
offerings by a firm, it is necessary to define the concept of product portfolio architecture.
45
6.2 Product Portfolio Architecture
Just as product architecture refers to a product's functions and to its components, portfolio
architecture describes how a set of products shares (or does not share) subsystems or
components in order to offer a desired level of variety. Three main types of portfolio
architecture were identified by Yu et al.: fixed, platform, and adjustable. Fixed portfolio
architecture indicates that products do not share components in order to offer design variety;
each offering is unique and fixed over time. Adjustable portfolio architecture implies that
variety is achieved by giving the user flexibility to adjust and tailor the product during their
lifetime. Finally, platform portfolio architecture indicates, that the products in the portfolio
share the same common components, and offer a variety through either combinations of
common modules or through differences in the design of the unique portions of each offering.
Summarizing, each variety can be offered through several different product design schemes.
Although this is not the only way to offer variety, portfolio architecture is increasingly used in
diverse industries, from consumer products such as automobiles and electronics to very
complex products such as airplanes and satellites.
6.3 Integral versus Modular Product Design
The major difference between planning the design of different products in parallel and
planning multiple products as a family is that designers have to consider the effects of
commonality. Customer driven design usually requires individual and unique product design,
whereas the complexity of development, production and organization drives design towards
commonality. The question arises, what should be designed commonly and what individually
for a certain type of product.
Several factors make this difficult to decide. First, with growing complexity of products, the
number of combinations of components grows exponentially. To explore all different design
options takes significant resources. Second, firms develop families of products over long
periods of time, during which a platform could be useful. During that time teclmology may
change, market preferences will shift, and competition will vary. The decisions that are made
46
at the beginning stages of a product family design will have a large impact on the benefits the
company will realize from chosen designs. A good family design will be flexible to those
changes and still provide a large benefit to the company.
6.4 Product Platforms
The definition of a product platform used in this thesis refers to Meyer and Lehnerd [1]:
A product platform consists of the set of parts, subsystems and interfaces, and manufacturing
processes that are shared among a set of products, and allow the development of derivative
products with cost and time savings.
The original definition is extended to all aspects of a product life cycle such as operational
processes and scrapping. In the case of ships, operational costs represent a large portion of the
life cycle cost of the system. Savings from common operating procedures are therefore an
attractive design alternative. The definition is also expanded to include anything shared
among the products within the family with the purpose not only of reducing necessary
resources but also increasing returns. Both the impact of costs and on revenues need to be
considered when designing a product platform, since an increase in variety may produce a
large overall benefit to the firm, even if costs are higher than a smaller family offering (higher
unit costs but lower overall costs due to higher amortization of fixed costs).
6.4.1 Pros and Cons of Platforms
The main drive for creating platform-based families as opposed to individual design of
products is to reduce development, manufacturing and operating costs through reuse of
components and economies of scale. An additional incentive for their use is to reduce the
level of risk during development and operation of the product through the reuse of proven
components.
However, in order to obtain a better solution for the platform family as a whole, the individual
performance of some of the variants may be compromised. A second concern for designers to
47
consider is the question of flexibility: a flexible platform will satisfy changes in requirements
and still be economically feasible, but may cost more initially than a flexible alternative. A
firm needs to create not only feasible product families, but also designs that are robust to
changes over the long-term development of a family. Despite the difficulty having to consider
multiple products simultaneously during the design of a product family, the impact of
platforms in some industries has been significant. Volkswagen mentions savings of $1.7
billion annually in development and production costs from the use of platforms in its
automobile lines. Fiat claims to save 30% - 50% on development costs and 25% on tooling
costs. These performances from platform-based designs justify the need for better methods to
facilitate their design [22].
6.4.2 Integral and Modular Platforms
Having discussed the concept of product platforms, it should be mentioned that there are
different ways of creating product families. The first way of creating a family of products is
based on an integral platform, implying that there is a single part, which is shared by all the
products of the family. Although this seems to be platform with limited applications there are
examples such as the ground telecommunications network for interplanetary spacecraft [23].
The term integral is used here since the single common platform is an integral part of each
variant; it cannot be replaced by a different component or module.
A more general case of platforms is a modular platform. In this case the product is divided
into modules that can be swapped by others of different size or functionality to create
variants. For example there is not just a single platform used at Volkswagen; the car
manufacturer uses several platforms to create different lines of cars (VW Golf, Audi A3, VW
Jetta, Audi A4, etc.). Within a modular platform the platform is the set of modules that is used
across the product family. Companies usually have a set of modules already designed for
previous products that could be reused, as well as the resources to design new versions of the
same modules or modules of the same functionality. In addition, there exists the possibility of
purchasing modules from existing suppliers, or even outsourcing the design of new ones.
48
7 Modular Platforms in Ship Design
Industries around the world producing commercial and industrial products have been under
constant pressure to become more cost effective due to increasing competition. Many of these
industries have adopted design platforms as means to minimize product development costs
while still having the possibility of offering more design variety. Similarly, the shipbuilding
industry, producing commercial and naval vessels, is faced with decreasing resources,
increasing production costs, and rising competition from low cost countries. As of today, most
of the ships, especially naval vessels, have been designed and developed individually as
custom made systems, largely due to the significant differences in customer requirements.
Different missions for naval ships create completely different operating environments.
Additionally, the technology change rate concerning weapons and communications systems is
drastically increasing, which requires flexibility to upgrade or exchange old technology. A
smart strategy is therefore needed to plan for commonality in design for ships with different
mission profiles, taking into account the various performance needs for different missions.
Most companies use ad hoc approaches towards designing commonality into product families.
Often, platforms are not really planned as such, but due to new customer requirements
companies offer new products as derivatives of existing products, which then becomes the
platform. Another common problem is that families of multiple products are planned, but
often the platform is then tailored to the first product to be launched, which then leads to
extensive redesign efforts.
The goal of the following chapters is to apply the introduced concepts of modularity and
platform design to the design of naval vessels. Blohm&Voss's MEKO frigate family design
will be used to analyze modularity and to identify the product platform.
7.1 Analysis of the MEKO Frigate Family
MEKO (Multi-Purpose Combination) stands for a family of advanced modular warship
designs and embraces the flexible installation of weapon, electronic and major ship service
49
systems in the form of standardized modules and standardized interfaces. Modularity is the
keynote of the MEKO technology. So far, some 1100 MEKO modules have been installed on
the 43 delivered or ordered frigates and corvettes, which have been either partially or fully
designed according to the MEKO design concept.
Blohm&Voss distinguishes between the following types of modules:
" Weapon modules
" Mast modules
* Electronic modules
" Ship service systems and accommodation modules
The German shipyard indicates the benefits of modularity during the construction phase. An
important element of modularity is the parallel construction of the ship platform on one side
and the modular payload mainly in the manufacturers' workshops on the other side. In the
final outfitting phase of a ship, the readily tested modules are forwarded to the shipyard,
installed on board and connected to the respective ship service systems and the data bus
within a few days. According to Blohm&Voss the benefits of modularity during the
construction phase are:
* Design flexibility
* Saving of time and costs
" Clear division of responsibility between the ship-yard as prime contractor and the
manufacturers of the weapons, electronic and machinery systems.
