Advanced Vessel Technologies Program

Program Element 2.
Advanced Vessel Technologies
Program Element 2.3.2

HSS Ship Construction Evaluation and Analysis
P.E. 2.3.2.1 Assess Global and Domestic Shipbuilding Requirements for
High Speed Ship Systems
P.E. 2.3.2.2 Evaluate Barriers to High Speed Ship Fabrication
Marine Transportation Center
The University of Alabama

Tuscaloosa, AL
June 30, 2000

Revised September 15, 2000
This report was prepared under contract with financial support from
Department of Defense. The content reflects the views of the CSULB
Foundation’s Center for the Commercial Deployment of Transportation
Technologies (CCDoTT) and/or its contractors, and does not necessarily
reflect the views of the Department of Defense.
HSS Ship Construction The University of Alabama
Table of Contents
Executive Summary 1
1.0 Conclusions 2
2.0 Recommendations 4
3.0 Detailed Reports on Shipbuilding Technology and Barriers to High-
Speed Ship Production 5
3.1 Introduction and Methodology 5
3.2 Barriers to Construction of Advanced High Speed Craft 5
3.2.1 Business Processes 5
3.2.2 Fabrication Technologies 6
3.2.3 Implementation of Technology 7
3.2.4 Design and Construction of Problems of Specific
High speed Sealift Vessels 8
3.2.4.1 Features of High speed Sealift Designs 8
3.2.4.2 Construction Problems with Lightweight Materials 9
3.2.4.3 High speed Sealift Construction Experience 10
3.2.5 The U.S. Shipbuilding Industry 11
3.2.5.1 Setting the Stage 11
3.2.5.2 Plan for International Competitiveness 13
3.2.5.3 Maritech Programs 13
3.2.5.4 Assessment of Maritech 14
3.2.5.5 Future of Maritech 16
3.3 Shipbuilding Technology and Technical Barriers to HSS Construction 18
3.3.1 Technical Problems in Existing HSS Shipbuilding Systems
and Materials 18
3.3.1.1 Material Stiffening 18
3.3.1.2 Cutting and Forming Technologies 18
3.3.1.2.1 Cutting 18
3.3.1.2.2 Forming 19
3.3.1.3 Joining Technology 21
3.3.1.3.1 Joining Steel 21
3.3.1.3.2 Joining Aluminum Alloys 26
3.3.1.3.3 Joining Other Materials 27
3.3.1.3.4 Development of Joint Quality Tests for
High speed Conditions 29
3.3.2 ABS High speed Craft Guide – Materials 30
3.3.3 Example: Adoption of Design-to-Cost and Build Approach in
Recent U.S. Commercial Ship Construction of MV R.
J. Pfeiffer at NASSCO 31
3.3.3.1 Lessons Learned 33
3.3.3.2 Drawing Parallels for High speed Sealift Vessel
Production 34
3.3.3.3 U.S. Shipyard Productivity 34
3.3.4 Evaluating an Alternate Hull Structure for Construction 35
3.3.5 Summary 36
i
3.4 Gulf Coast Shipbuilding Technology 38

3.4.1 Shipyard Descriptions 38
3.4.2 Maritech at Gulf Coast Shipyards 41
3.4.3 Fast Ferry Designs Available to Gulf Coast Shipyards 43
4.0 References 45
ii
Executive Summary
The University of Alabama and its subcontractors have studied the economic and
technical feasibility of developing high speed sealift capability within the commercial
sector of the economy. Our conclusions are that such a capability is needed, and that
there are significant technical problems that need to be addressed to develop this
capability. For the purposes of this study, we have defined high speed ocean-borne cargo
transportation to mean cargo loads of at least 2,000 metric tons, distances of at least 4,000
nautical miles, and speeds between 40 and 70 kt. This report addresses issues of ship
construction and barriers thereto.
The current state of shipbuilding in the United States is such that a high speed
ship can be built by a consortium of American yards and naval architects and marine
engineers, or by a single American yard collaborating with a suitable foreign yard. The
collaboration could take the form of a joint venture or a licensing agreement. The ship
would reflect current state of the art in high speed craft, as exemplified by high speed
ferries, a number of which are under construction in the United States. For advanced (i.e.,
beyond the current state-of-the-art) high speed cargo ship designs, using advanced
materials and hull forms, we have concluded that the technology is not sufficiently
developed to permit such ships to be designed or built domestically or overseas. There is
thus an opportunity for American yards to develop and implement technology in the
application of advanced materials and hull forms to high speed cargo vessels.
Development of those techniques, and better usage of data transfer are essential to the
achievement of these goals.
A number of barriers were identified to the development of high speed cargo

ships in the United States. These include current business practices, which have
traditionally discouraged collaborative methods in design and construction, relative
ignorance of the opportunities and problems faced when using lightweight materials and
advanced hull designs, little research and development support to extend the use of these
materials and designs, and reluctance to implement modern technology when it is
developed.
1
1.0 Conclusions
We have reached the following conclusions about the capabilities of U.S.

shipyards to build High Speed Sealift Systems and the critical technologies for economic
construction of High Speed Sealift Systems:
1. The construction of “first generation” or “near term” High Speed Sealift Systems is
feasible today in U.S. shipyards. “First generation” and “near term” are defined as
ships using existing designs and traditional materials such as steel and aluminum in
traditional applications of these materials or technology that may be expected to
transition to the commercial market within five years. “Advanced” or “far term”
designs are defined as designs incorporating complex hull shapes to reduce drag and
wake wash, improved power and power transmission systems (either mechanical or
electric drive), propulsors, and non-traditional lightweight metals, alloys and
composites to reduce weight and improve performance. These technologies require
significant research and development expenditures prior to implementation, and are
not expected to be used in ship construction for at least five years.
The normal material used in construction of cargo ships is steel. In fast ferries,
aluminum alloys are often preferred. However, the very high cost of fuel for cargo
vessels places a premium on the use of lightweight materials that are not traditionally
used in ship construction, such as resin-matrix composites, intermetallic alloys, and
perhaps other, more exotic materials. The shipbuilding industry has little experience
with these alloys, and lack of capabilities to form, assemble, join and coat these
materials in the sizes and shapes needed appears to be a major barrier.
2. While many U.S. shipyards currently lag their foreign competitors in shipbuilding
techniques, the Maritech and Maritech ASE programs are addressing most of the
problems in an effective manner. (A description of the Maritech and Maritech ASE
programs will be found in section 3.2.5.2 on page 16 of this report.) These programs
support the goals of the High speed Sealift (HSS) program, and their results will
strengthen the High speed Sealift program.
3. Barriers to the applications of advanced designs include:

• The organization of the construction cycle, and relationships between owner,
operator, shipyard and vendors
• Limitations of current hull and superstructure materials (steel and aluminum
alloys)
• The still-evolving science of hull form design and hydrodynamics.
4. Current barriers to the construction of more advanced HSS systems include a lack of
manufacturing technology that directly relates to the problems of non-traditional
materials and designs encountered in high speed ship designs. Construction of
advanced High Speed Ships will be facilitated by the development of the following
critical technologies:
2
• Forming and curing methods for composite complex hull form components up
to 900 meters in length
• Joining methods for composites
• Joining methods for advanced metallic materials and alloys, such as Al-Li
alloys, to themselves and metal-matrix and resin-matrix composites
• Coating application methods for large structures, such as hulls
• Real-time data interchange between all members of the shipbuilding team,
including owners and sub-contractors.
5. Data Transfer
At present, no single U.S. shipyard appears to be capable of providing all of the skills
and equipment necessary to design and build a high speed cargo carrier, using the
most advanced designs and materials. Instead, the most likely way in which this
country will successfully enter the high speed shipbuilding arena is through joint
ventures and collaborations between U.S. yards, and between U.S. and foreign yards.
Key to these collaborations will be electronic data transfer protocols and systems.
U.S. yards are currently working on the problem of data transfer and updating within
and between yards as part of the Maritech ASE program. These efforts should be
substantially encouraged in shipyards considering construction of advanced high
speed cargo craft.
6. Shipyards
Our study has focused on shipyards located on the U.S. Gulf Coast. We have
concluded that these shipyards are representative of the U.S. shipbuilding industry,
and that the skills required to design and build high speed ships exist among these
yards. They have actively participated in Maritech programs, and continue to
participate in the Maritech ASE programs. Recently announced mergers among some
of these yards should strengthen their ability to design and build the advanced vessels
required. These shipyards jointly have the capability – or the ability to develop the
capability – to build the advanced high speed cargo shipping craft for the 21st century.
3
2.0 Recommendations
Obstacles that currently affect productivity in building conventional ships may

also be expected to affect the productivity of high speed ship building. In this study, we
have chosen to focus on those manufacturing problems that we expect to be unique to
high speed ships. Manufacturing concerns are primarily centered on the fact that in
building advanced high speed cargo craft, shipyards will be working with materials with
which they are generally unfamiliar. These problems include:
C Joining lightweight materials such as titanium alloys, intermetallics, and

composites
C Manufacturing large composite materials
C Joining high strength steels
C Determining the quality levels required for the service conditions that the
joints and materials will see
C Lack of electronic shipbuilding data in standard communication formats
that can be shared with customers and suppliers
C Real-time data transfer between all stakeholders: owners, designers, and
shipbuilders
C Lack of accurate market data on the needs and requirements of high speed
cargo ships in various markets.
As a consequence, we recommend that development work begin immediately in

the following areas:
1. Joining technologies for composites, and joining of composites to light alloys

2. Joining technologies for lightweight alloys, such as aluminum-lithium alloys
3. Extensive testing of welded joints in a marine environment to establish design
levels and quality criteria for advanced materials in marine environments and
loadings typical of high speed ship operations
4. Manufacturing methods for forming large complex shapes in resin-matrix
composites. These shapes should represent hull forms and sizes anticipated for
high speed cargo ships.
5. Coating methods for large complex hulls
6. Expansion of computer-based design tools and data interchange systems to
link owners, designers and shipbuilders during the design and build stage.
Finally, funding constraints limited our ability to evaluate all domestic and
foreign yards’ ship design and construction capability. Therefore, we recommend that a
full, focused study, involving experts from the government, industry and academia be
carried out as a first step in a comprehensive program to develop U.S. high speed cargo
design, construction and operational capacity. There are a number of U.S. government
programs in place today to organize and facilitate such a study.1
4
3.0 Detailed Reports on Shipbuilding Technology and Barriers to High Speed Ship
Production
3.1 Introduction and Methodology
The detailed reports presented below are the result of a one-year study carried out
by the authors of each of the sections. To gather information in each area visits were
made to Gulf Coast shipyards and designers, and a literature search was made. Each of
the authors has considerable professional expertise in the areas discussed, and extensive
use of industry sources was made to augment traditional sources.
3.2 Barriers to Construction of Advanced High Speed Sealift Systems

R.C. Foley, University of South Alabama and R. Latorre, University of New Orleans
A 1996 Joint Staff study2 concluded that advances in technology had reached the
point where building a commercial, militarily useful high speed ship at a reasonable price
was achievable. Given sufficient investment and lead time, shipbuilding/manufacturing
processes will be able to support production of all high speed sealift ships envisioned.
Financial risk will have to be considered and shipbuilders, including Gulf Coast
shipbuilders (see below) will have to continue to make the transition to world-class
manufacturing facilities to compete in the market.
3.2.1 Business Processes
More emphasis must be placed on business and construction processes and

training and education to include resolving terminology differences in business/
design/production processes. For example, most ships constructed in U.S. yards are
customer-designed. Before the start of a contract it is naturally assumed that the vessel
can be made to the price and time quoted and invariably this assumption is proven wrong,
because at best the process to be used in its manufacture is not stable enough to be
predictable. Tools and technology are available that would allow control of these
business processes. Skills and training are necessary to integrate these tools and
technology into the shipyard working environment.
Collaborative methods are essential in which the product and process technology
can be developed and effectively used in cooperation among clients, shipbuilders,
workers, suppliers and regulators. Customers work with the designer and the designer
selects all subcontractors during the design and estimating process (in communication
with the customer). The integration of design and production starts at the beginning. No
time is lost, but the advantages of competitive bidding may be lost. On the other hand, the
formation of a highly integrated team to accomplish a major building project can pay off
in faster deliveries, less waste and lower overall costs to the project (avoidance of
overruns).
5
Even the U.S. Navy is transitioning to this approach: its award of a $641M
contract to Litton/Avondale Industries team for the design and construction of the first
LPD-17 Amphibious Assault Ship was the first naval ship to be designed using 3D
modeling software. The use of a common 3D modeling platform was most famously used
by the Boeing Co. to design the 777 passenger airplane; the project has become a
textbook example of how to implement computer-integrated design. In the complex
world of ship design and construction it should be obvious that a similar approach would
pay great dividends to designers, shipyards and customers. The infrastructure within the
U.S. shipbuilding industry needs to be established so that such teaming arrangements can
be rapidly and efficiently created in response to the needs of the market.
Ship design innovation is typically irrelevant to shipbuilding competitiveness

