1. Navy Ship Advanced Modeling & Simulation - NSRP Projects Navy Ship Advanced Modeling & Simulation - NSRP Projects

2. The Are Two Current NSRP Modeling & Simulation Projects 1.) NSRP RA 06-01: Improved Methods for Generation of Full-Ship Simulation/Analysis Models 2.) Panel Project: Ship STEP AP Application to Full-Ship Analysis Model Generation This Project

3. NSRP RA 06-01: Improved Methods for Generation of Full-Ship Simulation/Analysis Models Description: This project is aimed at reducing the cycle time required to develop large scale full ship analysis models for strength, stress, shock, and acoustic simulation and assessment. It responds to Navy Program Executive Officer (PEO) interest in expanding use of modeling and simulation to reduce costs associated with current methods of ship structural testing and analysis. The team will build on the VIRGINIA program’s success in substituting analysis for at-sea live-fire tests, considerable NSRP prior work in design data interoperability, and prior industry investments in ship design tools. The project team will engage with the Navy Full Ship Shock Trial Integrated Process Team (FSST- IPT) to examine cost effective alternatives to replace open-ocean, large-scale shock trials of surface ships. Participants: General Dynamics Electric Boat, Northrop Grumman Ship Systems, Others (TBD) The Other Project

4. Lead: General Dynamics – Electric Boat Corporation (EBC) Subcontractors: Northrop Grumman – Ship Systems (NGSS) American Bureau of Shipping (ABS) Product Data Services (PDS) Intergraph Corporation (IC) PDS, Inc. This NSRP Panel Project Ship STEP AP Application to Full-Ship Analysis Model Generation

5. Overall Background to Both NSRP Modeling & Simulation Projects FSST-IPT

6. Full-Ship Live-Fire Shock Testing can be Prohibitively Expensive! Computational Mechanics Transient Simulation is one Viable Alternative Has Recently Been Accredited for Virginia Class Submarines by PMS450 (PEOSUB letter 13031 Ser 450/0295 dated 28 Jun 06)

7. The Design of Naval Vessels Involves Various High-End Computational Mechanics and Simulation Needs. But Its Not Just Shock! Acoustics Hydrodynamics

8. Critical Areas in Ultra-Large Container Carriers Commercial Ships Also Have Full-Ship Analysis Requirements

9. De-Feature, Heal, Mid-Surface Common Abstract Analysis Model CAD 3D Design Stress Analysis Shock Analysis Acoustic Analysis Context Analysis Context Related Modeling & Simulation Efforts We Have Needs for Multi- Disciplinary Modeling & Simulation (M&S) Environments Which Support Varied Requirements Analysis Context

10. We Need to Consider Multiple Design Stages or Phases (Concept, Preliminary, Detailed, …)

11. Examples of CAD System Usage We Need to be More Nimble and Agile in order to Support Various Programs and Ship Systems (Classes) DS / CATIA V4 MECVirginia Class DS / CATIA V4 AECCVNX (w/ NNS) DS / CATIA V5DDG1000 (w/ BIW) AutoCADSS(G)N PTC / CADDS5Astute (w/ BAE Vickers) DS / CATIA V5DDG1000 (w/ BIW) PTC / Dimension IIIDDG51 ShipConstructorUSCG Deepwater Intergraph / ISDPLPD17 We believe an Open, Standards-Based Framework with “Plug & Play” Capability is Required for Efficient Teaming EB NGSS

12. Overall M&S Background Need to significantly reduce cost and time for ship modeling, analysis, and simulation Need to address: –Engineering Labor (Navy spends $5B-$7B per year in all aspects of ship design and engineering). –Live Fire Test and Evaluation (expensive, risky, time consuming, environmental approvals increasingly difficult to obtain)

13. Limitations of Current Modeling and Simulation Processes Designs Developed in CAD environment 3-D Product models Surface Models 2-D Drawings Finite Element Model Models built using Shell and Beam Elements Correct Mass Distribution Required for Dynamic Analysis Analysis Seaway Loads Weapons Effects Analysis Modeling Space Generate Analysis Model Geometry from Design Information 80% of Time 20% of Time Too Late to Influence