* Enhanced quality of workmanship due to the assembly and testing of payload systems
under workshop conditions.
50
* Testing of complete systems as well as critical interfaces on land before installation on
board without the need to erect additional testing facilities.
Due to modularization with its standardized dimensions and interfaces, the complete payload
of a MEKO ship can be either quickly installed, removed, exchanged or replaced and yield the
following advantages during a ship's life cycle:
" Design flexibility for upgrading/modernization
" Saving of time and costs for maintenance and repair through significantly shorter periods
in the dockyard.
* Saving of time and costs for future upgrades and modernization of weapon and electronic
systems through the quick and easy exchange of modules.
* Overall reduction of life cycle costs
7.1.1 Functional Decomposition
Szatkowski [2] functionally described a generic US frigate applying the axiomatic design
approach, mapping each function with one specific design parameter. As a tool Szatkowski
used a software called "Acclaro", which assists designers to create a functional systems
decomposition and to map functions and product components (design parameters).
The underlying approach was to first establish a function tree for a generic frigate (see
Appendix 10.2) and then to create a specific function structure for the family of MEKO
frigates. The function tree shows a functional decomposition down to the sixth level for some
ship systems. For the creation of the family function structure the lowest level of functions
were used and connected.
By family of frigates it is referred to the frigate designs for the Hellenic Navy, the Turkish
Navy, the Nigerian Navy, the Portuguese Navy, and the Australian Navy (Appendix 10.1).
51
The following functional analysis of the MEKO frigates focuses on the equipment such as
weapon systems, radar, communication systems, propulsion units, auxiliary power plants and
parts of the structure (crew quarters). Analyzing possible modularization of the hull structure
has been neglected since the main characteristics of all hulls of the MEKO family are more or
less identical. According to Blohm&Voss the differences in hull structure refer to minor
differences in length, beam depth and design draught as can be seen in Appendix 10.1.
Gun Function Units (Air and Sea TargetsI
Missile Function Units (Surtace to Air .
Missile Function Units (Surface to Surface -
LI]Anti Submarine Wartnee Function Units
Fire Control Function Units o
Communication/Navigation Function Units
Jul 'AI
A--
Figure 7.1: MEKO Frigate
Figure 7.1 shows the functional units (FU's) or modules, as defined by Blohm&Voss, for the
family of MEKO frigates. The main functional units are the gun function units referring to the
52
main gun, and the machine guns mounted on the front and the back of the ship. These units
include the positioning, and loading mechanism and the ammunition provision. For the
machine guns the fire control is included in the functional unit. The missile function units
refer to missile launchers for surface to air and surface to surface targets. The anti-submarine
units embrace the torpedo launchers including the loading system and the active and passive
sonar systems. Part of this functional unit is also the helicopter, which provides the ship with
information on enemy submarines through onboard detection systems (hydrophones). The fire
control units are the radar systems with the corresponding computer processors and
information displays. The communication and navigation function units refer to containerized
communication systems for the internal and external communication. The variants of main
weapon systems modules are indicated in Figure 7.2.
53
*1~
4
-i
-77I
1<~
4~C1
TJ~77A
I
~~1
Ti
4'-I
-~ w.- ~ V
Figure 7.2: Weapon Systems Modules (MEKO)
54
................... ....j............ --
gob,
This modular classification proposed by Blohm&Voss provides a general overview of the
modularity applied to their family of ships, yet it does not show the functional structure and
the interactions of each of the modules.
7.1.2 Proposed Modules
The function structure established for the family of MEKO frigates provides an effective tool
to visualize the functions of systems and subsystems and their interacting and connecting
flows. However, applying the heuristics to identify modular partitions within the complexity
of flows and interactions proves to be rather difficult. A further difficulty arises when
identifying modules across a family of products: some of the modules may vary in size and
have distinct boundary conditions, which makes it difficult to establish modules in a single
platform.
A useful tool to establish and identify modules across a family of products therefore is the
modularity matrix; first introduced by Otto et al. [29], which aids in the application of the
modularity rules, both for products and for product portfolios. A modularity matrix lists the
possible functions from a family function structure as rows in the matrix, then lists the
possible products from the family as columns. Each matrix element contains a value that
represents the function specific level required. Ideally, a single value is used though some
functions are sufficiently complex that multiple specifications may be required. The
modularity matrix for the MEKO family is shown in Figure 7.3.
The specification values entered in the matrix represent targets for the functions of each
product. These various values form the architecting space that will define possible product
and portfolio architectures. A design team must select specification values for each function
in each product. The extent to which a product's set of specifications is compatible defines
how well the individual product will work. The extent to which a function has the same
targets established across products defines how well functions can be satisfied through shared
modules.
55
Establishing the modularity matrix allows commonalties to be easily identified. These
commonalties can lead to possible modules. First, we can form groupings of functions along
columns, which incorporate multiple functions within one specific product. This highlights
possible product modules. These modules can be selected on the family function structure
using the rules of dominant flow, branching flow, and conversion-transmission.
Second, we can form groupings of functions row wise, which incorporate the same functions
into multiple products as a single module. This highlights possible portfolio modules that can
be shared among multiple products. These modules can be selected on the family function
structure using the rules of common and unique modules.