unless it has a direct impact on shipbuilding technology. Recent trends in shipbuilding
design have emphasized smaller crew sizes, increased use of electronics, automation and
improved cargo handling. These areas have little impact on shipbuilding technology.
High speed sealift designs hold the potential for being the platform to usher revolutionary
shipbuilding technologies into the shipbuilding industry. Proposed lightweight materials
and the fabrication techniques associated with them, advanced hull designs, and the drive
for economic market advantage will dictate that the industry incorporate and apply the
latest technologies available. Because the market for fast ships is not large, there is far
too little emphasis on development of advanced shipbuilding techniques that this new
class of products will demand.
3.2.2 Fabrication Technologies
Most U.S. shipyards have readily implemented advanced ship production

processes, e.g., advanced material handling, steel cutting, forming, welding, pipe
fabrication, or will do so as their financial situation permits it. Shipyard process
innovation and technology adoption, however, appears to be piecemeal or random, and
mostly motivated by individuals interested in specific areas. Recognizing the benefits and
efficiencies to be gained, most have incorporated elements of Computer Aided Design,
Product Work Breakdown Structure, Computer Aided Manufacturing and Integrated Hull
Construction, Outfitting and Painting. For example, dimensional control of interim
assemblies and subassemblies using statistical process control and optical/laser
coordinate measuring devices reduced hull construction labor costs by 30%. These
advanced product3 design and manufacturing technologies form the basis for adoption of
a Computer Integrated Manufacturing (CIM) environment. However, computerization of
design and production cannot proceed isolated from each other and all other aspects of a
manufacturing system. This will be especially important for high speed sealift vessels,
where working with non-traditional materials for the hulls and superstructure will require
coordination between vendors, suppliers and the shipyard.
New process technologies are not always effectively operated and investments in
very expensive Computer Aided Manufacturing systems, such as self-adaptive robotic
welding, cannot achieve their goals if they are not served by appropriate data. A barrier to
CIM is the lack of electronic shipbuilding data in standard communication formats that
6
can be shared by customers and suppliers. This data must be used and developed during
the design process to facilitate product model data in a neutral and standardized structure.
It will also replace the normal flood of customer-vendor paperwork and helps industry
maintain close relationships with their suppliers and customers.
Consortium members of the MariSTEP program have made progress in the

electronic exchange of shipbuilding data among diverse shipbuilding environments. In
August 1998 a successful demonstration of data exchange was conducted between
shipbuilders and Computer Aided Design Systems developers. The exchange was
conducted using prototype translators based on the Standard for the Exchange of Product
model data (STEP) developed within the International Standards Organization.
Application areas included ship molded forms, ship arrangements and ship piping.
Each of the members enhanced their internal systems’ product model data to
support the export and import of shipbuilding data. The goal of the consortium is to
complete translators for the exchange of ship structures. The implementation of this
technology will have a significant impact on the entire U.S. shipbuilding industry and
will permit radical advances in CIM processes. Electronic customer and supplier
interaction, close collaborations and teamwork between different companies will become
the norm. The implementation of this technology is essential for the shipyards that will
participate in the construction of high speed sealift vessels.
A secondary benefit of electronic exchange and CIM is the implementation of

Agile Manufacturing technologies. Agile Manufacturing is a system designed to produce
different parts without sacrificing efficiency. The U.S. shipbuilding industry is
traditionally a “one of a kind” manufacturing industry. Shipbuilding uses the same
workforce and facilities to produce different types of ships simultaneously. Agile
Manufacturing permits the efficient transition from an existing product of ship
construction project to a new product at the same facility.
3.2.3 Implementation of Technology
Lack of access or availability of technology is not the reason for slow

improvement in U.S. shipyards. Segments of most major shipyards have been extensively
involved in development and application of new technologies, such as CAD. To be
effectively implemented in a CIM environment, technological change must be introduced
in management, production, marketing and engineering in a systematic and not piecewise
manner. Even after introduction of technology care must be exercised to manage the soft
skills required to implement technology.
Shipbuilding, as an industry, recognizes and takes pride in its tradition and

organizational culture. While “pride in product” has its associated advantages, the
disadvantage is a culture that is slow to change. Organizational culture may be defined as
a pattern of basic assumptions – invented, discovered or developed by a given group as it
learns to cope with its problems of external adaptation and internal integration – that has
worked well enough to be considered valid and therefore to be taught to new members as
7
the correct way to perceive, think and feel in relation to those problems. CIM represents a
major change to the shipbuilding organizational culture and will change the way
shipbuilding does business, is organized, managed and operated, especially in marketing
and procurement.4 Ship manufacturing must be seen as an information process where
machine instructions stored in computers will describe how a piece of materials should be
made.
3.2.4 Design and Construction Problems of Specific High Speed Sealift Vessels
The University of Alabama team visited Litton/Ingalls Shipyard, Halter Marine

Gulfport yard, and Litton/Avondale Shipyard. In each visit the shipyard engineers
indicated they could build a High speed Sealift vessel. This response reflected several
assumptions:
1. The High speed Sealift (HSS) vessel design would be complete.

2. The HSS design would be in compliance with the IMO high Speed Code,
ABS and US Coast Guard rules and regulations. Materials other than steel
or aluminum would also be available from vendors and be certified as
being in compliance with appropriate rules and regulations.
3. Adequate research and development would be completed to ensure that
appropriate material fabrication, forming and joining practices would be
established for any new material. This might be in the form of a
demonstrator craft.
4. The high speed sealift vessel would be priced to be profitable after costs of
materials, components and labor had been estimated.
From the High speed Sealift program this willingness to pursue the vessel
construction on the part of these U.S. shipyards is very important. It reaffirms the 1997
HSS Workshop Shipbuilding-Manufacturing Work Group conclusion that “given
sufficient investment and lead time, shipbuilding/ manufacturing processes will be able to
support production of all high speed sealift ships envisioned at the workshop.”5
3.2.4.1 Features of High Speed Sealift Design
The High speed Sealift program has inspired a number of proposed designs. Note
that, as all high speed sealift vessels will be built for the commercial, not the military
market, actual requirements will be set by potential ship owners. These vessels include:
• Roll-on Roll-off monohulls such as the BATHMAX-15006,7

• Roll-on Roll-off catamarans
• Roll-on Roll-off trimarans8
• Roll-on Roll-off pentamaran slender hull with sponsons9
• Roll-on Roll-off surface effect craft such as the Ingalls SEV.10
The University of Alabama team discussed the trimaran and pentamaran designs
during the October 1999 Halter Gulfport visit and the SEV during the September 1999
8
visit to Litton/Ingalls Shipyard. Our conclusion was that there are no impediments to the
construction of these ships, provided that they are built of traditional materials, i.e., steel
or aluminum alloys.
3.2.4.2 Construction Problems with Near-Term Lightweight Materials
A number of High Speed Sealift designs have been reviewed by Dannecker et

a131 They are summarized in Table 1 along with several other designs. In reviewing
Table 1, three points must be kept in mind:
1. The shipyards are organized for steel ship construction.

2. The designers/shipyards have little experience with large ship construction
using alternate lightweight materials.
3. There is little data for estimating a new ship material, labor and build
schedule using alternate lightweight materials.
Point 1 leads to three obvious recommendations for research and development to

support the construction of high speed commercial cargo ships:
1. Manufacturers and suppliers of alternate (non-traditional) materials should

be asked to join a cooperative effort to develop these products for the High
Speed Sealift near term and far term applications.
2. Studies of alternate materials should consider three applications for non-
traditional shipbuilding materials:
a. Evaluation of alternate materials and fastening for secondary
interior structure.
b. Evaluation of alternate materials and fastening for exterior deck
and deck house application.
c. Evaluation of alternate materials for hull structure fabrication.
3. The benefit of alternate lightweight materials should be determined using
shipyard metrics:
a. Delivery/Manufacturing cost.
b. Needs for complicated joining equipment and increase in
manhours.
c. Lightweight structure modules ability to be outfitted.
d. Shipyard staff capability to work with alternate lightweight
materials.
The cost benefit evaluation can be part of a simulation based design study. This
evaluation could be accomplished using the software developed for the High Speed
Sealift workshop.4 Only recently has large high speed aluminum vessel construction
begun. In January 1999 Halter Marine announced the Halter-Bazan joint venture.11
Halter Marine will begin the construction of a 40 kt. Bazan-designed, aluminum
Alhambra Class-fast ferry. This ferry is designed to transport 1,250 passenger/240
vehicles at 40 knots. However, the designs in Table 1 have been developed for steel
construction.
9
Table 1. High Speed Sealift Designs Compared to the SL-7

Container Ship
Item Units 33 Kt SL-7 BATHMAX FastShip Ingalls Pentamaran

Atlantic SEV
Vessel Container- Container- Containers Ro- Ro-
Type ship ship hip Ro/Cont. Ro/Cont.
Hull Steel Steel Steel Steel H.T. Steel
Length LW m 274.2 250 229 - -
Length m 260 240
LPP
Beam m 32.1 27.5 40 49.4 N/A
L/B 8 9.1 5.73 5.26 N/A
Full Load m 9.14 9 10 - N/A
Draft
Displace- Long 51,815 27,100 32,340 19,200 N/A
ment tons
Structure Long 16,506 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Weight tons
Power Steam Gas Turbine Gas Gas Diesel
Plant Turbine Turbine Turbine
Horse- SHP 120,000 106,666 317,333 240,000/ 144,440
power 300,000
Speed kt. 33 33 38 45/55 37.5
Range Nautical 11,000 8,000 6,500 3,500 3,500
Miles
Cargo/Dis- 0.28 0.36 0.30 0.23 -
placement
Empty Wt. 0.476 - - 0.598 -
Ratio
Transport 95 57.7 26.6 24.8/24.2 -
Factor
3.2.4.3 High Speed Sealift Construction Experience
At the present time, the only experience that the United States has had in
acquiring high speed sealift capability is that associated with the SL-7 ships nearly thirty
years ago.12 The eight 33 knot SL-7 container ships were constructed in Europe. The
vessel specifications called for the ships to be U.S. flag regardless of where they were
built so ABS and US Coast Guard approval was required. This resulted in the following
specification format:
1. Specifications were written detailing each piece of machinery by size,

manufacturer, and model number.
10
2. Auxiliary machinery sizes were consolidated to minimize the number of motor,

valve, etc., sizes. Standardization reduced the inventory of shipboard and land-
based spares. All eight ships were required to use identical equipment and
arrangements.
3. To assure consistency in the final vessels, the contract plans were very detailed.
An engine room model was constructed during this stage to minimize redesign.
An engine room model was supplied to each shipyard as part of the contract
plans. Hull lines, shafting arrangement, propeller and rudder details were all
tightly specified and carefully depicted on the contract plans. With these
specifications, the owner assumed responsibility for the sufficiency of the design.
The contracts contained no speed, fuel rate, or other normally required technical
guarantees.
This assumption of responsibility by the owner and his design agent was cited as
producing a better contract design with less compromise. Few development problems
were encountered during construction. The final vessels differed very little from the
original contract plans. During construction other advantages to this system were found:
1. The shipyards were able to order equipment immediately after contract signing, so
more efforts could be concentrated on production planning. This resulted in faster
deliveries of the ships.
2. All equipment was specified to be of U.S. manufacture, providing a common
price basis for all bidding shipyards.
3. In the specifications and related documents, the owner assumed the responsibility
for USCG approval and inspection.
Even with the more efficient production planning, the August 1969 contracts
showed the last ship from each yard to be delivered in February, June, and July of 1973.
These last three ships were actually delivered on September 17, September 20, and
December 4, 1973.
3.2.5 The U.S. Shipbuilding Industry
Although representing only a small segment of the U.S. manufacturing sector, the
shipbuilding industry is also considered to be critical to the country’s defense industrial
base. Since the late 1980’s significant progress has been made in improving the
competitiveness of U.S. shipyards. Most programs have been government-directed and
focused on dual-use technology. Many companies are now investing more of their own
attention and resources on improving international competitiveness in the commercial
shipbuilding industry. By world-class benchmarks there is still room for further
improvement.
3.2.5.1 Setting the Stage
U.S. yards made the transition from building military vessels during World War II
to building commercial ones after the war. However, global market share was lost
11
because they could not compete on a cost basis with their overseas rivals as subsidies
rose and domestic builders adapted their structure and facilities to the particular demands
of their most important customer, the Navy. To compensate, the U.S. government
protected the industry through construction subsidies, which improved U.S. sales
considerably. In the early 1980’s, however, these subsidies ended and a dramatic
decrease in the U.S. share of the commercial market began. The shipyards’ situation was
worsened by a general decline in the Navy’s ship procurement budgets that began in the
late 1980’s.
The lack of participation in the commercial markets in an era of sharply reduced

military demand has had an understandably large impact on the shipbuilding industry and
its affiliates. U.S. participation in the international shipbuilding market could be
accomplished by adopting the dual-use approach desired by the Department of Defense,
but only if a viable commercial industry exists.
U.S. shipbuilders, who built twenty large commercial ships per year on average in
the mid-seventies, now average fewer than two ships per year. This threatens not only the
ability to compete in global commercial shipbuilding, but also the ability to build cost-
effective naval ships.
The world commercial market belongs to Japan, Korea, Europe and China. U.S.
builders have less than 1% of that market. The global commercial shipbuilding industry
currently has too much capacity, possibly by as much as 30%. Even so, Korea recently
embarked on an effort to double its capacity and aggressively increase market share,13
and the emergence of China is also expected to exacerbate the situation. Additionally,
subsidies still abound in the international market.
However, a strong case can be made that given the designs, tools, culture, and
repeat business, U.S. yards can be competitive based on the example set by several of the
smaller yards, who compete successfully in the international market against subsidized
yards in several market segments (drill rigs, supply vessels, yachts, etc.). Korea recently
demonstrated the feasibility of penetrating and acquiring sizable market share by rapidly
improving productivity and cutting prices. Further, the market trends look good.
Shipborne commerce is increasing, and the world fleet is aging. Therefore, new building
demand should be robust in the future.
The domestic market is more accessible than the world market. However,
problems exist even here, due principally to U.S. process inefficiencies, lack of
proprietary designs and material standards, and a dearth of component suppliers. Smaller
shipyards seem to have more commercial success than large shipbuilders do, but again
the success is largely in the domestic field. Protection offered by the Jones and Passenger
Service acts covers only 300 or so ships above 2,000 gross tons. U.S. ship owners have a
backlog of repairs and orders that will form a “bow wave” of near-term domestic
business into the next decade.
12
Recent studies by KPMG, First Marine International, and Stellar Carson