14. Simulation models at this scale are generally not automatically created or readily meshed from CAD geometry. Significant “Touch Labor” is usually required. Full Ship Simulation SFG

15. NAVY Ships are a Highly Complex Product BOEING 777 BOEING 777 50,000 HRS 103,000 PARTS 254 TONS AUTOMOBILES 23 HRS 3,000 PARTS 1.9 TONS INCREASING COMPLEXITY MANUFACTURING TIME (MONTHS) MISSILE MISSILE 1,700 HRS 5,000 PARTS 1.6 TONS LAND VEHICLE 5,500 HRS 14,000 PARTS 65 TONS FIGHTER FIGHTER AIRCRAFT AIRCRAFT 57,000 HRS 30,000 PARTS 10 TONS SSBN SSBN 12,000,000 HRS 1,000,000 PARTS 18,750 TONS Labor HoursWeightParts SSN SSN 8,000,000 HRS 950,000 PARTS 6,900 TONS 01020304050607080 15

16. * Ref.: "The VIRGINIA Class Submarine Program: A Case Study", General Dynamics Electric Boat, February 2002.

17. Lead: General Dynamics – Electric Boat Corporation (EBC) Subcontractors: Northrop Grumman – Ship Systems (NGSS) American Bureau of Shipping (ABS) Product Data Services (PDS) Intergraph Corporation (IC) PDS, Inc. This NSRP Panel Project Ship STEP AP Application to Full-Ship Analysis Model Generation

18. Panel Project Approach and Objectives Task 1: Define Expanded Use of CAD/CAE Surface Model Representations Demonstrate how the expanded use of simpler surface model representations for Naval vessels (submarines and surface ships) will facilitate the creation of full-ship analysis models, and investigate the dual, concurrent capture of such data, in association with (and updated according to) the evolving more detailed CAD solid product model. Task 2: Address Completeness, Adequacy and Utility of STEP Ship APs Address the completeness and adequacy of the Ship APs (AP216 and AP218) for content sufficient to build full-ship (submarine and surface ship) FEA models. If gaps are found, identify appropriate extensions to these ship APs. AP218 for ship structures is currently skewed for surface ship semantics. AP218's adequacy and applicability for submarine structures will be investigated. Task 3: Develop and Publish Integrated Plan and Recommendations Develop and publish an integrated plan for follow-on phases (potentially with multiple funding sources) to create a more-automated capability or system for rapid generation of FEA full-ship models and a functional description of a more automated Modeling and Simulation environment. Required extensions to ship APs will be identified and reported.

19. NSRP Panel Project - Ship STEP AP Application to Full Ship Analysis Model Generation

20. During Early Concept Design Stages Various CAE-Centric Codes are Employed Significant Amounts of Information are Actually Available Early in the Process Implicit (Parametric) Design Information can be Captured and Made More Persistent Throughout Later Design Stages to Foster Simulation Model Creation

21. Toy Illustrations of Early Sub Geometry Concepts Captured as Major Surface Geometry

22. Assess how the expanded and persistent use of simpler surface model representations for Naval vessels (both surface ships and submarines) will facilitate the creation of full-ship analysis models. NSRP Panel Project

23. AP218: Ship Structures Structural System Tank Structure AP218 semantics have a decided surface ship flavor. Does AP218 apply equally well for submarine structures?