56
Frigate
Type
Countr tierin
Function Design Parameter
Provide Buoyancy Hull Type A Type B Type C Type D Type E Type F Type G
Maintain Equipment in Equipment Monitoring. NA NA NA NA NA NA NAOperating Conditions Storage olfSpare PansProvide Habitable Crew Quarters, Mess, NA NA NA NA NA NA NAConditions Galley
Communication System NA NA RA NA NA NA NACommunicate Internally (Extemal)
Communication System NA NA NA NA NA NA NACommunicate Extemally (Extemal)
Determine if Course is Racal Decca 2690 BT Racal Decca TM 1226 Racal Decca 2690 BT Racal Decca 1226 Ketvin Hughes ISC Cardion SPS-55 Decca 1226Safe Navigation System _Alter Eusting Course Rudder Control System NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
Maneuver Alongside Pier Bow Thruster NA NA NA NA NA 2 NA
. Fuel Tank, Fuel Pump, NA NA NA NA NA NA NAProvide Fuel Fuel Pipes
2 LM 2500-30 Gas 4 High Speed Diesels 2 LM 2500-30 Gas 2 Olympus Gas Turbines 2 LM 2502-30 Gas 1 LM 2600-30 Gas 2 Olympus Gas Turbines
Produce Propulsive Power Engines I Turbines (MTU) Turbines (GE) (Rolls Royce) Turbines (GE) Turbines (GE) (Rolls Royce)2 High Speed Diesels 2 High Speed Diesels 2 High Speed Diesels 2 High Speed Diesels 2 High Speed Diesels 2 Tyne Gas Turbines
Engines 2 (MTU) (MTU) (MTl) IMTU) (MTU) (Rolls Royce)
Provide Propulsive Power Reduction Gear, Cooling 2 Renk 2 Renk 2 Renk 2 Renk 2 Renk 1 Renk 2 Renkat Usable Speed System ITransfer Power to Water Sha. CP-Propeller 2 Sulzer/Escher-Wyss 2 Sulzer/Escher-Wyss 2 Sulzoer/Escher-Wyss Kamewa 2 1 2Control Speed and Engine/Propeller Control NA NA NA NA NA NA NADirection of Momement UnitProduce Auxiliary Power Auxiliary Power Unit 4 Diesel MTU/Siemens 4 Diesel MTU/Siemens 4 Diesel MTU/Siemens 4 Diesel MTU/Siemens 4 Diesel MTU/Siemens 4 Diesel MTU/Siemens 4 Diesel MTU/Siemens
Detect Electromagnetic NA NA NA NA NA NA NAemissions (EM) Broad Band RadarClassity Electromagnetic Computer / Signal NA Signaal STACOS-TU Thomson-CSF Sewaco-BV Signaal SEWACO NCDS Signaal SEWACOemissions ProcessorDetect Surface and Shore Signaal/Magnavox Plessey AWS 6 Dolphin Plessey AWS 6 Dolphin Plessey AWS 5 Signaal DA08 ISC Cardion SPS-55 Signaal ZW06Based Targets ISurface Search RadarClassify Surface Targets FF System Mk XII Mod 4 URN 25 IFF Mk 11 URN 25 1FF Mk II NA IFF Mk 12 Mod 4 AiMS Mk XII NAEngage Long RangeSurface/Shore Based 1 Haarpoon 1 Haarpoon 1 Hoarpoon I OTO Melara/Matra 1 Haarpoon 1 Haarpoon MM 40 Exocel
Target s SS Missile LauncherTrack Surface to Surtace Signaal STIR Signaal STIR Signaal STIR Signaal STIR, Sigaal Signaal STIR Lockheed SPG0 Signaal STIRMissile Fire Control System WM 25Engage short rangesudace/shore based 1 FMC Mk 45 Mod 2A 1 FMC Mk 45 Mod 1 1 FMC Mk 45 Mod 1 1 OTO Melara 5 1 Creusol Loire I OTO Melara 5 1 OTO Melara 5target s Main Gun
Signaal STIR Signaal STIR Signaal STIR Signaal STIR, Signaal Signaal STIR Lockheed SPG-60 Signaal STIRTrack Main Gun Projectile Fire Control System WM 25
Signaal MW06 Signaal DA68 Siemens/Plessey AWS Plessey AWS 5 Signaal MWB Raytheon SPS-49 Signaal DA08yDetect airbome targets Air Search Radar 9Classify Surface/Airbome Mk XII Mod 4 URN 25 IFF Mk If URN 25 IFF Mk It NA IFF Mk 12 Mod 4 AIMS Mk XII NATargets IFF System
Sea Sparow Mk 8 Sea Sparrow Mk 29 Mod Sea Sparrow Mk 29 Mod Selenia Elsag Sea Sparrow Mk 29 GDC Pomona Standard Selenia/ElsagEngage airborne targets SA Missile Launcher 1 1
Track Surface to Air Signaal STIR Signaal STIR Signaal STIR Signaal STIR, Signaal Signaal STIR Lockheed SPG-60 Signaal STIRMissile Fire Control System WM 25Detect subsurface targets Alias Elektronik 80without compromising Raytheon SOS-6 Raytheon SOS-65 Raytheon SOS-65 Atlas EA 80 SOS-510 Raytheon SOS-56 (DSOS-21BZ)position Passive SonarDetect subsurface targets Alias Elekironik BDwith compromising Raytheon SOS-65 Raytheon SOS-65 Raytheon SOS-65 Atlas EA E0 SOS-NIB Raytheon SS-56 (DSOS-21BZposition Active Sonar IClassify Subsurface Honeywell Mk 46 Mod Honeywell Mk 46 Mod5 Honeywell Mk 46 Mod 5 NA NA NA NATargets Subsurface IFF System 1/2Classify Subsurface Honeywell Mk 46 Mod Honeywell Mk 46 Mod 5 Honeywell Mk 46 Mod 5 NA NA NA NATargets Subsurface IFF System 1/12Engage subsurface 2 Mk 32 Mod 5 2 Mk 32 Mod 5 2 Mk 32 Mod 5 2 Plessey STWS 18 2 Mk 32 Mod 5 2 Mk 32 Mod5 2LA53
targets Torpedo Launcher Honeywell Honeywell Honeywell Honeywell Honeywell
Torpedo Fire Control NA NA NA NA NA NA Whitehead A 244Track Torpedo SystemDefend Ship from Long 16 Sea Sparrow Mk 8 Sea Sparrow Mk 29 Mod Sea Sparrow Mk 29 Mod OTO Metara/Matra Sea Sparrow Mk 29 Mod GDC Pomona Standard Selenia/ElsagRange Airborne Weapons SA Missile Launcher I I ITrack Defensive SA Signaal STIR Signaal STIR Signaal STIR Signaal STIR. Signaal Signaal STIR Lockheed SPG-60 Signaal STIRMissile Fire Control System WM 25Defend Ship irom Medium 16 Sea Sparrow Mk 8 Sea Sparrow Mk 29 Mod Sea Sparrow Mk 29 Mod OTO Melara/Matra Sea Sparrow Mk 29 Mod GDC Pomona Standard SeleniayElsagRange Airborne Weapons SA Missile Launcher I I I
Track Defensive SA Signaal STIR Signaal STIR Signaal STIR Signaal STIR, Signaal Signaal STIR Lockheed SPG-60 Signaal STIRMissle FiWe Control System WMA 25
Neutralize short range . 2 GD-GE Vulcan 3 Oerlikon-Contraves 3 Oerlikon-Contraves 8 Breda Bofors 2 GD-GE Vulcan I GD-GE Vulcan 8 Breda/Boforsairbome weapon Machine Gun Phalanx Mb 15 Mod 12 Phalanx Mk 15 Mod 12 Phalanx Mk 15 Mod 12
Track Machine Gun Fire Control System Vulcan Cerlikon Oerbkon NA Vulcan Vulcan Signaal LIRODProiectile Illuminator (IR) I
helict argets by tiopter Platform / Seahawk 1 AB-212 ASW (Bell) t AB-212 ASW (Bell) 1 Sea Lynx 2 Super Lynn (Westland) 2erSeaspri 2 Sea Lynx (Westland)helicopter_____ System_______ (Kaman) __________
Figure 7 .3: Modularity Matrix for the MEKO Frigate Family
57
The identification of modules for each MEKO frigate can be done in the family function
structure (Appendix 10.4), which then leads to a new family function structure with the
proposed modules (Appendix 10.5). By comparing the two function structures it can be
identified that some of the functions for the weapon systems have been regrouped since their
subfunctions are completely identical and modules are formed.
These modules can then be translated to the modularity matrix as shown in Appendix 10.6.
Due to the lack of specific data concerning some of the vessel's systems and equipment, the
The following modules have been identified for the family of MEKO frigates:
Propulsion Unit: The propulsion unit - functionally shown in Figure 7.4 - mainly
consists of the engine, the reduction gear, and the shaft including the CPP propeller.