Associates (among others) have confirmed that large commercial ships built in U.S.
shipyards are about 1.5 – 2.5 times the cost of similar ships built in leading overseas
yards. This factor is crucial in a market where price discrimination is the key buying
decision determinant. There is an imbalance between labor cost and productivity in U.S.
yards, resulting in a higher level of added value per ship. Material costs are also
significantly higher.
3.2.5.2 Plan for International Competitiveness
President Clinton established the Maritech Program in 1993 as an element of the

initiative Strengthening America’s Shipyards: A Plan for Competing in the International
Market. Maritech was initially established as a five-year plan that concluded in 1998.14
The Maritech Program began principally to encourage the U.S. shipbuilding industry to
expand into the commercial sector, thereby expanding its customer base in light of sharp
reductions in defense spending, and passing savings gained from commercial efficiencies
and economies of scale to the Navy.
Five objectives were adopted by Maritech to facilitate pursuit of commercial

competitiveness in the shipbuilding sector. These objectives were listed in the President’s
plan and the National Shipbuilding and Shipyard Conversion Act of 1993:
• Encourage and support proactive market analysis and product development

• Develop a portfolio of U.S. designs
• Develop innovative design and production processes and technology
• Facilitate government and industry technology transfer activities
• Encourage formation of consortia for short- and long-term technology
investment strategies.
3.2.5.3 Maritech Programs
The Maritech Program15 sponsored over 65 projects involving 18 shipyards and

over 100 other companies operating in over 40 states. The effort included 34 projects
related to ship design development and 18 projects in advanced technology development
(note: some of these 18 projects had elements of two or more subcategories, resulting in
eight projects in process improvement, 19 in product improvement, and 13 in the
electronic commerce area). The cost of this work was shared between industry and its
suppliers. Direction, goals, planning and coordination for the Maritech Program were
provided by government.
Shipbuilding industry efforts in the Maritech program are displayed in Table 2. A

summary of results of industry wide Maritech projects is presented in Table 3.
13
Table 2. Industry Participation in Maritech
SHIPYARD BUILD DESIGN PROCESS FACILITIES

PROJECTS PROJECTS PROJECTS PROJECTS
Alabama X X X X
Avondale X X X X
Bath Iron Works X X X
Bender X X X X
Bollinger X X X
Electric Boat X X
Gladding-Hearn X X X X
Halter Marine X X X
Ingalls X X X
Marinette
NASSCO X X X X
Newport News X X X X
Nichols Brothers X X X
Todd Pacific X X
3.2.5.4 Assessment of Maritech
Maritech helped the U.S. shipbuilding industry start on the path to international
competitiveness by first focusing on basic facility improvements and commercial design
development, then moving into information technology projects. DARPA reported the
following industry-wide specific accomplishments from Maritech projects conducted
between 1993 and 1998:
• Shipyard product development capability established at numerous shipyards

• Over 30 commercial ship designs developed
• Competitive build strategies developed and implemented
• Average reduction in construction cycle-time: 8-12 months
• Average reduction in labor man-hours: 20%
• Facility modernization plans developed for most yards
• Over $500 million invested in new facilities
• Industry-wide electronic infrastructure partially established
• 13 commercial ships under construction (three for export) versus zero in 1993.
Maritech appears to have had a major impact on inroads made recently by U.S.
shipbuilders in the commercial market. As of April 1998, there were 21 commercial ships
on U.S. order books, each of which were developed under Maritech, with a total contract
value of approximately $1 billion.
14
Table 3. Summary of Maritech Industry-wide Projects
Project Title: COMPASS – Component Object Model of Products/Processes for an Advanced

Shipbuilding System
Objective: Explore and implement infrastructure technologies to move the industry toward an
integrated product and process development (IPPD) environment. Embodies the virtual enterprise
philosophy, where a central product model provides all participants with a comprehensive
understanding of the ship’s design.
Team Members: Newport News Shipbuilding Intergraph Federal Systems
University of Michigan American Bureau of Shipping
Project Title: MAAST – MAritime Agile Shipbuilding Toolkit

Objective: The Virtual Shipbuilding Consortium (VSC) is defining an architecture for the
application of virtual organization procedures to shipbuilding. The operations concept is designed
to support one-of-a-kind ship production in today’s commercial yards at a competitive price and
schedule. It is being designed to be equally effective for other types of heavy industrial products
that are suited to fabrication in a shipyard. Working together as a virtual corporation, the project
team is addressing new business operations, yard operations, management processes, design
processes, material control, and human resource management.
Team Members: Avondale Industries Raytheon Systems Co.
Intergraph Federal Systems Ornicon Corp.
American Bureau of Shipping Advanced Marine Enterprises Inc.
Project Title: MariSTEP – Maritime Standard for Exchange of Product Model Data
Objective: To implement a neutral file transfer capability between the product models at U.S.
shipyards, and to develop a United States marine industry prototype product model database that
will facilitate the implementation of translators and product model data architectures by U.S.
shipyards and CAD system developers.
Team Members: Ingalls Shipbuilding Intergraph Federal Systems
Avondale Industries University of Michigan
Electric Boat Corp. Computervision Corp.
Newport News Shipbuilding Kockums Computer Systems, Inc.
Carderock Division of NSWC Advanced Management Catalyst
Project Title: SHIIP – The Shipbuilding Information Infrastructure Project

Objective: Develop and deploy a new shipbuilding methodology that addresses both people and
organizational issues. New shipbuilding processes will be developed, documented, and validated
by a broad-based team of shipbuilders. New organizational paradigms, such as a team-based
approach to shipbuilding, deployed, and measured for effectiveness.
Team Members: Alabama Shipyard Computer Sciences Corp.
Avondale Industries C.L. Harshman and Associates
Bath Iron Works Deneb Robotics
Electric Boat NIIIP Consortium (IBM)
NASSCO Structured Tech. Corp.
Todd Pacific Shipyards
15
The Maritech Program Office, which operated under the Defense Advanced
Research Projects Agency (DARPA), has been transferred to the Navy in 1999.
It became clear during this program that creating a competitive U.S. shipbuilding
industry is a bigger challenge than was generally recognized at the start. Nonetheless, a
recent detailed review16 of the program showed success in closing the gap with
improvements in processes, systems technology, facilities and tooling, and product
design capability.
3.2.5.5 Future of Maritech
During the spring of 1997, an effort began to establish a consortium of U.S.

shipbuilders with the purpose of developing and executing a shipbuilding R&D program
as a Maritech successor. The concept for the follow-on program differed from the
original Maritech in that the industry would plan and direct the R&D in a cooperative,
collaborative manner. Shipyards would work together, as well as with the supply chain.
This new program is titled “Maritech Advanced Shipbuilding Enterprise”

(Maritech ASE), and in response U.S. shipbuilders have formed a collaboration to speak
with one voice in developing an industry-wide strategic investment plan to focus
cooperative R&D efforts.
The industry crafted this plan as a mix of strategic outlook, business plan,
investment portfolio, and R&D roadmap, designed to guide the cost-effective, goal-
oriented investment of an estimated $400 million government-industry program over a
five-year period. The plan:
• Provides a high-level industry roadmap that calls attention to future technology

needs; provides a structure for organizing technology forecasts; and, communicates to
the industry, suppliers and government which technologies must be developed and
implemented for future business success.
• Leverages the work done by a variety of organizations in the mid-1990’s, including
the National Research Council, the Maritime Agility Group, Center for Naval
Analysis, and other efforts by the industry and government to identify and prioritize
shipbuilding technology gaps.
• Involves the entire shipbuilding enterprise through inclusion of the supply chain,
designers, classification societies, builders, customers, and operators.
• Specifies portfolio development and management methodology to ensure clear
business case evaluation of proposed projects. ROI assessment, portfolio balance, and
coherence between industry strategic direction and project selection.
Table 4 lists Maritech ASE programs selected for funding in FY 2000.17
16
Table 4. Maritech ASE Programs for FY 2000
Area Project Title Team Funding

Business Shipbuilding SAPRS Consortium, Bath $12.89 M
Process Supply Chain Ironworks, Electric Boat,
Technology Virtual Enterprises Newport News Shipbuilding,
Ingalls, Marine Machinery Ass.,
NIIP, IBM, ERIM
Systems Integrated Integrated Shipbuilding $33.7 M
Technologies Shipbuilding Environment, Electric Boat,
Environment Newport News, NIIP, Intergraph,
ABS, Avondale/Ingalls
Shipbuilding, Bath Ironworks,
Dassault Systems, ERIM, IBM,
KCS, MMA, M Information
Engineering, NASSCO,
NSWCCD, Proteus Engineering,
SIMSMART, STEP Tools, U of
Michigan
Facilities and Support of OSHA OSHA, Rupy Innovations, $386 K
Tooling Maritime Initiatives Newport News, NASSCO,
Baltimore Marine Industries,
Avondale, Electric Boat,
International Boilermakers,
I.B.E.W.
Applications and Todd Pacific, Atlantic Marine, $911 K
Education V2R Consulting Group
Programs for
Shipyards
Treatment of NASSCO, Hart Crowser, $819 K
Shipyard Stormwater Mgt., Expert
Stormwater Advisory Panel
Welding Emissions Edison Welding Institute, $2.2 M
Shipyards, NSWC
Crosscut Resource Center for Electric Boat, UMTRI, Bath $1.26 M
Initiatives Crosscut Initiatives Ironworks, Avondale, Cascade
General, Jeffboat, Todd Pacific
Shipyard Laser Assistad Ingalls, ARL Penn State, MTS $586 K
Production Forming of Hull Systems
Process Components
Technology Ultra High-Pressure Atlantic Marine, Todd Pacific, $566 K
Water Blasting Munro & Assoc., Dana M. Austin
Environmental Consulting
17
3.3 Shipbuilding Technology and Technical Barriers to HSS Construction

V.L. Acoff and P. Ray, The University of Alabama, and R. Latorre, University of New
Orleans
3.3.1 Technical Problems in Existing HSS Shipbuilding Systems and Materials
There are a number of shipbuilding technologies applicable to advanced high

speed cargo ships. They cover the general areas of material stiffening, forming and
joining technologies. Because hull forms in high speed craft tend to have more complex
shapes than those found in conventional vessels, the ability of shipyards to economically
produce the shapes needed is important in facilitating the construction of these ships.
3.3.1.1 Material Stiffening
In steel ship construction, steel plates are stiffened by longitudinals and transverse
stiffeners into a grillage.18 This is usually the basis of the global and local strength. This
type of design is evaluated on the basis of strength demonstrated by material certification,
allowance for natural loss by rusting, and quality of weld demonstrated by welder
certification and, in some cases, laboratory tests.
In typical aluminum construction, the aluminum plates are stiffened by

longitudinal and transverse aluminum stiffeners. These stiffeners are extruded through
dies to produce the desired stiffener geometry. One additional problem is the limited
availability of some aluminum alloys in the United States. A number of designs,
optimized for aluminum, allow 5083 alloy for plate and 6082 alloy for extrusions and
tube support. In the U.S. a number of high speed aluminum ferry craft are built using
5086 plates and 6061 extrusions and tubing.19
3.3.1.2 Cutting and Forming Technologies
Shapes for ship forms are made by cutting and forming steel or other materials.
As in all metal processes, there are a variety of methods available to do these operations:
3.3.1.2.1 Cutting
a) Oxyfuel Gas Cutting (OFC) is primarily used for cutting carbon and low-alloy
steels. Other iron-based and nonferrous metals can be cut using this method if
certain modifications are made in the process. However, the quality of the cut
is not as high. Large-scale applications of OFC are found in shipbuilding.
Advantages of OFC compared to arc cutting, milling, or sawing:

C Metal can be cut faster. Setup is simpler.
C Oxyfuel gas cutting patterns are not confined to straight lines.
C Manual OFC equipment costs are low.
C With advanced machinery, OFC lends itself to high-volume parts
production.
18
C Large parts can be cut quickly in place by moving the torch rather than the
plate.
C Two or more pieces can be cut simultaneously.
C Numerically controlled cutting heads can traverse a piece of plate,
allowing the process to be automated.
Disadvantages of OFC:
C Dimensional tolerances are poorer than for machining and shearing.
C The process is limited to cutting steels and cast iron because OFC relies on
oxidation of iron.
C Heat generated by OFC can degrade the metallurgical properties of the
material adjacent to the cut edges.
b) Plasma Arc Cutting (PAC) uses a constricted arc in the form of a highly
ionized gas to melt and sever metal in a narrow, localized area.
Advantages of PAC:
C Cutting speed is approximately three times as fast as that of OFC.
C The quality of cut is superior to that for OFC.
C There is less tendency for plate distortion as less heat is transferred to the
workpiece.
Disadvantages of PAC
C The PAC nozzle is bulky, thus primarily used for machine cutting.
C Cutting over a water surface is required to substantially decreases fumes
and noise.
c) Air-Carbon Arc Cutting (CAC-A) removes metal physically rather than

chemically as in OFC. Gouging, or cutting, occurs when the intense heat of
the arc melts part of the workpiece and the air simultaneously passes through
the arc to blow away the molten material.
Advantages of CAC-A:
C The process requires less heat input, thus there is less distortion than
produced by OFC.
C Oxidation is not required to maintain the cut; thus CAC-A can be used for
cutting metals that OFC cannot.
C The process is useful for back gouging and excavating defective areas.
Disadvantages of CAC-A:
C Dimensional control is not as good as in PAC and OFC.
3.3.1.2.2 Forming
Forming technologies used to shape plates for hulls, decks and superstructures are
grouped into two classes:
a) Cold Forming is used to produce plates of desired configuration. Excessive
straining can reduce notch toughness properties.
19
1) Rolling: Bending rolls consist of a large diameter top roll and two
smaller bottom rolls.
2) Pressing (also referred to as keel bending): Hydraulic presses can have
both horizontal and vertical rams operating independently. The process is
used for bending angles and Tee shapes.
b) Hot Forming is used when curved plates and shapes cannot be formed by cold
forming using strictly mechanical means.
1) Furnacing: Steel is formed while it is heated to a "red heat." Heat
treated materials must either be cold formed or heated to a temperature
below which the materials’ properties and microstructure are affected.
2) Line Heating: This is a combination of linear heating and quenching
used to shape plates. Compound curvatures can be achieved with this
method.
The implementation of “design for construction” has resulted in a review of the

desirability of complex shapes in hulls and superstructures. In many cases this review has
reduced the use of these shapes, leading to savings in man-hours, overall schedule as well
as rework required to fit the complex shape into the hull/superstructure.20 High speed
craft, however, often depend on hull forms that are complex. In these vessel designs the
complex shapes would be formed by developable or compounded curved surfaces, which
would be faired using a computer-aided hull fairing – design systems.21 These plates
could be formed using one of several processes, such as mechanical plate bending using a
press or rollers, or thermo-plastic bending by line heating using flame or laser heat
sources.22,23
These processes are presently done manually by skilled workmen. There is an

ongoing research and development activity to computerize this process so it can properly
integrate into the overall CAD-CAM activity of the shipyard.24 Complex geometry
bending machines have been in use in the aircraft industry for years, although they bend
thinner gauge aluminum metal. An alternative approach in aluminum fabrication is to cut
the panel and weld it along a seam.
Because aluminum is often used in building high speed ferries and because it does
not form like steel, the special problems that it poses are reviewed:
Handling and precautions:
C Aluminum must be handled with more care than steel as it is softer than
steel.
C Aluminum should be stored inside on racks made of wood or aluminum to
avoid scratching the surface of the material.
C Smooth grip clamps or vacuum pads should be used to manipulate the
plates for the same reason.
C Repairing damaged aluminum components is difficult. Although the
material’s inherent softness makes it easy to straighten, weld repair is
20
difficult, and often requires subsequent heat treatment.

C Both solvents and mechanical means should be used to remove oil, oxide
films, etc. Welding must be performed immediately, before the oxide
forms again.
C Using abrasive wheels to prepare edges must be done with care to avoid
embedding abrasive material into the aluminum surface.
Forming:
C Conventional equipment can be used. However, care must be taken to

insure that tools and forming and bending equipment are clean and smooth
to avoid marring the surface of the material.
C Shearing is not recommended for preparing plate edges. Oil and dirt may
be entrapped in the roughened edges due to shearing and must be
removed.
Extruded shapes:
C An advantage of aluminum alloys is that extrusion is relatively easy. Dies

can be made at reasonable prices.
In summary, cutting and forming technology is available for the complex shapes
required for high speed craft construction. However, the opportunity exists for
improvements in this technology aimed specifically at high speed craft construction, such
as improvements in automation of forming technologies, and extension of existing
technologies to lightweight materials such as intermetallics and Al-Li alloys. Current
hand work methods are expensive, and raise the initial cost of high speed craft.
3.3.1.3 Joining Technology
Joints can be joined by a variety of methods, including fusion welding, solid state
welding, brazing, adhesives and mechanical means. Most ship structures are joined by
welding. The methods of joining used depend on the metal used in construction, on the
properties desired, and on the joint configuration.
3.3.1.3.1 Joining Steel
The majority of today’s ships are welded steel. Only in certain joints such as the
deck to superstructure are mechanical connections used. Typically welders are certified
by completing the appropriate shipyard or classification society-sponsored training
course.25 The welding skill level also reduces the distortion.26,27
The weld process is usually carried out in two steps:
1. The pieces are tacked together.
21
2. The tacked pieces are welded intermittently (internal) or continuously

(external hull tanks).
Automatic (all parameters and electrode manipulation are automatic) and semi-
automatic (electrode manipulation is manually controlled; all other welding parameters
and rate of electrode feed are controlled automatically) welding processes are used
extensively in the shipbuilding industry. Table 5 divides the welding processes typically
used in shipbuilding into three categories: manual, semi-automatic, and automatic.
Table 5. Steel Welding Processes Used in Shipbuilding
Manual Semi-Automatic Automatic
SMAW GMAW GMAW

GTAW GTAW GTAW
FCAW SAW
SW ESW
SAW EGW
A brief description of each is given below:
C Shielded Metal Arc Welding (SMAW) is often used for manual welding in
shipbuilding when versatility is desired. The process is known as Gas
Metal Arc Welding (GMAW) when it is mechanized or automated.
C Gas Tungsten Arc Welding (GTAW) is occasionally used for depositing
root passes. The filler metal is usually fed manually, although it can be fed
automatically and the torch can be moved mechanically. GTAW is best for
welding conventional and advanced (intermetallics) titanium alloys and
for situations where autogenous (without filler metal) welding is required.
C Gas Metal Arc Welding (GMAW) is used for joining aluminum, stainless
steels and low carbon steels in the shipbuilding industry.
C Flux Cored Arc Welding (FCAW) is commonly used for welding steels.
C Stud Welding (SW) is widely used in shipbuilding for attaching items
such as studs, clips, and hangers to structural members.
C Submerged Arc Welding (SAW) is the most widely used automated
welding process for steels. Deep weld penetration can be achieved with
SAW, which allows welding of very thick sections.
C The highest deposition rate for steel welding is accomplished with
Electrogas Welding (EGW) and Electroslag Welding (ESW).
Exceptionally thick materials (up to 16 inches thick) can be welded in a
single pass. However, the high heat input rates associated with EGW and
ESW lead to greater degree of grain growth and other metallurgical
changes in the heat affected zone than other welding processes.
22
The size of steel plates commonly used in shipbuilding usually ranges from ½ to
7/8 inches thick. The number of weld passes required depends upon the welding process
used for joining. Single pass welds can be achieved with SAW, ESW and EGW
processes.
As joining technologies improve, the manufacturing industry in general is

incorporating more types of automatic joining equipment and is expending significant
efforts to make automatic welding equipment more efficient. One of the most important
approaches, called "intelligent automation," combines automatic joining equipment, the
knowledge of human experts in terms of joining, and artificial intelligence (AI).
Currently, an AI automation system for arc welding, called WELDEXCELL, is being
developed by the American Welding Institute for the U.S. Navy. Less complex systems
should be released in the near future by welding robot vendors.
The importance of automating the joining process comes from the observations of
Okumoto et al:28
“The improvement of productivity in response to changes in the labor force—

related largely to a decreasing number of skilled workers—has become a major concern
of production engineering in shipyards. The following problems were pointed up by an
analysis of production tasks: (1) Most work time is wasted in the repair or adjustment of
inaccuracies, such as wide gap, lap, or deformation in structural components, which are
accumulated at the preassembly stage. (2) If the accuracy of fabrication and assembly of
hull structures is measurably improved, productivity will rise respectively, and effective
mechanization and automation of production can be achieved.”
In the mid 1980’s the Japanese ship building industry, supported by the Ministry
of Transport, (MOTO) invested in a five year research and development program to
develop devices to automate welding, painting, assembly and other shipbuilding
processes. This resulted in the evaluation of existing robots and development of the next
generation of robots and a scheduling assessment of the number of robots a shipyard
worker could properly supervise.29 The operation of a robot in the weld-up of a module
requires a robot handling aid. With these the Japanese were able to introduce robots into
shipbuilding. Similar work was carried out in the U.S. Maritech program (1997-1999).
An interesting case study on the effect of automation on welding steel is that of

Odense Steel Shipyard.30 Odense Steel Shipyard began automating ship production in
1984 with an ESPRIT project to apply computer-integrated manufacturing (CIM) to
heavy welded fabrication. In 1987, they entered into a license agreement with Hitachi
Zosen and began incorporating NC robots into their automation.
They have made a sizable investment in the development of their own proprietary
software and hardware to apply these numerically controlled (NC) robots in their ship
production. Their robot systems, off-line programming software, welding processes and
manufacturing methods are now considered to be among the best in the world. They have
23
rationalized and integrated a total shipbuilding factory and improved the efficiency of the
application of NC robots. They have also developed proprietary robot handling
equipment, programming tools, and process monitoring systems. By 1991 they were
producing double hulled tankers with this system, and are currently expanding and
improving its performance.
Specialized software was developed by the shipyard to automate the programming

of NC robots directly from the CAD ship design data. Their software incorporates rule-
based methods to create individual weld path programs from a library of weld process
plans. The software also divides the welding tasks for an entire ship panel to create task
plans for each welding robot.
Because of the cost savings and improvement in weld quality that can result from
using robotic welding, the use of welding robots may be expected to impact high speed
ship construction beneficially. An example is provided by the Odense shipyard, which
produces various types of vessels, ranging from supply vessels to super tankers in the
very large crude carrier (VLCC) class. Throughput is important to this yard’s operation;
each production department completes its work on a ship in 60 days, and a ship leaves the
shipyard in 10 months.
The yard currently has 26 robots in production that are used in both block
assembly and in sub-element fabrication for blocks. Four methods move and position
robots for welding double hulled tankers: (1) manual relocation, (2) gantry positions, (3)
master-slave gantry positioning, and (4) telescoping boom system for double hulled
tankers.
Gantry robot application---In the gantry robot application there are four independent
gantries mounted on one rail system. Each gantry has three servo-controlled axes to
position the robots over the sub-elements to be welded. The track is 68 m. (223 ft) long,
and up to two gantry robots can work on the same sub-element at the same time. The
shipyard reports that the one-robot-per-gantry system is very flexible and it is easy for
one operator to handle multiple gantries.
Manual welding speed and robot welding speed differ due to the more efficient
process delivery capabilities of the robot. Table 6 lists average welding speeds for both
types of welding. An analysis was carried out to compare robot efficiency with manual
welding efficiency.
Manual welding efficiency---Manual welders range between 10% and 40% arc time.
Typically they average between 20% to 30% arc time. The work day consists of 14.4
productive hours on two shifts. Of this, 1.4 hr are used in repair, netting 13 hr of welding
each day, or 6.5 hr per shift per welder. For ship sub-elements, 20% of the welding is
vertical up and 80% is downhand, yielding an average manual weld speed of 220
mm/minute. Therefore, a person with an arc time between 20% and 30% produces
between 16 and 24 m/day of weld.
24
Table 6. Welding Speed Comparison
Weld Manual Robot