24. AP218 Implicit Geometry is Advantageous Parts and Features have Parametric Definitions T Bar Cross Section Drain Hole Cutout Bulbflat Cross Section Outward Round Corner Cutout

25. AP218 Files are Verbose Will they scale for full-ship scenarios?

26. Approach and Scope: More efficient methods for creation of analysis and simulation models are needed. Analysis and simulation has a role across all design phases (or possibly all lifecycle stages); the earlier the better for concurrent engineering. Both CAE-Centric and CAD-Centric approaches are necessary for analysis model creation, depending on the scale, scope and purpose of the simulation or analysis, as well as the design phase. More persistent use of attributed surface geometry has advantages for creating shell analysis models. AP218 may have particular benefit – need to examine and define. NSRP Panel Project – Details

27. Approach and Scope (Cont’d.): The NSRP ASE/ISE paradigm (use of both or either P21 and/or P28) is accepted (at least by this group). Well-ordered sequences of events exist and apply in shipbuilding design evolution from concept formulation to preliminary design to detailed design. The shipbuilding ISO STEP Application Protocols for data exchange mirror this orderly progression (at least as it pertains to ship structure) AP215-AP216-AP218. AP218 would appear to have adequate ship structure information necessary for the creation of structural ship shell analysis models.

28. Approach and Scope (Cont’d.): Can or does AP218 apply equally well for submarine structural models? Are there any things missing (gaps) in AP218 for use with submarines? If so, we will define and describe them. Do the AP216 and AP218 data models scale appropriately to a full ship? Are there issues - verboseness, duplicity, etc.? Is AP218 too focused on manufacturing? (Four or five of the nine current Conformance Classes for exchange are so defined.) The implicit (parametric) geometry definitions in AP218 are desirable. If anything, they do not go far enough.

29. Approach and Scope (Cont’d.): Explicit geometry definitions are generally adequate for CAD- CAE data exchange, being snapshots at points in time or in design stages. Explicit geometry can be created on-the-fly when needed; e.g. solids-on-demand of the older NNS wsVIVID tool, Intergraph's ISDP & IntelliShip codes, or that briefly demonstrated at the ISE-4 Final Demonstration (4/06). Is the AP218 data model complete enough to form the basis of a persistent CAD-CAE ship structural geometry repository? Or should AP218 be relegated to its current status as a simple data exchange mechanism?

30. Benefits  Reduced cost, faster development of models for simulations of ships and Naval vessels  New approaches may present advantages over traditional forms of finite element model generation employing CAD systems & FEA tools  Reduced M&S cost by employing simpler attributed surface models (throughout the various design process stages)  Leverages recent interoperability initiatives (ISE)

31. Backup Slides

33. Goal Assess how the expanded use of simpler surface model representations for Naval vessels (both surface ships and submarines) will facilitate the creation of full-ship analysis models. NSRP Panel Project Scope Develop and publish an integrated plan to create a more- automated capability or system for rapid generation of FEA full- ship models. Work is underway in other areas to automate ship mesh generation. The purpose of this plan would be to integrate these activities and allow and accommodate the use of the ship APs, and to unify the approach for both surface ships and submarines.

34. Nominal CAD Geometry Idealized Simulation Geometry Analysis Model (FEM) We Need More Balance in Analysis Model Creation (e.g. FEA) Geometry is not always the same! A mechanical engineer, a structural engineer, and a piping engineer may each require different forms of geometry capture. Both CAD-Centric and CAE-Centric processes are needed. CAD-Centric CAE-Centric

35. Nominal CAD Geometry Idealized Simulation Geometry Analysis Model (FEM) Simplify Idealize De-Feature Pave Mesh Discretize We Need More Balance in Analysis Model Creation (e.g. FEA) Change Type or “Gender” A Traditional CAD-Centric Process CAD-Centric Too Inefficient at Full Ship Scales

36. Nominal CAD Geometry Idealized Simulation Geometry Analysis Model (FEM) Pave Mesh Discretize We Need More Balance in Analysis Model Creation (e.g. FEA) Add Req’d. Features CAE-Centric A CAE-Centric Process More Efficient Creation of Shell Analysis Models

37. During Later Detailed Design Stages the Ship Product Model has a Manufacturing Flavor The modern submarine has ~225,000 Structural Parts (of the 1.2 Million Overall Parts) There are Over 5000 Parts in the Hull “Weight Account” Alone At this scale, Extracting All Appropriate Structural Data and Information for Creating Simulation Models can be Onerous and very Time-Consuming