Official MEKO specifications [24] reveal that the propulsion system hasn't yet been
modularized. Each propulsion system is individually designed to meet the different
requirements. An approach towards modularization could be to standardize the power
plants, the reduction gears, and their foundations. As proposed by Wartsila/NSD even the
shaft and the propellers could be standardized in order to provide design flexibility and
exchangeability of components.
-- ---------- --------------------------------------------------RWicn~it
Fire 7. P Unitk
Figure 7.4: Propulsion Unit
58
" Engine Control Module: The engine control unit may also be modularized, although
different power generators such as gas turbines or diesel engines require different control
functionality. Modular could be the design of a standard console with the capacity to
control different types of power plants according to each design variant.
" Auxiliary Power Unit: The auxiliary power unit could be standardized with regard to the
engines, their foundations, the electrical distribution systems and the cabling or electricity
transportation.
" Fuel Storage Module: Fuel tanks, pumps may easily be standardized and used across the
family of ships.
* Internal Communication Module: The internal communication system could be
modularized in a central unit that manages all on board communications.
* External Communication Module: The internal communication system could be
modularized in a central unit that manages all communications with other navy units and
with shore based units.
" Navigation System: All functions of the navigation system such as GPS, speed
measurement, water depth determination could be set up as a modular system.
* Maneuvering System: The maneuvering system module refers to i standardized console
and standardized system for the rudder control.
" Bow Thruster: The bow thruster can be set up as a standardized component with variants
according to the power requirements. The control unit could also be standardized and
unified with the engine control module.
Possible modules concerning the ships living quarters and systems for onboard operations
include:
59
" Equipment Storage: The equipment storage could be part of a modularized ship zone.
" Water Supply System: Water tanks and water pipes may be standardized throughout the
family of MEKO vessels.
* Hygiene Module (Bathroom, Toilets): Bathrooms and toilets are already standardized in
cruise ship construction. For naval vessels standardized bathrooms and equipment could
easily be standardized. Standard bathrooms could be applied for the entire family of
vessels.
* Kitchen, Food Storage: Although galleys may differ concerning the requirements of
different navies, some parts of the galleys could be standardized.
* Living Quarters: Quarters could be part of modular zones.
* HVAC Module: Standardized piping and control systems.
" Illumination System: Standardization of frames and cabling systems
The radar systems can potentially be modularized as follows:
* Broad Band Radar: This system may be completely containerized and used
with different variants for different requirements.
* Broad Band Emissions Classification: The emissions classification is
computer, which could be standardized and located in a modular container.
as a module
done by a
* Surface to Surface Radar: The surface to surface radar can be grouped into one
containerized system that allows easy exchange.
9 Surface to Air Radar: Similarly, the surface to air radar may be built as a module. Both
systems the surface to air and the surface to surface radar may be grouped together to
reduce space.
60
" IFF System: Referring to the generic function structure, the target classification (IFF) is
done by a computer system that could be unified instead of different systems referring to
each of the weapon systems.
" Surface to Surface Missile Launcher: The missile launcher already is designed as a
modular unit.
" Surface to Air Missile Launcher: The missile launcher already is designed as a modular
unit. For the MEKO frigate it could be proposed to use the identical launcher for enemy
engagement and enemy defense.
" Machine Gun: The machine gun is designed as a modular unit with different variants as
can be seen in Figure 7.2.
" Illuminator: The fire control system for the machine gun could either be a stand alone
module or even grouped together with the machine gun unit.
" Sonar System: The active and passive sonar systems are currently separate modules but
could potentially be grouped together.
" Sonar IFF Module: The classification of subsurface targets could be done through a
modular IFF system.
" Torpedo Launcher and Fire Control: Both systems are standardized.
" Hull: The ship hull is shown as an entity. Due to the lack of information on the different
MEKO vessels the hull couldn't be analyzed concerning modularity.
Each of these modules show variations in size and some boundary conditions although they
all share a common functionality.
For the modular weapon systems as shown in Figure 7.2, the design challenge is to meet all
interface requirements such as loads and cabling for the data transfer. Since different weapon
systems variants transfer different loads, the foundations for these systems have to be
61
designed to withstand the highest possible loads. Similarly, the hull structure, which receives
the loads from the weapon systems, has to be set up to counter all forces and moments.
For example for the main gun module there are four different module instances (Figure 7.2).
The function structure of the main gun (Figure 7.5) shows the following inputs:
Inputs: Power
Control Signal (Firing System)
Control Signal (Gun Maneuvering)
Ammunition
Outputs: Signals
Projectiles
Loads
Main Gun
xir-L S L Adi aer .n qr
P..7Av ra S . r I
Pkgr ne wz mai
- - CarlralSign f b p kiTn
Figure 7.5: Main Gun Function Structure
62
For the required inputs such as power, and control signals all of the four different module
instances may be outfitted with the same interfaces. Since different guns use different
ammunition caliber, the ammunition provision system will require an interface between the
ship and the module that covers the entire range of ammunition used for all module instances.
Similarly, for the output of the module the interfaces for the control signals providing data to
the fire control system can be standardized for all module instances. Yet, the loads from
different gun types are distinct, which requires deck frames that can withstand the maximum
loads.
63
8 Conclusions
The goal of the underlying research was to study modularity and product architecture and
apply these frameworks to the shipbuilding industry. While most of the concepts were
discussed with respect to the naval design and shipbuilding process, many of the attributable
research benefits are also applicable to commercial ship design and construction.
The standardized modular philosophy impacts design in a variety of ways, both positive and
negative. In general, the savings in production costs should outweigh negative design impacts
although a cost comparison is not available to date. Furthermore the design variety based on
modular platforms allows the shipyard to easily and quickly react to market changes and new
customer requirements. Time to market may also be an advantage of modular ship design:
Blohm&Voss claims that modularization reduced the time from contract award to
commissioning from about 72 to 48 months.
System modules provide the advantage of easily being exchanged due to change in
technological requirements. Furthermore they can easily be tested of the vessel which
provides major cost savings.
Due to a variety of equipment dimensions, flexible hull modules would generally need to be
designed to accept the largest reasonably likely equipment dimensions. This requirement
would tend to increase the volume of the ship, which utilizes these standard modules as
compared to a fully integral design. Secondly, arrangement flexibility is more constrained
than that for a custom built ship, which also drives the volume higher. The extent of volume
increase is not clear and as of today has never been analyzed. While there are a variety of
dimension concerning equipment and hull design the variety is not limitless. The largest
dimension is not typically orders of magnitude above the mean dimension of the equipment
type. Secondly, the detailed attention and spatial analysis afforded to the module design may
actually result in amore efficiently proportioned system than may have been possible during
the traditional contract design phase. For example in the contract design for the DDG-51,
BIW utilized envelope dimensions, which represented the largest anticipated equipment
64
dimensions in order to more easily competitively bid requirement. In the detail design phase,
arrangements were modified to incorporate actual equipment dimensions. It was found that
machinery room volume decreased by 31% for major machinery from contract to detail
design [32]. This increase in volume is significant. Had there been options for equipment
available and dimensions been known up front, redesign and excess volume could have been
avoided. While standard modules would need to incorporate excess volume in order to accept
a variety of equipment, the design of modules may be more efficient.