Position Welder Welder
Vertical up 100 mm/min 150 mm/min
Downhand 250 mm/min 400 mm/min
Gantry robot welding efficiency---The gantry robot department produces about 370 sub-
elements per ship. With 233 workdays available per year and 60 days per ship, this yields
1440 total sub-elements per year. The average weld length per sub-element is about 100
m; therefore, the average weld length produced per day is:
(1440 subs x 100 m weld/sub)/233 days = 618 m/day
As there are four robots, this yields:
618 m/day/4 robots = 155m/robot/day
which is equivalent to between 6 and 10 manual welders per robot.
Future efficiency improvements---The factors that affect system efficiency are robot
availability, material availability, and data availability. One way to measure total system
performance is to calculate arc-on-time. For this gantry system the average weld speed
for robot welding of the subelements is 350 mm/min. Therefore the average arc-on time
for each robot is:
(155 m/350 mm/min)/(14.4 hr/day4 x 60min/hr) = 52% calculated arc time
Because of work schedule rules (required breaks) for this facility, this calculated
arc time must be adjusted to obtain true arc time. The adjustment factor is 0.8, therefore
the effective arc time is :
52%/0.8 = 65% arc time.
The current goal is to increase effective arc time to 75%, and the shipyard
automation team believes that 82% arc time is possible. When this level of efficiency is
achieved, the robots will be producing at the equivalent rate of 5 to 7.5 manual welders
per shift.
To achieve these levels, improvements in operator efficiency and machine

availability must be made. The 65% arc time represents 75% of the actual run time. The
remaining 25% is used for robot positioning, sensing, calibration, and safety. For this
25
system the gantry run time is 87% of the total time, with 13% of the time used for
consumables, handling, and setup. This can be expressed as follows:
Arc time % = operator efficiency x machine availability x process efficiency
Currently the shipyard is achieving:
52% = 80% x 87% x 75%

In the near term the goal is to improve operator efficiency to 90% and machine
availability to 97%, in order to reach arc time efficiency of 75%.
75% = 90% x 97% x 85%.
Weld wire deposition rates are compared in Table 7. This shows the success of
Odense Steel Shipyard in applying NC robot technology to shipbuilding. They had to
modify production processes, the workplace, and the materials to provide a sufficiently
structured and controlled environment in which an NC robot can perform its planned
tasks. They have shown that careful planning, creation of a technical development staff,
involvement of all shipyard disciplines, and a total shipyard commitment are necessary
ingredient for successful implementation of this shipbuilding technology.
Table 7. Welding Wire Deposition Estimates and Targets
Amount of Weld
Source Wire Deposited
Odense Shipyard ---- ’93 4,200 kg/robot/yr

Best Japanese shipyard --- ’93 3,300 kg/robot/yr
Other Japanese shipyards 2,500 kg/robot/yr
Odense target 15,000 kg/robot/yr

Japanese target 10,000 kg/robot/yr
3.3.1.3.2 Joining Aluminum Alloys
Overall, aluminum alloys are not as easy to weld as steel. Fusion welding
aluminum alloys requires the use of pulsed arc welding processes. Pulsed arc welding
together with an argon-helium gas mixture instead of pure argon permits the penetration
required to weld 1-1¼” aluminum to be achieved. However, recent improvements in
welding technology, such as square wave AC welding, have made the welding of
aluminum alloys less difficult. Also, second generation aluminum-lithium alloys (2195)
can be fusion welded, unlike the previous aluminum-lithium alloys. However, some
problems do exist when back gouging the weld and re-welding.
26
A recently-developed joining process, called “friction stir welding,” substantially

alleviates these problems. Friction stir welding, invented by The Welding Institute in
1991, is a fully penetrating solid-phase joining process that can be used to join aluminum
alloys without filler wire or shielding gas.31 The use of friction stir welding for joining or
weld repair may reduce or eliminate the buildup of residual stresses. In friction stir
welding the two pieces to be joined are firmly clamped, and a rotating tool traverses the
surfaces to be bonded. The tool heats the material in the area of the bond to a high
temperature below the melting point of the alloy, and physically mixes material from
both pieces together along the bond line. Since this is a solid-state welding process, the
problems associated with fusion welding alloys no longer exist. There is no solidification
structure, no extensive heat affected zone, no segregation, and no weld porosity or
inclusions. NASA has successfully used friction stir welded AL-Li alloy 2195 on recent
space shuttle flights. Although this process has received rave reviews in the automotive,
aerospace, and shipbuilding industries,32 lack of fusion does occur and the nondestructive
examination procedures normally employed in the welding and shipbuilding industry
(radiography and ultrasound) cannot detect these flaws.
Friction stir welding has received a great deal of attention in the shipbuilding
industry. Its use is limited, however, to relatively thin plate, because of the large
clamping forces needed to maintain the positions of the pieces to be joined. It is far from
clear that this technology can be used to join the large complex structures required for
high speed ships of the future, although it should be thoroughly investigated for the
materials under consideration for high speed cargo ships.
3.3.1.3.3 Joining Other Materials
Although it is easiest to join members made of the same alloy, it is frequently

necessary, especially in lightweight construction, to join dissimilar materials. This causes
problems at the joint of fatigue problems resulting from differences in thermal expansion
and elastic strain response to stress and, particularly in marine environments, of
corrosion. Thus each material combination that must be joined presents unique problems.
a) Joining Steels to Lightweight Alloys
The greatest problem in welding dissimilar metals is the possibility of galvanic

corrosion. However, applying coatings in the areas near the joints often can alleviate this
problem. The common types of dissimilar welds that are found in shipbuilding are
aluminum alloys joined to carbon steels.
Aluminum cannot be joined to carbon steel using conventional fusion welding

(the process normally employed in the ship manufacturing industry). An aluminum-to-
steel transition joint, made by a solid-state welding process called explosion welding
(also called explosive bonding), is used in such cases. This allows the aluminum side of
the transition joint to be welded to aluminum and the steel side to be welded to steel
using conventional welding processes typically used in shipbuilding (see Table 5). This
technique is employed to join aluminum deckhouses to steel decks on ships. This method
27
is also used in the aerospace industry to make titanium-to-stainless steels transition joints.
Other joining techniques such as brazing and high energy processes (e.g. electron beam
or plasma welding) can also be employed for joining steels to lightweight alloys.
b) Metal-to-Composite Joining
To select the best methods for joining composites to metals, the particular
combination of composite and metallic materials to be joined and the design details
and/or requirements must be determined. For example, consider joining a carbon-epoxy
laminate to a metal section using an adhesive that must perform well in a hot-wet
environment. Aluminum is a poor choice for the metal section because the adhesive must
be cured at an elevated temperature to develop hot-wet strength. Aluminum has a high
coefficient of thermal expansion (CTE) and carbon-epoxy composites have a very low
one. This results in thermal stresses in the adhesive bondline at room temperature after
the high temperature cure. These stresses can cause the adhesive to fail before any
mechanical loads are applied. Aluminum-to-carbon-epoxy composite joints are also
highly susceptible to galvanic corrosion. Titanium is a much better choice to join to
carbon-epoxy laminates. Since titanium has less than one-half the CTE of aluminum, the
effect of thermal stresses is reduced. Titanium is also good for minimizing corrosion.
c) Joining Other Lightweight Materials
Joining procedures for lightweight materials that are attractive for high speed ship
performance, such as aluminum and titanium alloys, intermetallics and composites, need
to be developed. The development effort should characterize joint microstructure and
properties under simulated load and environmental conditions. Fusion welding of
aluminum alloys, titanium alloys, and intermetallics is more difficult than welding steels.
Although Pequot River Shipworks (among others) was successful in manufacturing an
aluminum fast ferry using fusion welding,33 significant additional development is needed
before the larger structures required for high speed long range cargo ships can be
confidently joined with fusion or solid state welding techniques.
Sound (crack and void free) welds could not be made using fusion welding for the
first generation of Al-Li alloys. Recent advances in alloy development for Al-Li have
made fusion welding of these new alloys possible. However, a difficulty which still exists
for these new Al-Li alloys is that they cannot be repaired by welding. The added heat
from repair welding causes localized residual stress buildup.34 Weld repair techniques
that eliminate residual stress buildup need to be developed for these alloys. Friction stir
welding should also be investigated for the joining of aluminum-lithium alloys having the
thickness needed for high speed ship performance.
Conventional titanium alloys are weldable. However, protection from

contamination by the atmosphere (shielding) is more important than it is for steels.
Contamination of titanium by oxygen and nitrogen due to poor cleaning results in
reduced ductility and toughness. The welding of titanium aluminide intermetallics is even
more difficult than conventional titanium alloys. Although major advances in the fusion
28
welding of intermetallics have been made,35,36,37,38,39,40,41,42,43,44 significant additional

development is needed before intermetallics can be used in high speed cargo ships.
High strength low alloy steel HSLA-65 is being considered for replacing DH-36
currently used for ship structures. HSLA-65 alloys have been shown to be weldable using
70-series consumables, employing the same conditions currently used in conventional
shipbuilding.45 However, Charpy V notch requirements for weld metals in HSLA-65
must be established for both conventional and high speed ships.
d) Joining Composites
Composites are candidate materials for lightweight structures for high speed cargo
vessels. They present another series of joining problems.
Resin-matrix composites can be divided into two categories: thermoset

composites (resin chemical reactions occurring during 120EC to 175EC cure) and
thermoplastic composites (resin melt fusion between 315EC and 400EC). Thermoset
composites can be joined to metals by adhesive bonding, whereas thermoplastic
composites can be joined either by adhesive bonding or through the use of a melt-fuse
interphase (amorphous) bond. The aircraft industry currently uses a film adhesive called
FM300K for joining thermoset composites to titanium. For joining thermoplastics to
metals, a thermoplastic film called Ultem is commonly employed for amorphous bonding
whereas FM300 and FM73 are used for adhesive bonding.
Generally speaking, adhesives used to join composite materials will have an

adverse affect on other materials. Corrosive materials, flammable liquids, and toxic
substances are commonly used in adhesive bonding. Therefore, manufacturing operations
are subject to the application of extensive safety procedures, protective devices, and
protective clothing.
3.3.1.3.4 Development of Joint Quality Tests for High Speed Conditions
Once sound joints are made using alloys that are not traditionally employed in the
shipbuilding industry, the mechanical properties and joint integrity must be determined.
Conventional testing such as tensile testing and varestraint testing can be used to some
extent. However, these testing methods will have to be modified to simulate the loads that
the joints will experience at high speeds. These tests will have to performed under
conditions that simulate a marine environment. Definition of test conditions, and methods
of simulating in-service test conditions, must be defined in order to generate the data
necessary for classification societies to accept non-traditional materials and the joints
between them in high speed cargo ships. At present, the definition of these conditions is
not fully developed.
29
3.3.2 ABS High speed Craft Guide – Materials
The ABS-HSC Guide gives requirements for hulls constructed of various

materials, and these requirements frequently specify general process parameters.
Examples are given below. This means that process development work (establishment of
equipment, process procedures and parameters) must be coordinated with the
classification societies before new manufacturing methods can be used in the
construction of high speed ships.
Aluminum:
Section 2/4 – Materials and Testing, and Appendix 2E - Welding

Section 2/4 gives requirements for test methods, and the minimum mechanical
properties to be test attained for the various alloys in plate, extruded or cast form.
Appendix 2E give requirements for weld procedures, workmanship, preparation for
welding, production welding, filler metals, mechanical properties and welder
qualification.
Fiber Reinforced Plastic:
Section 2/5 Materials and Testing

This section covers resins, liquid and cured conditions mechanical properties;
core materials, reinforcing materials, laminates and core and laminate mechanical
properties. It also describes the various fabrication procedures that are acceptable and
gives general guidance on fabrication, including sandwich panel lay-ups and secondary
bonding.
Steel:
The material requirements for steel are given in a separate ABS Rule booklet.
Quality Control:
The section of the Guide on Materials and Testing also includes detailed requirements for
quality control of the builder’s facilities and the building process description on which
the quality control is based, covering:
1.1 building facilities

- materials storage
- mold construction
- laminating premises
- equipment
1.2 material specifications and data sheets
1.3 receiving materials
1.4 laminating procedure
1.5 inspection
30
1.6 fault correction
Requirements are given for quality control, and, in addition, the optional detailed
requirements for ABS certification of the builders quality assurance system.
3.3.3 Example: Adoption of Design-to-Cost and Build Approach in Recent U. S.