Standard module design is also constrained by weight distribution for an equipment type. A
flexible hull module must support the heaviest likely equipment of the class of equipment,
which in turn would require the use of a heavier structure (scantlings) than a weight optimized
design.
Given all the mentioned factors it can be inferred that the negative design impacts of
modularity can be offset in many cases and minimized in most cases.
65
9 Recommendations for Future Research
The objective of this research was to study modularity and the impact of modular product
architecture to ship design. The downward trends associated with shipbuilding work and naval
budgets require action to be taken to reduce costs associated with ship design, production and
maintenance. Therefore performing a cost analysis for a modular and an integral ship design
would provide a direct benchmark and measuring system for modularity.
While most of the impacts of modularization have been discussed with regard to design and
production, the organizational aspect has not been highlighted. Since the production of
modules requires different processes, the organization of the shipyard is directly affected.
Analyzing the impact of production cells throughout the shipbuilding process would provide
further insight into potential cost savings.
66
10 Appendix
10.1 MEKO Frigates
Country Grvece Turkey Ngeria Turkey PotglAustraliamain UhaacensticsDesign Displacement [lJ 3200 2800 3600 3200 3180Length overall Im]- 117.0 110.50 125.60 116.0 115.90 118.0Beam overall [mF 14.80 14.W 15. 14.80 14.80 14.80Depth [Im] 9.10 9.00 9.30 9.15 9.15 9.15Design Draught [Im] 4.10 3.95 4.30 4.20 4.10 4.3/GeneratorsGenerators 4 Diesel MTU/Siemens 4 Diesel MTUYSiemens 4 Diesel MTLYSiernens 4 Diesel I/VrfSemens 4 Diesel MTULSiemens 4 Desel MTLSiemensSwitchboards 2Semens 2 Semens 29 Semens 2 Semens 2 Siemens 2 SiemensPropulsion Z=UUG CULlUD LULJG CU)DCG CUUX ZOLXXI
2 LM 2500-30 Gas 4 Figh Speed Diesels 2 Olympus Gas Iurbnes 2 LA 2500-30 Gas 2 LM 2500-30 Gas 1 LM 2500-30 GasTurbines (GE) (MTU) (Rolls Royce) Turbines (GE) Turbines (GE) Turbines (GE)2 High Speed Diesels 2 High Speed Diesels 2 Hgh Speed Diesels 2 Hlgh Speed Diesels 2 Hgh Speed Diesels
(MTU) (MTU) (MTU) (MUi) (MTU)Maximum Speed [kn] 31 2/ 3C 31 31 2/Cruising bpSWd [kn 20 20 22 18Helicopter 1 Seahav* 1 AB-212 AbVV (Bell) 1 Sea Lynx 1 AB-212 AbVV (Bell) 2 Super Lynx (Vestland) 1 Super -;easpnt (Kaman)Installed ModulesWeapon Modules 4 5 6 5 4 2Eectronic Modules 10 15 7 15 10 /
Pallet Modules 10 8 7 8 11 1Mast Modules 2 2 - 2 2 2Ventilation Modules 9 - - - 9
10.2 Function Tree
Level 0
Level 1
Level 2
Level 3
Level 4
.~ -- --
Level 5
Level 6
68
I
Fz W"d cw ftwdm- P-WOI -
I
69
-.0 w.- r(
-.4WP A"A--1
F
17
OL
S--, n3 --d 0
-Z71
IL
MEMENNIMMOMIL- -W
--p -P = -"W d L-W-4 A"a V13 ---d -3 --j n3 Fn73
17-wb. q
M3 AP"*
LI
ZL
-A-4V.1-
evel 0
Level 1
Level 2
Level 3
Level 4 U.-v
73
7t
-- q3 Aq-
7Viii7V,.I
d AauunT~ae as LTJe ene
17:ea 1.adeuui 7-wuaen Je~a mZ.- sl
9L
10.3 MEKO Family Function Structure
Maintain Equipment in Operaung Condlton
Pronida Habitable Conditions
__ __ __ j
Communicate internally CommunicateExtemnally
"g _ E_ -
77
Provde Fuel
Control Speed and Directionof Movement (locally,remotely)
Produce Proptulo. e power P1 Provide Propulsive Power at Usable Speed [ n TranelerPowerloWe
Pe., . . .
S _ _ _ I _ _ _ -L
Gonrerte ElectrIcal Power-
IF
78
Determine If Courso Is "Sale, At r xIstIng Maneuver Alongside PierCourse
-J2~ -z1H - 79
79
Detect Broad Band ElectrnongnatIv 1 V Broand Band EM Emissins(EMC EssEEns
80
Engage Long tRange Surface IShare Based Track Surface to Surface Missile
Detect Surface end Shore Based Classify surface I Airborne TargetsTargets- - - - - -
------- Lj_1 4 Engage Shart Range Surface Shore Bsed TargetsTrcManGnPoetl
L~ ~~-~ -- .,----- -fsss
_ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ ~=is
Detect Arne Targets Classiy Sua
2K t - - - - - -I_ - _
agets n gets Track Surface to Air Missile
F- i
81
C I - Ty -u --f - -ar --Detect Subsurface Targets without Cotnproniaing Position - - - -- - -- -
J~a.. .. - Engage Subsurface Targets Track Torpedo
e si
Detect Subsurface Targets with Comproisisng Position -C--s-IV Subsurface Targets
82
Defend Ship fromn LongTrack Defensive (SA) Missile
Defend Ship Irnoitia Track Delensive (SA) MissileRange Airbone Weapon)
T k hnG ct
".uralite Shor Range Mrhorne Weapon (Miell) Track Machne Gue Prolecllle
83
Provide Buoylcy
L
84
Detecl SurfaceSubsurface Contacts by Halo
85
10.4 MEKO Family Function Structure with Proposed Modules
Equipment Storage
4.E-+
Waimr supply sycte Hygiene Module
HVAC oduleKitchen. Food Sorage
HArC ModdloUving Ouier Mdul
I Qltnn~nSyjsum
86
Engine Contro
--- -- -- - -- --_ i ---
Propulsion Unit - - - - - -
Auxiliary Power Unit
F I
Fuel Stoaa"
87
-1
Extemal Communilcatlon Module
88
I
l Intomnal Comkotion Modde
Navigatton System
-.-- --
~- Maneuvertngeand
Contro System
---- ---H I ---
Saw Thruster
89
Surface to Surface Radar
I I
Broad Band Radar Broad Band Emissions Classification
Surface to Air Radar
IFF Syst m
--y1- --- -----------
90
I
- - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Surface to Surface Minile Launcher (SS)
Main Gun
- ?
Surface to Air Missile Launcher (SA)
- -- --------W ---- -..
--.------
- - - - - - -
Dofenlve Surface to AirMissile Launcher
Machine Gun
--z1.
Fire Control System
Illuminator
Yn. eJ e qme j
91
Pasive Sonar
--I --- - - -A -- -- -- --n --Sonar 1FF Module
[ - - - - - - - - -
92
Halo
Torpedo Fre Control
.L 1 1 .d
93
Torpedo Launcher
t6
F-nigs
InH
itU* r 1F.* -~---~: FU1~TI KFi~ -
10.5 Modularity Matrix (MEKO)
Frigate E 0P- MMType MEKO HN MEKO 200 TH MEKO 200 TH IM-AB MEKO 360 Hl MEKO 200 PN MEKO 200 ANZ MEKO 360 H2Country Greece Turkey Turkey Nigeria Portugal Australia Argentina
Function Deslgn Parameter7
Provide Buoyancy Hull Type A Type B Type C Type D Type E Type F Type GMaintain Equipment in Equipment Monitoring, NA NA NA NA NA NA NAOperating Conditions Storage of Spare ParisProvide Habitable CrewQuarers, Mess, NA NA NA NA NA NA NAConditions Galley
Communication System NA NA NA NA NA NA NACommunicate Internally (Extemnal)
Communication System NA NA NA NA NA NA NACommunicate Externally (Exremal)Determine N Course is Racal Decca 2690 BT Racal Decca TM 1226 Racal Decca 2690 BT Racal Decca 1226 Kelvin Hughes ISC Cardion SPS-55 Decca 1226Safe Navigation SystemAlter Existing Course Rudder Control System NA NA NA NA NA NA NAManener Alongside Pier Bow Thruster NA NA NA NA NA 2 NA
Fuel Tank, Fuel Pump, NA NA NA NA NA NA NAProvide Fuel Fuel Pipes
2 LM 2500-30 Gas 4 High Speed Diesels 2 LM 2500-30 Gas 2 Olympus Gas Turbines 2 LM 2500-30 Gas t LM 2500-30 Gas 2 Olympus Gas Turbines
Produce Propulsive Power Engines 1 Turbines (GE) (MTU) Turbines (GE) (Rolls Roy ce) Turbines (GE) Turbines (GE) (Rolls Royce)2 High Speed Diesels 2 High Speed Diesels 2 High Speed Diesels 2 High Speed Diesels 2 High Speed Diesels 2 Tyne Gas Turbines
Engines 2 (MTU) (MTU) (MTU) (MTU) (MTU) (Rolls Royce)
Provide Propulsive Power Reduction Gear, Cooling 2 Renk 2 Renk 2 Renk 2 Renk 2 Renk 1 Renk 2 Renkat Usable Speed SystemTransfer Power to Water Shat, CP-Propeller 2 Sulzer/Escher-Wyss 2 Sulzer/Escher-W ss 2 Sulzer/Escher-Wyss Kamewa 2 1 2
Control Speed and Engine/Propellei Control NA NA NA NA NA NA NADirection of Movement UnitProduce Auxiliary Power Auxiliary Power Unit 4 Diesel MTU/Siemens 4 Diesel MTU/Siemens 4 Diesel MTU/Siemens 4 Diesel MTU/Siemens 4 Diesel MTU/Siemens 4 Diesel MTU/Siemens 4 Diesel MTU/Siemens
Detect Electromagnetic NA NA NA NA NA NA NAemissions (EM) Broad Band RadarClassify Electromagnetic Computer / Signal NA Signaal STACOS-TU Thomson-CSF Sewaco-BV Signaal SEWACO NCDS Signaal SEWACOemissions ProcessorDetect Surface and Shore Signaal(Magnavox Plessey AWS 6 Dolphin Plessey AWS 6 Dolphin Plessey AWS 5 Signaal DA ISC Cardion SPS-55 Signaal ZA6Based Targets Surface Search RadarClassify Surface Targets IFF System Mk XI Mod 4 URN 25 IFF Mk It URN 25 IFF Mk 11 NA IFF Mk 12 Mod 4 AIMS Mk CI1 NAEngage Long RangeSurface/Shore Based 1 Haarpoon 1 Haarpoon I Haarpoon 1 OTO Melara/Matra 1 Haarpoon 1 Haarpoon MM 40 Exocet
Targets SS Missile LauncherTrack Surface to Surface Signaal STIR Signaal STIR Signaal STIR Signaal STIR, Signaal Signaal STIR Lockheed SPG-52 Signaal STIRMissile Fire Control System WM 25Engage short rangesurface/shore based 1 FMC Mk 45 Mod 2A 1 FMC Mk 45 Mod I 1 FMC Mk 45 Mod 1 1 OTO Melara 5 I Creusot Loire 1 OTO Melara 5 1 OTO Melara 5taroets Main Gun
Signaal STIR Signaal STIR Signaal STIR Signaal STIR, Signaal Signaal STIR Lockheed SPG-60 Signaal STIRTrack Main Gun Projectile Fire Control System WM 25
Signaal MVW8 Signaal DA88 Siemens/Plessey AWS Plessey AWS 5 Signaal MM Raytheon SPS-49 Signaal DAMDetect airbone targets Air Search Radar 9Classify Surface/Airbome Mk Xl Mod 4 URN 25 IFF Mk I URN 25 IFF Mk 11 NA IFF Mk 12 Mod 4 AIMS Mk XII NATargets IFF System
Sea Sparrow Mk B Sea Sparrow Mk 29 Mod Sea Sparrow Mk 29 Mod Selenia Elsag Sea Sparrow Mk 29 GDC Pomona Standard Selenia/ElsagEngage airborne targets SA Missile Launcher 1 1
Track Surface to At Signaal STIR Signaal STIR Signaal STIR Signaal STIR, Signaal Signaal STIR Lockheed SPG-W Signaal STIRMissile Fire Control System WM 25Detect subsurface targets Atlas Elektronik 90without compromising Raytheon SOS-65 Raytheon SOS-65 Raytheon SOS-65 Atlas EA 80 SOS-510 Raytheon SOS-56 DSQS-21BZ)position Passive SonarDetect subsurface targets Atlas Elektronik 80with compromising Raytheon SOS-66 Raytheon SOS-65 Raytheon SS-65 Atlas EA 80 SS-510 Raytheon SOS-56 (DSOS-21BZ)position Active SonarClassify Subsurface Honeywell Mk 46 Mod Honeywell Mk 46 Mod 5 Honeywell Mk 46 Mod 5 NA NA NA NATaroets Subsurface IFF System 1/2Classify Subsurface Honeywel Mk 46ll Mk 46 Mod 5 NA NA NA NATargets Subsurface IFF System 1/2Engage subsurface 2 Mk 32 Mod 5 2 Mk 32 Mod 5 2 Mk 32 Mod 5 2 Plessey STWS 1B 2 Mk 32 Mod 5 2 Mk 32 Mod 5 2 ILAS 3targets Torpedo Launcher Honeywell Honeywell Honeywell Honeywell Honeywell