Commercial Ship Construction of Matson’s MV R.J. Pfeiffer at NASSCO.
As an example of the problems that might be encountered in constructing a high

speed sealift vessel, the following history is supplied. In January 1990 Matson Navigation
Company contracted with National Steel Shipbuilding Company (NASSCO) to build the
diesel containership MV R.J. Pfeiffer,46 summarized in Table 8. This vessel is
comparable to high speed sealift designs in Table 2, in that it posed the application of a
design somewhat different than traditional designs. In addition, it involved the
collaboration of domestic and overseas shipyards in the design and build of the ship. The
experience of designing bidding, contracting and building the containership was
summarized by Hasket et al.47 This experience is expected to be applicable to building a
high speed sealift as a commercial vessel, which will have to meet requirements of the
ship owner. Matson’s business analysis indicated a need for this containership. They
proceeded in the following steps:
I. Working with a naval architecture firm, Matson established the

containership mission, essential ship characteristics to fulfill the mission
and a preliminary ship design which was denoted as an inquiry package.
II. While developing the preliminary design Matson communicated with
seven U.S. shipyards qualified on basis of
1. shipyard size and capacity
2. previous commercial experience
3. adequate management and technical staff
4. shipyard interest
5. adequate financial strength.
III. By January 1988 two U.S. shipyards dropped out due to overriding
commitments to Navy shipbuilding program. The Matson group visited
the remaining five U.S. shipyards to discuss the planned acquisition
process. This process required that:
1. Shipyards prepare their own contract design to satisfy Matson
preliminary design requirements outlined in the inquiry package
2. Down-selection of the finalists to three would be based on the
contract design and cost.
IV. By August 25, 1988 the inquiry package was sent to three shipyards. The
shipyards had five months (February 1989) to prepare the contract and bid.
Two of the U.S. Shipyards subcontracted overseas for design assistance,
one with Gotaverlain and Trans Consultants in Sweden, and the other with
Odense shipyard, Denmark. One shipyard was unable to obtain a
performance bond for the $80 million containership. A second dropped
31
out leaving National Steel and Shipbuilding Company (NASSCO) as the

sole bidder.
Table 8. Particulars of MV R.J. Pfeiffer
Item Units Notes

Length Lpp m 205.1
Beam m 32.2
Draft m 10.52 Full Load
Displacement m3 36,868 Full Load
Displacement Long Tons 35,215 Full Load
Speed Knots 23 Design
Engine - Slow Special Diesel
Containers - 1980 Twenty foot equivalents
Cargo weight tons 19,008 TEU
Cargo weight ratio - 0.53 Estimated 8.6 ton/TEU
estimated
V. The NASSCO Bid submitted on February 1989 was:

1. $40 million over Matson’s budget.
2. Qualified with numerous exceptions to design.
3. Supported by no performance bond.
When NASSCO received Matson’s inquiry package in August 1988, NASSCO

found:
1. The Matson preliminary design was more specific and detailed than
a typical commercial contract design with which they were used to
working.
2. With forward and aft deckhouses, dedicated multi-deck auto garage,
bulk cargo tanks, luxurious accommodation standards and system
redundancies, it was a very expensive ship.
3. The pro forma contract was heavily skewed in favor of the owner at
the expense of the shipyard.
NASSCO personnel also noted: “From a technical standpoint, we were very

concerned that the specificity and detail of the “preliminary” design package would limit
our ability to apply innovative design solutions or producibility improvements. In other
words, the key design elements, especially the cost drivers, had been already cast in
concrete by the owner. This turned out to be the case. We had very little choice other than
to develop our “contract” design and bid based strictly on the Matson “preliminary”
design. This led to the over-budget pricing”.
The failure to meet budget led to a new approach: design to cost and build which
was adopted by Matson and NASSCO. This was completed in two steps. In April 1989
Matson contracted for design development with NASSCO and Odense Shipyard for a
32
containership similar to the Maerisk Line “L” and “M” class containerships built by
Odense. The effort focused on design and cost reduction. It was organized as follows:
• Hull technical and structural plans – Odense
• Machinery Arrangement & Diagrammatic Plans – Odense
• Electrical Power Systems and Controls – Odense
• Specifications – NASSCO/Matson
• Accommodation/pilot house – NASSCO/Matson
The running estimate of the vessel cost was maintained during the design. It was
found that while this effort did cut costs, the redesigned containership was still more
expensive than Matson had budgeted.
VI. In January 1990 the contract was signed for a construction cost of $129.4
million dollars with a delivery date of June 1992 (28 months). The
construction and delivery was completed in the following schedule:
Jan. 1990 – Jan. 3, 1991 - Completion of design and construction
documents (12 months)
Jan. 8, 1991 - First plate of steel cut – Month 12
March 27, 1991 - First subassembly in Gravingdock – Month 14
February 15, 1992 - Christening and Float out – Month 24
June 24, 1992 – Engine Trials – Month 28
July 11, 1992 - Dock Trials – Month 29
August 8, 1992 – Sea Trials – Month 30
August 9, 1992 – Delivery – Month 30.
The total cost of the ship was $130.1 million, which reflected $700,000 of owner-
initiated charge orders.
3.3.3.1 Lessons Learned
The experience taught lessons, both for the shipyard and for the owners of the
vessel:
NASSCO personnel indicated that the primary lesson to be learned from Matson’s
experience is that the substantive involvement by the owner with a shipyard, from the
earliest stages of requirements definition, will result in delivery of a quality ship, at the
best possible price and schedule.
Odense Shipyard personnel provided a more detailed discussion of lessons

learned for owners:
• Buy ships built in series

• Specify strict requirements only
• Leave actual design to shipyard
• Reduce amount of required tender documentation
(More affordable to yards, so more yards are prepared to bid).
33
They also had advice for shipyards:

• Increase the efforts into design for production and production engineering.
• Use “short cuts” to get down the learning curve by, e.g., joining forces
with relevant shipyards already there.
3.3.3.2 Drawing Parallels for High speed Sealift Vessel Production
To some extent the High speed Sealift Workshop has moved the project forward
through steps I and II described in the MV R.J. Pheiffer example given above. The U.A.
team has visited three shipyards, Avondale, Halter and Ingalls, paralleling step III. The
team found that Ingalls and Bath have designs with steel hulls that, while quite different,
appear to be acceptable for commercial service and meet the goals of shipping 2,000
metric tons 4,000 nautical miles at speeds up to 60 knots.
The next step would be design to cost: step VI. The team should initiate the
design to cost reflecting the near term availability of lightweight materials such as
aluminum, aluminum honeycombs as well as composite materials. They should evaluate
this impact on the design to cost described in step VI. It is obvious from the discussion of
the Sealand SL-7 program and the Matson experience that a multi-ship acquisition will
reap the maximum cost benefit.
3.3.3.3 U.S. Shipyard Productivity
The NASSCO Fabrication to delivery of the containership MV Pfeiffer was

January 1991 to August 9, 1992 – 18 months. This is compared to other fabrication to
delivery times in Table 9. It would appear from the comparisons that a Japanese shipyard
would have delivered the MV Pfeiffer in 10-11 months if it were among their portfolio of
standard designs.48,49 It would also appear that U.S. shipyards were at a significant
disadvantage in the international market regarding delivery times in the 1980’s and
1990’s.
Table 9. Comparison of Fabrication to Delivery Times
Date Vessel Builder Months to Deliver

1980 18,000 Dwt. Oiler US shipyard 35
1981 40,000 Dwt. Tanker US shipyard 24
1983 Mobilization Ship US shipyard 18
1983 40,000 Dwt. Tanker US shipyard 17
1986 25,000 Dwt. Oiler US shipyard 29
1988 Mobilization Ship Japanese shipyard 10
1991 39,000 Container Ship NASSCO 18
1993 290,000 Dwt. Tanker Japanese shipyard 11
This short delivery time in the Japanese shipyard is due to three factors.
1. Japanese mastery of ship production planning
34
2. Japanese reliable and economic vendor base

3. Integration of the vessel design for ship production.
3.3.4 Evaluating an Alternate Hull Structure for Construction
Daidala50 has discussed in some detail how an alternate structural system could be
evaluated for construction. He outlines a series of steps, which include:
I. Synthesis of the structural system alternatives into a set of drawings for

design and production comparisons
II. Preparation of estimates for each structural system alternative, including:
1. Weight of structure based on midship section and scanting plan.
2. Schedule – contract to delivery
3. Contract and detail man-hours
4. Design man-hours.
This can be done using a portion of the hull midbody – keel to main deck,
extending from a transverse bulkhead to the next. The hull can than be broken down into
the component parts and the measurement of length of cutting, edge preparation, welding
or adhesive can be estimated for the construction man-hours comparison. The
construction man-hour estimate and schedule would take into account 15 entries:
1. Amount of welding
2. Type and number of frames, and stiffeners
3. Number of unique parts
4. Total number of parts
5. Number, type, and position of joints
6. Self-alignment and support
7. Need for jigs and fixtures
8. Work position
9. Number of physical turns/moves before completion
10. Dimensional control
11. Space access and staging
12. Standardization
13. Number of compartments to be entered to complete work
14. Degree to which pre-outfitting and machinery/piping package units
can be accommodated
15. Accuracy control.
These would allow the shipyard-design team to properly evaluate the cost benefit
of each system for the high speed sealift vessel.
35
3.3.5 Summary
Technical issues remain to be resolved for joining metals and for joining
composites to metals in high speed ship systems. The major issues of concern for joining
metals in building high speed ships are:
1. The performance of joints is unknown at high speeds (which presumably
implies high loads) over long periods of time in a marine environment.
2. Thus it is necessary to evaluate whether existing metal joining processes are
adequate for high speed ships.
The major concerns regarding composites in HSS shipbuilding are:

1. How can large (compared to those used in the aerospace industry) composite
sections be manufactured?
2. How can these large composite sections be joined?
Based upon the evaluation of existing manufacturing technologies and the

technical issues remaining to be resolved, an assessment matrix was constructed for
technical concerns in HSS shipbuilding (Table 9). The four major areas of technology
concern in HSS shipbuilding are forming, joining, inspection, and safety and
environment. The components assessed were hull form, decking, hull, and superstructure.
Steel, aluminum, titanium, and composites were the materials assessed for the hull,
decking and superstructure. The forming capabilities of steel, aluminum, and titanium are
well documented in the literature. For composites, the issue of whether large (relative to
those used in the aerospace industry) composite parts can be manufactured remains to be
answered. Under normal conditions at the speeds presently employed for ships, no major
problems exist for welded metal joints and inspection methods. However, the
performance of welds and inspection methods at high speeds is unknown. Safety and
environmental concerns exist for using titanium and composites. Fire concerns exist for
titanium. For composites, the substances commonly used in adhesive bonding are usually
corrosive, flammable and toxic.
Beyond these technical problems are problems of owner/designer/shipyard

coordination, communication and information. Because ship design and build takes a
significant amount of time, during which owners, designers and yards may change or be
forced to change specifications, economical construction of ships requires a high degree
of coordination between all parties responsible for the final vessel. In building a high
speed cargo ship, for which there are no existing models, this coordination will be crucial
if the vessel is to be obtained on-time, within cost estimates, and perform satisfactorily.
In building such a ship, coordination with classification societies will also be required.
Thus the management aspects of shipbuilding must be emphasized for profitable
construction of high speed cargo ships.
36
Table 9. HSS Shipbuilding Technology Concerns
Hull Form Forming Joining Inspection Safety and Environment
Monohull 4 U U N/A
Multihull 2 U U N/A
Hull
Material
Steel 4 3 3 4
Aluminum 3 2 2.5 4
Titanium 3 2 2.5 2
Composites MU U U 2
Decking
Material
Steel 4 3 3 4
Aluminum 4 2 2 4
Titanium 2.5 2 2.5 2
Composites MU U U 2
Superstructure
Material
Steel 4 3 3 4
Aluminum 4 2 2.5 4
Titanium 2.5 2 2.5 2
Composites MU U U 2
Rankings: 4 = excellent; 3 = good; 2 = fair; 1 = poor; U = unknown performance in this

application;
MU = ability to manufacture large sections unknown
37
3.4 Gulf Coast Shipbuilding Technology

R.C. Foley, University of South Alabama
There is often doubt expressed as to whether large shipyards that have specialized
in U.S. Navy ship construction will ever be able to become commercially competitive.
The traditional Navy acquisition process and economic incentives conflict with business
practices required for commercial effectiveness. While the Navy is exploring the benefits
of adopting commercial business practices and standards, smaller shipyards have begun
to exploit their commercial opportunities. Gulf Coast shipyards emphasizing defensible,
profitable, specialty niche markets (e.g., deep water drilling ships, casino boats, offshore
support vessels) have experienced an industrial resurgence.
Located in the temperate climate close to the Gulf of Mexico, the Gulf Coast is
the most active and productive shipbuilding region in the United States. Located within
the region are two of the “Big Six” shipbuilding companies, Ingalls and Avondale, now
both owned by Litton Industries; a commercial contract for oceangoing vessels among
the first to be built for export in 40 years at Alabama Shipyards; and a shipyard that has
recently signed a joint venture with a major foreign supplier of fast ferries, Bender
Shipbuilding and Repair. Shipbuilding and ship repair employees of the Gulf Coast form
a larger share of the manufacturing industry than is typical in other shipbuilding regions
of the country (see Table 10). Examination of the status of Gulf Coast shipbuilding
technology therefore provides a good representation of the current environment and
competitiveness of shipbuilding throughout the country.
Table 10. Shipbuilding and Repair Employees As a Share of Manufacturing