Torpedo Fire Control NA NA NA NA NA NA Whitehead A 244Track Torpedo SystemDefend Ship from Long 16 Sea Sparrow Mk 8 Sea Sparrow Mk 29 Mod Sea Sparrow Mk 29 Mod OTO Melara/Matra Sea Sparrow Mk 29 Mod GDC Pomona Standard Selenia/ElsagRange Airborne Weapons SA Missile Launcher 1 1 1
Track Defensive SA Signaal STIR Signaal STIR Signaal STIR Signaal STIR, Signaal Signaal STIR Lockheed SPG-60 Signaal STIRMissile Fire Control System WM 25Defend Ship from Medium 16 Sea Sparrow Mk 8 Sea Sparrow Mk 29 Mod Sea Sparrow Mk 29 Mod OTO Melara/Matra Sea Sparrow Mk 29 Mod GOC Pomona Standard Selenia/ElsagRange Airborne Weapons SA Missile Launcher 1 1 1
Track Defensive SA Signaal STIR Signaal STIR Signaal STIR Signaal STIR; Signaal Signaal STIR Lockheed SPG-60 Signaal STIRMissile Fire Control System WM 25
Neutralize shoO range 2 GD-GE Vulcan 3 Oerlikon-Contraves 3 Oerbkon-Contraves 8 Breda Bofors 2 GD-GE Vulcan I GD-GE Vulcan 8 Breda/Bofoisairbome weapon Machine Gun Phalanx Mk 15 Mod 12 Phalanx Mk 15 Mod 12 Phalanx Mk 15 Mod 12
Track Machine Gun Fire Control System / Vulcan Oerlikon Oerikon NA Vulcan Vulcan Signaal LIRODProjectile b lluminator (IR) I
eict pargets by yiopter Platform 1 Seahawk I AB-212 ASW (Bell) 1 AB-212 ASW (Bel) 1 Sea Lynx 2 Super Lynx (Westland) Super Seasprit 2 Sea Lynx (Westland)helicopter__ System__III (Kaman) _______
95
10.6 Modularity Matrix (Product Modules)
Frigate "A E EWType MEKO HN MEKO 200 TH MEK0O TN 11A/8 MEKO 360 HI MEKO 200 PN MEKO 200 ANZ MEKO 360 H2Country Greece Turkey Turkey Nigeria Portugal Australia Argentina
Function Design Parameter
Provide Buoyancy Hull Type A Type B Type C Type D Type E Type F Type GMaintain Equipment in Equipment Monitoring, NA NA NA NA NA NA NAOperating Conditions Stoage of Sp are Paris
Provide Habitable Crew Quarters, Mess, NA NA NA NA NA NA NAConditions GalleyCommunication System NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
Communicate nternally (Extema_Communication System NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
Communicate Exteally (ECxoemaDetermine if Course is Nagation System Racal Detce 269M BT Racal Decca TM 1226 Racal Decca 2690 BT Racal Decca 1226 KeMn Hughes ISC Cardion SPS-55 Decca 1226Alter Existing Course Rudder Control System NA NA NA NA NA NA NAManeuverAlongside Pier Bow Thruster NA NA NA NA NA 2 NA
Funl Tank, Fuel Pump, NA NA NA NA NA NA NAProvide Fuel Fuel Pipes____________________2 LM 250-30 Gas A High Speed Diesels 2 LM 2 Kt-30 Gas 2 Olympus Gas Turbines 2 LM 25M-30 Gas g LM 26D-30 Gas 2 Olympus Gas Turbines
Produce Propulsive Power Engines ey TubineB}(GE (MT Torbbres (GE) (RultsRiyycy) Turbines (GE) Turbes(GE)s y2 High Speed Diesels 2 High Speed Diesels 2 High Speed Diesels 2 High Speed Diesels 2 High Speed Diesels 2 Tyne Gas Turbines
Engines 2 (MTU) . .TU) . (MTU) (MTU) MTU) (RoRoyce)Provide Propulsive Power Reduction Gear. Cooling 2 Renk 2 Renk 2 Renk 2 Renk 2 Renk 1 Renk 2 RankatUsableSpeed System . . ...Transfer Power to Water Shaft, CP-Propeller 2 Sulzer/Escher-Wyss 2 Sulzer/Escher-Wyss 2 SulzerlEscher-Wyss Kamewa 2 g 2Control Speed and Engine/Propeller Control 2 2Direction of Movement Unit 2 2 2_2_2_2_2Produce Auxiliary Power Auxiliary Power Unit 4 Diesel MTU/Siamens 4 Diesel MTU/Siemens 4 Diesel MTU/Siemens 4 Diesel MTU/Siemens 4 Diesel MTU/Siemens 4 Diesel MT.U/Siemens 4 Diesel MTU/SiemensEet rgcet s Sudace Search Radar Signaal/Magnavox Plessey AWS 6 Dolphin Plessey AWS 6 Dolphin Plessey AWS 5 Signaal DAM ISC Cardion SPS-55 Signaal ZYMJ6
Track Surface to Surface Signaal STIR Signaal STIR Signaal STIR Signaal STIR, Signaal Signaal STIR Lockheed SPG-6W Signaal STIRMissile Fire Control System WM 25
Track Main Gun Projectile Fire Control System Signaal STIR Signaal STIR Signaal STIR 2 SignaaSTIR: Signal Sgnaal STIR Lockheed SPG-60 Signal STIRTrack__ __ _ __ _ ManGnPrjcieFieCnrl ytmW 25Tracs Surface to Air Sgnaal STIR STIR ut STIR sgniaal STIR, Sign gna STIR
I s l~eeniv S Fie onro Sstm Sgne TI SgnsiSTIR Signaal STIR S na ina Signaal STIR Lockheed SPGW Signeall STIRMissile Fire Control System WM 25---.--.-., .
issile s Fire Control System Signaal STIR Signeal STIR Signaal STIR al R Signaal STIR Lockheed SPG40 Signaal STIR
Track Machine Gun Fire Control System! Vulcan Oerlikon Dedikon NA Vulcan Vulcan Signual LIRODProjetile tlluminator (IR)
Signaal MWM Signaal DA08 Siemens/Plessey AWS Plessey AWS 5 Signaal M Raytheon SPS-49 Signaal DABDetect airbome larpes Air Search Radar 9
Engage airborne targets SA Missile Launcher Sea Sparrow Mk 8 Sea Sparrow Mk 29 Mod Sea Sparrow Mk 29 Mod Selenia Elsag Sea Sparrow Mk 29 GDC Pomona Standard Selenia/ElsagDetect subsurface targets - aaS EteIortnik 80without compromising Raytheon SOS-E5 Raytheon SOS-65 Raytheon SOS-E5 Alias EA 80 SOS-510 Raytheon SOS6 (DSOS-21B)position Passive SonarDetect subsurface targets Atlas Elekdroikwith compromising Raytheon SOS-65 Raytheon SOS-65 Raytheon SOS-65 Allas EA 60 SOS-510 Raytheon SOS-56 Ais S-21Z)postion Active Sonar _ __ _ -__ _ _ _
Detect Electromagnetic NA NA NA NA NA NA NAemissions (EM) Broad Band RadarClassify Electromagnetic Computer / Signal NA Signaal STACOS-TU Thomson-CSF SewacD-BV Signaal SEWACO NCDS Signaal SEWACOemissions Processor
Torpedo Fire ControlTrack Torpedo System NA NA NA NA NA NA Whitehead A 244
Classify Subsurface Honeywell Mk 46 Mod Honeywet Mk 46 Mod S Honeywel Mk 46 Mod 5 NA NA NA NATaiciels - Subsurface 1FF System 112 ________
Classify Subsurface Honeywell Mk 46 Mod Honeywell Mb 46 Mod5 Honeywell Mk 46 Mod 5 NA NA NA NATargets Subsurface 1FF System 1112Engage subsurface 2 Mk 32 Mod 5 2 Mk 32 Mod 5 2 Mk 32 Mod 5 2 Plessey STWS 1B 2 Mk 32 Mod 5 2 Mk 32 Mod 5 2 ILAS 3targets Torpedo Launcher Honeywell Honeywell Honeywell Honeywell HoneywellNeutralize short range 2 GD-GE Vulcan 3 erliko-Contiaves 3 Oerlikon-Contraves 8 Breda Bofors 2 GD-GE Vulcan 1 GD-GE Vulcan 8 Breda/Boforsairbome weapon Machine Gun Phalanx Mk 15 Mod 12 Phalanx Mk 15 Mod 12 Phalanx Mk 15 Mod 12Defend Ship from Long 16 Sea Sparrow Mk 8 a Sparrow Mk 29 Mod Sea Sparrow Mk 29 Mod OTO Melara/Matra Sea Sparrow Mk 29 Mod GOC Pomona Standard Selenia/ElsagRange Airborne Weapons SA Missile LauncherDefend Ship from Medium SeaOTO MelaralMat parnowhk 29 Mod GC Pomona Standard SeleMkiaaErsagRange Airborne Weapons SA Missile Launcher 16 Sea Spanow Mk 8 S S Mb 29 M Sen Spmora Mb 291Mod Sea SDetect targets by Helicopter Platform / I Seahawk 1 AB-212 ASW (Bell) 1 AB-212 ASW (Bell) 1 Sea Lynx 2 Super Lynx (Westland) 1 Super Seaspri 2 Sea Lynx (Westland)helicopter System (Vaman)Engage Long RangeSurface/Shore Based 1 Haarpoon 1 Haarpoon t Haarpoon t OTO Melara/Matra 1 Haarpoon 1 Haarpoon MM 40 ExocetTargets SS Missile LauncherEngage short rangesurface/shore based 1 FMC Mk 45 Mod 2A 1 FMC Mk 45 Mod 1 1 FMC Mk 45 Mod 1 1 OTO Melara 5 t Creuso Loire 1 OTO Melara 5 1 OTO Melara 5targets Main GunClassify Surface Target 1IFF System MkIl Mod 4 URN 25 IFF Mi .. URN 25 IFFMk I NA FF Mb t2ModA 4 AMS Mb X9 NAClassify Airborne Targets 1FF System Mk til Mod A URN 2 IFF Mk II URN 25 IFF Mk I NA IFF Mk 12 Mod 4 AIMS Mk Al NA
96
Bibliography
[1] Meyer, Marc H., Lehnerd, Alvin P.; The Value of Product Platforms, The Free
Press, 1997
[2] Szatkowski, John T.; Axiomatic Ship Design, SM MIT Thesis, 2000
[3] Hubka, Vladimir, Eder, Ernst W.; Theory of Technical Systems, Springer Verlag
New York, 1988
[4] Tedesco Mathew; An Approach to Standardization of Naval Equipment and
Components, SM Thesis, MIT, 1994
[5] Standard Machinery Unitization Seminar, NASSCO, 1997
[6] Blohm&Voss Webpage, http://www.blohmvoss.com
[7] Pine B.P.; Paradigm Shift: From Mass Production to Mass Customization; SM
Thesis, Sloan School of Management, 1991
[8] Pine, B. P.; Mass Customization; The New Frontier in Business Competition;
Harvard Business School Press, Boston, 1993
[9] Mr. J. H. Kim , Hyundai Heavy Industries, referring to telephone conversation of
December 12, 2000.
[10] Chirillio, Louis; Flexible Standards: An Essential Innovation in Shipyards; Journal
of ship production; Vol 7, No. 1;Feb 1991
[11] Clark, J., Lamb, T., Build Strategy Development, Journal of Ship Production
[12] Navsea Paper, 070-05R-TN-004, 1998
[13] Ulrich, K. T. , Tung, K.; Fundamentals of product Modularity; WP #3335-91-
MSA, Sloan School of Management, MIT, 1991
[14] Wartsils/NSD Webpage; http://www.wartsila.com
97
[15] Zamirowski, E.; Otto, K.; Identifying Product Portfolio Architecture modularity
Using Function an Variety Heuristics; 1999 ASME Design Engineering Technical
Conferences, 1999
[16] Henderson, R.; Clark, K.; Architectural Innovation: The Reconfiguration of
Existing Product Technologies and the Failure of Established Firms;
Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 35, 1990
[17] Figure from the course Advanced Ship Production, Professional Summer at MIT,
1992
[18] Gallagher, Neil; Commercial Substitution as Means to Build the Industrial
Shipbuilding Base; MS Thesis, MIT, 1993
[19] Wood, K. L; Otto K. N; Functional Modelling, Chapter 5 of to be published book.
[20] Malley, Kenneth VADM; Affordability Through Commonality; Naval Engineers
Journal, July 1992; p.4 5-4 6
[21] Ulrich, K. T.; "The Role of Product Architecture in the Manufacturing Firm"; WP
#3483-92-MSA, Sloan School of Management, MIT, 1992
[22] Bremner, R.; Cutting Edge Platforms; Financial Times Automotive World,
September 1999: 30-38
[23] Gonzales-Zugasti, J. P.; Models for Platform-Based Product Family Design; PhD
Thesis, MIT, 2000
[24] Blohm&Voss catalogs on the MEKO design, 1992
[25] Paper NAVSEA 070-05R-TN-004
[26] Japanese Society of Naval Architects and Marine Engineers, Vol 164, 1989
[27] Figure from the course Advanced Ship Production, Professional Summer at MIT, 1992
[28] Tharp, E. L.; Modularity a Capable Deepwater System at a Resonable Price;
SNAME New England Section; Annual Student Paper Night; January 18, 2001
98
[29] Otto, K.; Dahmus, J.; Modular Product Architecture; ASME Design Engineering
Technical Conferences, September 10-13, 2000, Baltimore, Maryland
[30] Nicholas Langhorne at the Office of Naval Research International Field Office,
London, Navy documentation 1998; http://www.ehis.navy.mil
[31] Martin, M. and Ishii, K.; Design for Variety: Development of Complexity Indices
and Design Charts, ASME Design Engineering Technical Conferences, 1997
[32] Grigg, L. R.; Standardization of Naval Equipment; MIT Thesis, SM in Ocean
Systems Management.
[33] Brown, A.; Thomas, M.; Reengineering the Naval Ship Concept Process; Paper
from Research to Reality in Ship Systems Engineering, ASNE, 18-19 Sept, 1998
99