Employees, 1995
LOCATION SHIPBUILDING SHARE

San Diego County 5.1%
Louisiana 6.9%
Alabama 5.0%
Mississippi* 4 – 10%
Virginia 5.8%
United States (total) 0.5%
*Because of disclosure rules, the Census Bureau only reports a range of values for people employed by SIC
3731 in Mississippi
Source: Bureau of the Census
3.4.1 Shipyard Descriptions
Alabama Shipyard Inc., Mobile, AL
Atlantic Marine, Inc. (ship repair and conversion) and Alabama Shipyard, Inc.
(new construction) share facilities near Mobile Bay across from downtown Mobile, AL.
Specializing in the construction of steel-hulled vessels for the international commercial
market, Alabama Shipyard is constructing ships up to a maximum size of 950 ft (290 m)
38
by 160 ft (49 m). A recent contract with a Danish export customer, Dannebrog Rederi
AS, to construct two 16,000 dwt IMO II chemical tankers (with an option for a third) is
the largest export contract ever in the state of Alabama. The double hull tankers were
designed by Skipkonsulent AS of Norway and are approximately 144 meters long, 23
meters wide, and 12.4 meters deep. Delivery of the first vessel was in May 1997, and the
second vessel was delivered in December 1998. Alabama sees opportunities in the double
hull tanker market, as well as in the articulated tug/barge market. The shipyard has
designed two different sizes for the barge units and is currently marketing these designs.51
Litton/Avondale Industries, New Orleans, LA
Avondale’s main shipyard is located on the Mississippi River twelve miles

upriver from the Port of New Orleans. Avondale has used modular construction
technology since 1982 to build ships. Avondale has the capacity to design, fabricate and
assemble most types of ships, and is primarily a manufacturer of oceangoing vessels for
the military and commercial markets. Vessel classifications include U.S. Navy
amphibious assault ships, fleet support ships, surface combatants, Coast Guard
icebreakers and cutters, product and chemical carriers, lighter aboard ships (LASH
vessels), and dredges.
Avondale presently has a Healey Class Coast Guard Icebreaker, 125,000 dwt 1
million barrel ARCO double-hull tankers, and the fourth of six T-AKR “Bob Hope” class
sealift vessels under construction. Avondale also leads the corporate team that won the
Navy’s $642 million LPD-17 contract. This is the Navy’s first class of large ships to be
designed using three-dimensional design techniques. Twenty-five million of the
contracted price will go for an unprecedented array of computer hardware and software
provided by Intergraph Corp.
Litton Industries, which owns Ingalls Shipbuilding Division (see below) has
recently acquired Avondale. At this writing, however, the two divisions continue to
operate independently.
Bender Shipbuilding and Repair Co., Inc., Mobile, AL
Bender is a newbuild and ship repair facility on the central Gulf of Mexico. New
construction projects are typically special-use vessels; more than 800 Bender-built ships
currently operate world-wide: crabbers, offshore supply vessels, shrimp boats, factory
trawlers, riverboats, passenger vessels, tuna seiner, tug boats, etc. Bender has recently
signed a joint venture with Austal Ships of Australia, a leading supplier of high speed
catamaran ferries.52,53 The joint venture, to be located in Mobile, will build ferries for the
American market to satisfy Jones Act requirements. The yard is expected to open in the
summer of 2,000. Austal has expressed interest in building high speed sealift craft for the
U.S. market, and intends to become a major supplier of high speed craft worldwide.
39
Bollinger Shipyards Inc., New Orleans, LA
Bollinger’s Lockport yard is a new construction. Situated on 250 acres, this new
construction site offers over 400,000 square feet of indoor fabrication shops of under-roof
construction. Employing computer-aided manufacturing in cutting and machining along
with computer-aided design capabilities, Bollinger can design, build and deliver vessels
of up to 400 feet in length in aluminum, steel, and fiberglass. They are currently focused
on a contract for patrol boats for the U.S. Coast Guard.
Halter Marine Group Inc., Gulfport, MS
Halter Marine Group, Inc. claims to be the world’s most versatile shipbuilder.
They have designed, built, repaired or converted over 2600 vessels. They build ships of
steel, aluminum or composites with a large production capacity in 22 U.S. shipyards.
Current U.S. Navy construction projects include the T-AGS Ocean Survey Ships and T-
AGOS Ocean Surveillance Ships. Halter is also active internationally with co-production
and technology transfer programs. Advanced technology and methods are employed,
such as computer-aided design and manufacturing, modular construction, and zone
outfitting. Halter is the largest producer in the United States of advanced diesel-electric
vessels and it has built vessels with propulsion systems ranging from propellers and
paddlewheels to water jets and steerable Z-Pellers and cycloidal propulsion.
Halter has recently merged with Friede Goldman International.54 However, the
future of the shipyards that have the most experience in building high speed vessels is
unclear at this time.
Litton/Ingalls Shipbuilding Division, Pascagoula, MS
Ingalls Shipbuilding division of Litton Industries is a systems company for the

design, engineering, construction, life cycle and fleet support, repair and modernization
of advanced surface combatant ships for the U.S. and international navies, and for
commercial marine structures of all types. Located in Pascagoula, Ingalls is Mississippi’s
largest private employer, with 10,900 employees. Since 1975, Ingalls has delivered 76
new major surface warships into the U.S. Navy’s fleet. Current Navy construction
projects include the DDG-51 Guided Missile Cruisers and LHD Amphibious Assault
Ships. Additionally, dozens of other naval combatants have returned to Ingalls over the
years for modernization and overhaul-related projects. Ingalls is also a major participant
in the offshore commercial market, principally in the areas of drilling rig construction,
repair and overhaul, and in the construction of advanced, deepwater offshore supply
vessels. In October 1998, Ingalls was chosen to complete final negotiations for the
contract to build the first major cruise ships to be launched in the U.S. in over 40 years.
The contract calls for two $400 million Hawaiian cruise ships and an option for four
more, for American Classic Voyages, Inc.
40
McDermott Shipbuilding, Inc., New Orleans, LA
McDermott Shipbuilding, Inc. (MSI) offers advanced ship designs, project

management, procurement, shipbuilding, ship repair and construction management
services to shipowners worldwide. MSI operates two shipyards. The newly refurbished
TNG shipyard in Veracruz, Mexico builds ships to Panamax size and also provides
repairs, maintenance and structural fabrication. The McDermott shipyard in Morgan City,
LA, is a builder of river and ocean class barges using automated efficient techniques to
supply standardized fuel, deck and hopper barges.
Trinity Industries, Gulfport, MS
The Halter Marine Group acquired many of Trinity’s shipyards in 1996. Trinity
Industries, however, retains yards that build inland barges.
3.4.2 Maritech at Gulf Coast Shipyards
The Maritech program and projects have been essential ingredients in improving
the effectiveness of Gulf Coast shipyards. Under the program many facets of Gulf Coast
shipyards have undergone change and revision. Some shipyard executives have used
Maritech as an opportunity to focus corporate market strategy. In addition to the
individual projects at Gulf Coast yards that are reviewed below Maritech also sponsored
industry-wide projects designed to improve infrastructure technologies required for
virtual business operations and electronic information exchange. The participation of
Gulf Coast yards in these projects was displayed in Tables 2 and 3. All of these Maritech
projects are expected to impact high speed cargo ship design and manufacturing
technology. Indeed, many of the projects anticipated the needs of high speed shipbuilders
in fabrication technologies and information exchange.
Alabama Shipyard Inc.
Alabama’s Maritech involvement has been critical to its long-term

competitiveness strategy. Its management feels that it has overcome early problems with
cost estimation and market forecasting and is positioned to further improve processes.
• Two ships were designed, marketed and sold on the international market.
• Improved accuracy control from using CAD/CAM software and workstations to
reduce interferences and re-work saved 20% on production labor hours.
• Use of dedicated pipe fabrication and blast coating facilities improved quality and
reduced re-work.
Litton/Avondale Industries
Avondale’s Maritech experience has been extremely useful, and the company is
committed to increasing its commercial portfolio of complex ships.
• The factory project yielded productivity improvements of 15%.
41
• The “standard tanker design” in the early Maritech tanker program provided up-front
experience that enabled the company to facilitate an early start on the ARCO contract
and some reduction in cycle time.
• Using improved CAD/CAM software tools and experience gained in the pre-award
design work enabled Avondale to start cutting steel in seven months on the ARCO
tanker contract.
Bender Shipbuilding and Repair Co.
Bender credits two Maritech projects concentrating on design with improving its
production planning, which resulted in the design of the Reefer 21, the construction of
two off-shore supply vessels and four more under contract, and a Multi-Mission Cargo
Ship design. Through the Reefer 21 project, Bender learned how to develop a build
strategy and began considering improvements to the yard’s material flow and processes.
Its yard is fully networked using fiber optic cables, and it is now using 3D software,
including AutoCAD. The new CAD and layout software has reduced the time spent re-
piping and re-running pipe by 30%, saving 4-5,000 man-hours per ship. It is also creating
better production packages.
• Production Processes: Bender’s first approach concentrating on designs was not the
correct one. After examining various markets and foreign yards, it realized that
shipbuilding processes are the keys to being competitive. This led to adopting new
software systems, 3D design and robotic welding, and networking the yard.
• Technology: Bender perceives that technology implementation (learning to use
efficiently the technology that they have) is what U.S. yards should be concentrating
on, rather than technology development. Bender was greatly influenced by the foreign
yards’ superior processes and accuracy controls. Many of its computer enhancements,
automated welding, and laser cutting projects are a direct result of this influence.
Bollinger Shipyards, Inc.
The Stewart and Associates Simulation-Based Design Tool produced savings of

10% on material and production costs, as well as reducing the time required to develop
proposals by a factor of four. Also, Bollinger changed to AutoCAD during the Maritech
program. This change from its previous CAD/CAM program reduced the design process
by a factor of five.
• Bollinger learned to team with vendors from the start of the project. It discovered that
including them as part of the teams in the beginning committed them to the delivery
of the entire product, not just their piece of it.
Halter Marine Group, Inc.
Halter’s Maritech programs resulted in the following designs: one 23K dwt
Container/Bulk Carrier, three Container Feeders, and ten Fast Car Passenger Ferry
designs. Halter recently completed building a prototype 42.5 m High Speed, Low Wake
Passenger Ferry that was demonstrated at the October 1998 IMTA conference.55 Halter
improved its material flow at its Pascagoula yard and realized that it could build larger
42
ships at that facility. In addition, it is now using light gage aluminum construction
techniques and has re-oriented a production facility to begin aluminum fabrication of
ferries.
• International Competitiveness: As a result of Maritech, Halter has made a
commitment to enter the Large Fast Ferry market internationally, using designs
acquired through the program. It has been able to make a significant number of
potential international customer contacts and has three potential customers who are
interested in various types of large fast ferries and high speed, low wake ferries. Since
the merger with Freide-Goldman, however, the future of these plans has become
unclear.
• Foreign Associations and Teaming: Halter worked with foreign designers, test
facilities, shipyards and owners on its Maritech projects.
•
Litton/Ingalls Shipbuilding Division
Prior to participation in Maritech, Ingalls’ use of robotic welding was 2 – 5%.

Through the use of automated welding processes developed in Maritech, Ingalls plans to
increase the use of robotic welding to 5 – 9%.
• Teaming: Maritech programs offered Ingalls its first opportunity to team with foreign
yards in cruise ship design, and domestic yards’ they plan to continue teaming
arrangements.
• Processes: Ingalls tried to adopt some of the commercial processes found in other
yards; however, approval of the Navy has not been received yet on some of those
processes.
3.4.3 Fast Ferry Designs Available to Gulf Coast Shipbuilders
The present state of the art in high speed vessel design is focussed on fast ferries.
It is logical to conclude that the next evolutionary step in high speed cargo ships will
build on current fast ferry experience. For this reason, the ability to design and construct
fast ships based on ferry designs is a necessary requirement to compete in the high speed
sealift market. Fast ferry designs available to Gulf Coast Shipbuilders are summarized in
Table 11. The Table does not include the range of Austal Ships’ designs that have now
become available to the Bender-Austal joint venture. This new entry into the domestic
fast craft market is expected to re-vitalize the North American fast ferry shipbuilding
market, which has recently seen the closing of Pequot River Shipyards, and the
announcement that BC Ferries is exiting the fast ferry construction market.
43
Table 11. Available U.S. Gulf Coast Ferry Designs*
Ferry L B T Speed Displacement Passengers Car Engine Builder

Name (M) (M) (M) (Knots) (MT)
Catam 32 10 1.5 32 100 150-300 - 2 Diesel Swiftships
aran
E-Cat 45 11.6 1.3 35 - 250-400 - Diesel or Halter
Gas Marine
Turbine Group
HSM 67 11.7 2.4 35 650 250 40 4 Diesel Halter
150 Marine
Group
HSM 91.5 15 2.4 35 1200 450 85 Gas Halter
280 Turbine Marine
Water Group
Jet
Trinity 116 31.5 4.2 35 2,000 400-1500 100- 2 Gas Halter
Sea 300 Turbines Marine
Flight Group
HST 150 30 5 33 3300 900 216 2 Gas Halter
630 Turbines Marine
Group
HST 165 30 5 31 4,000 1200 288 6 Gas Halter
800 Turbines Marine
Group
HST 185 35 5 31 5,000 1500 360 Halter
850 Marine
Group
Transat 60 Halter
lantic Marine
Pentam Group
aran (U.S.
Licensee)
*Does not include Austal designs available through the Bender/Austal joint venture.
Source: Swift Ships
Halter Marine Group (now part of Friede Goldman International Inc.)
R. Latorre, University of New Orleans
44
4.0 References
1
For an example of one of these programs, readers are referred to the International Technology Research
Institute at Loyola College of Maryland. Information on recent studies, and copies of reports of recent
studies are available at http://itri.loyola.edu.
2
Land Power Essay Series “Move Faster” – Strategic Mobility in the 21st Century,” Final Draft, 8/4/98, p.
3, para. 4.
3
Manninen, M, and J. Jaatinen, Production Method and System to Control Dimensional Uncertainties at
Final Assembly Stages in Ship Production,” Journal of Ship Production, vol. 8, no. 4 (November, 1992).
4
Rogness, J, “Breaking the Chains of Tradition and Fantasy – A Revolutionary Approach to the
Constraints on Productivity,” Journal of Ship Production, vol. 8, no. 2 (May, 1992).
5
Kennell, C., D. Lavis and M. Templeman, “High Speed Sealift Technology,” SNAME Marine
Technology, vol. 35 (July 1998), p. 135.
6
Levander,K, “Fast and Efficient Monohull Ferries,” Paper IMTA 98, New Orleans, October 1998.
7
Dannecker, J.D., T.P. McCue and R.H. Mayer, “SOCV: A sealift Option for Commercial Viability,”
paper I, SNAME Transportation, Operations, Management and Economic Symposium, New York, 1997.
8
Lindstrom, J., Sirvio, J., and A.Yli-Rantala, “Super-Slender Monohull with Outriggers,” Proc. FAST ’95,
Lubeck, Germany, 1995, p. 295.
9
Gee, N., “The Economically Viable Fast Freighter,” Paper 15, RINA Conf., Fast Freight Transportation
by Sea, London, December 1998.
10
Bowden, J., “SEV, The Ingalls 55 Knot, 20,000 ton Surface Effect Vehicle,” SNAME-ASNE Gulf
Section Meeting, Biloxi, December 1995.
11
Anon, “Halter and Bazan Form Joint Venture,” Marine News, January 25, 1999, p. 27.
12
Boylston, J.W., de Koff, D.J. Muntjewerf, “SL-7 Containerships Design, Construction, and Operational
Experience,” Transactions SNAME, vol. 82, 1974, pp. 427-478.
13
A. Walker, “Korea’s newbuilding price policies: How they hurt us and what we can do about it,” Marine
Log, vol. 105, no.1 (Jan., 2,000), p. 11.
14
“Clinton Unveils His Strategy for U.S. Shipyard Competitiveness,” Marine Log, November, 1993, p. 19.
15
Maritech Advanced Shipbuilding Enterprise Strategic Investment Plan, June 1, 1998, Sponsored by the
Executive Control Board of the National Shipbuilding Research Program.
16
Maritech Program Impacts on Global Competitiveness of the U.S. Shipbuilding Industry and Navy Ship
Construction, Potomac Institute for Policy Studies, July 1, 1998.
17
“$53,000,000 Research Boost for U.S. Shipbuilding,” Marine Log, vol. 105, no. 4 (April, 2000), p. 26.
18
Hughes, O., Ship Structural Design, A Rationally-based, Computer-aided, Optimization Approach,
SNAME, New Jersey, 1995.
19
Wood, W.A., Hunter, J. A. “TRICAT High Speed Ferry-Redesign for the U.S. Market” Marine
Technology, vol. 35 No. 1, 1999. pp 45-54.
45
20
Sarabia, D. and Gutierrez, “A Return to Merchant Ship Construction: The International Impact of The
NSRPad American Technology.” Journal of Ship Production, Vol. 8, No. 1. 1992, pp. 28-35.
21
Shin, J. G. Kin, W.D. “Kinematic Analysis of the Process Planning for Compounding Ship Hull Plates,”
Journal of Ship Production, vol. 13, No. 1, 1997, pp. 28-35.
22
Lleda, Y. Murakawa, H., Rashwan, A.M. Neki, L. Kamichik, R. Ishinyama, M. Ogawa, J.
“Development of Computer-Aided Plate Bending by Line-Heating (Report 3),” Journal of Ship
Production, vol. 10, No. 4, 1994, pp. 248-257.
23
Scully, K., “Laser Line Heating”, Journal of Ship Production, vol. 3., No. 4, 1987, pp. 237-246.
24
Slim, J.G. Kim, W. D., Lee, J. H. “An Integrated Approach for the Computerized Processing of Curved
Hull Plates,” Journal of Ship Production, vol. 14, No. 2, 1998, pp. 124-133.
25
Anon, “A Director of Skilled Trades, Training Courses and Training Aids in U.S. Shipyards,” NSRP
Report, No. 0818., December 1983.
26
Latorre, R. Birman V., “Soviet Technique for Estimating Post-Welded Deflection: Case of Butt
Welding”, Journal of Ship Production, vol. 5, 1985, pp. 10-15.
27
Michaleris, P., DeBiccari, “A Predictive Technique for Buckling Analysis of Thin Section Panels Due to
Welding,” Journal of Ship Production, vol. 12, No. 4, 1996 pp. 269-275.
28
Okumoto, Matsuzaki, S., “Approach to Accurate Production of Hull Structures” Journal of Ship
Production, vol. 13, No. 3, 1997, pp. 207-214.
29
Williams, P. and Orrick, P. “Are Portable Welding Robots A Practical Shipbuilding Tool?” Journal of
Ship Production, vol. 8, No. 3, 1997, pp. 148-156.
30
Reeve, R. and Rongo, R. “Shipbuilding Robotics and Economics” Journal of Ship Production, vol. 12,
No. 1, 1996, pp. 49-58.
31
Kalee, S., “TWI Works on Friction Stir Welding for Lightweight Automotive Structures,” Metallurgica,
vol. 64, p. 119.
32
Johnson, M.R., “Friction Stir Welding Shows Great Promise for Joining Difficult-to-Weld Materials,”
vol. 76, no. 6 (1998), p. 20.
33
Irving, b., “The Pequot Tribal Nation Enters the Fast Ferry Boat Business,” Welding Journal, vol. 77, no.
12 (1998), p. 33.
34
Chien, P, “Welding the Space Shuttle’s Al-Li External Tank Presents a Challenge,” Welding Journal,
vol. 77 no. 6 (1988), p. 45.
35
Anand, P and V. Acoff, “Analysis of Welds in Gamma Titanium Aluminide,” Microstructural Science,
(in press).
36
Bharani, D.J., and Acoff, V.L., Autogenous Gas Tungsten Arc Weldability of Cast Alloy Ti-48Al-3Cr-
2Nb (at%) Versus Extruded Alloy Ti-46Al-2Cr-2Nb-0.9Mo (at%),” Met. and Mater. Trans. A, vol. 29A
(3A), p. 927.
46
37
Acoff, V.L., R.G. Thompson and R.D. Rubin, “The Effect of Postweld Heat Treatment on Ti-14%A-
21%Nb Fusion Zone Structure and Hardness,” Welding Journal, vol. 74, no.1 (1995), p. 1s.
38
Acoff, V.L., R.G. Thompson, R.D. Griffing and B. Radhakrishnan, Mat. Sci. and Eng., vol. A152,
(1992), p. 304.
39
Arenas, M, and V.L. Acoff, “Computer Simulation of Welds in Titanium Aluminide Intermetallics,”
Trends in Welding Research: Proceedings of the 5th International Conference, (in press).
40
Acoff, V.L., and M. Arenas, “Evolution of the Fusion Zone Microstructure during Autogenous Gas
Tungsten Arc Welding of Gamma Titanium Aluminide,” Joining of Advanced and Specialty Materials,
ASM International, Materials Park, OH, 1998, p. 101.
41
Acoff, V.L., P. Anand and D. Bharani, “Characterization of Welds in Gamma Titanium Aluminides,”
Advanced Materials and Processing – PRICM3, TMS, Warrendale, PA, 1998, p 2235.
42
Baeslack II, W., T.J. Mascorella and T.J. Kelly, Welding Journal, vol. 68, no. 12 (1989), p. 483s.
43
Kelly, T.J., Proc. Third Internat. SAMPE Mater. Conf. 1992, p. M183.
44
Mallory, L.C., W.A. Baeslack III, and D. Phillips, J Mat. Sci. Let., vol .13, p. 106.
45
Konkol, P.J., J.L. Warren, and P.A. Hebert, Welding Journal, vol. 77, no. 9 (1998), p. 361-s.
46
Blake, W.K., Chen, Y.K. Walter, D. Briggs, R. “Design and Sea Trial Evaluation of the Containership
MV. Pfeiffer for Low Vibration,” Trans. SNAME, vol. 102, 1994, pp. 107-136.
47
Haskell, A.J., Briggs, R. “Contracting for the Building of a Containership in the U.S. – A Buyer’s Story,”
Trans. SNAME, vol. 101, 1993, pp. 195-214.
48
Bunch, H.M., “Comparison of the Construction Planning and Manpower Schedules for Building the PD-
214 General Mobilization Ship in a U.S. Shipyard and in a Japanese Shipyard,” Journal of Ship
Production, vol. 3, No. 1, 1987.
49
Nierenberg, A.B. and Caronna, S.C., “Proven Benefits of Advanced Shipbuilding Technology: Actual
Case Studies of Recent Comparative Construction Programs,” Journal of Ship Production, Vol. 6, No. 3,
1990.
50
Daidola, J.C. “A Plan for Identifying More Producible Structure for Tankers,” Journal of Ship
Production, vol. 10, No. 2, May 1994 , pp. 73-81.
51
Levert, E.C., “Alabama’s Ships are Coming In Again,” Business Alabama Monthly, November 1998.
52
“Good Fit”, Marine Log, vol. 105, no.2 (Feb., 2000), p. 20.
53
“Austal Ships to establish joint venture yard in United States,” Fast Ferry International, vol. 39, no. 1
(Jan.-Feb., 2,000), p. 5.
54
Krapf, D.A., “Halter to Finally Reach Its Goal,” Workboat, July 1999, p. 4.
55
Snyder, J., “New low-wake high speed craft unveiled by Halter Marine,” Marine Log, November, 1998.
47

Advanced Vessel Technologies Program

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Advanced Vessel Technologies Program

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Program Element 2.

Advanced Vessel Technologies

Program Element 2.3.2

P.E. 2.3.2.2 Evaluate Barriers to High Speed Ship Fabrication

Marine Transportation Center

The University of Alabama

June 30, 2000

3.4 Gulf Coast Shipbuilding Technology 38

A number of barriers were identified to the development of high speed cargo

We have reached the following conclusions about the capabilities of U.S.

3. Barriers to the applications of advanced designs include:

Obstacles that currently affect productivity in building conventional ships may

C Joining lightweight materials such as titanium alloys, intermetallics, and

As a consequence, we recommend that development work begin immediately in

1. Joining technologies for composites, and joining of composites to light alloys

3.1 Introduction and Methodology

3.2 Barriers to Construction of Advanced High Speed Sealift Systems

3.2.1 Business Processes

More emphasis must be placed on business and construction processes and

Ship design innovation is typically irrelevant to shipbuilding competitiveness

3.2.2 Fabrication Technologies

Most U.S. shipyards have readily implemented advanced ship production

Consortium members of the MariSTEP program have made progress in the

A secondary benefit of electronic exchange and CIM is the implementation of

3.2.3 Implementation of Technology

Lack of access or availability of technology is not the reason for slow

Shipbuilding, as an industry, recognizes and takes pride in its tradition and

The University of Alabama team visited Litton/Ingalls Shipyard, Halter Marine

1. The High speed Sealift (HSS) vessel design would be complete.

3.2.4.1 Features of High Speed Sealift Design

• Roll-on Roll-off monohulls such as the BATHMAX-15006,7

3.2.4.2 Construction Problems with Near-Term Lightweight Materials

A number of High Speed Sealift designs have been reviewed by Dannecker et

1. The shipyards are organized for steel ship construction.

Point 1 leads to three obvious recommendations for research and development to

1. Manufacturers and suppliers of alternate (non-traditional) materials should

Table 1. High Speed Sealift Designs Compared to the SL-7

Item Units 33 Kt SL-7 BATHMAX FastShip Ingalls Pentamaran

3.2.4.3 High Speed Sealift Construction Experience

1. Specifications were written detailing each piece of machinery by size,

2. Auxiliary machinery sizes were consolidated to minimize the number of motor,

3.2.5 The U.S. Shipbuilding Industry

3.2.5.1 Setting the Stage

The lack of participation in the commercial markets in an era of sharply reduced

Recent studies by KPMG, First Marine International, and Stellar Carson

3.2.5.2 Plan for International Competitiveness

President Clinton established the Maritech Program in 1993 as an element of the

Five objectives were adopted by Maritech to facilitate pursuit of commercial

• Encourage and support proactive market analysis and product development

3.2.5.3 Maritech Programs

The Maritech Program15 sponsored over 65 projects involving 18 shipyards and

Shipbuilding industry efforts in the Maritech program are displayed in Table 2. A

Table 2. Industry Participation in Maritech

SHIPYARD BUILD DESIGN PROCESS FACILITIES

3.2.5.4 Assessment of Maritech

• Shipyard product development capability established at numerous shipyards

Table 3. Summary of Maritech Industry-wide Projects

Project Title: COMPASS – Component Object Model of Products/Processes for an Advanced

Project Title: MAAST – MAritime Agile Shipbuilding Toolkit

Project Title: SHIIP – The Shipbuilding Information Infrastructure Project

3.2.5.5 Future of Maritech

During the spring of 1997, an effort began to establish a consortium of U.S.

This new program is titled “Maritech Advanced Shipbuilding Enterprise”