Transcript Demo Scenario

Navy Ship
Advanced
Modeling &
Simulation -
NSRP
Projects
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
The Other Project
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 (FSSTIPT) 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)
This NSRP Panel Project
Ship STEP AP Application to
Full-Ship Analysis Model
Generation
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.
FSST-IPT
Overall Background to Both
NSRP Modeling & Simulation
Projects
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)
But Its Not Just Shock!
Hydrodynamics
Acoustics
The Design of Naval
Vessels Involves Various
High-End Computational
Mechanics and
Simulation Needs.
Commercial Ships Also Have Full-Ship Analysis
Requirements
Critical Areas in Ultra-Large Container Carriers
We Have Needs for MultiDisciplinary Modeling &
CAD 3D
Simulation (M&S)
Design
Environments Which Support
Varied Requirements
De-Feature, Heal,
Mid-Surface
Stress
Analysis
Shock
Analysis
Analysis
Context
Analysis
Context
Common Abstract
Analysis Model
Related Modeling &
Simulation Efforts
Acoustic
Analysis
Analysis
Context
We Need to Consider Multiple Design Stages or
Phases (Concept, Preliminary, Detailed, …)
We Need to be More Nimble and Agile in
order to Support Various Programs and
Ship Systems (Classes)
Examples of CAD System Usage
EB
DS / CATIA V4 MEC
DS / CATIA V4 AEC
DS / CATIA V5
AutoCAD
PTC / CADDS5
Virginia Class
CVNX (w/ NNS)
DDG1000 (w/ BIW)
SS(G)N
Astute (w/ BAE Vickers)
NGSS
DS / CATIA V5
PTC / Dimension III
ShipConstructor
Intergraph / ISDP
DDG1000 (w/ BIW)
DDG51
USCG Deepwater
LPD17
We believe an Open, Standards-Based Framework with
“Plug & Play” Capability is Required for Efficient Teaming
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)
Limitations of Current Modeling and
Simulation Processes
Designs Developed in
CAD environment
• 3-D Product models
• Surface Models
• 2-D Drawings
80% of
Time
Too Late to Influence
Analysis
• Seaway Loads
• Weapons Effects
20% of
Time
Analysis Modeling Space
• Generate Analysis Model
Geometry from Design
Information
Finite Element Model
• Models built using Shell and
Beam Elements
• Correct Mass Distribution
Required for Dynamic
Analysis
Full Ship Simulation
• Simulation models at this
scale are generally not
automatically created or readily
meshed from CAD geometry.
• Significant “Touch Labor” is
usually required.
SFG
NAVY Ships are a
Highly Complex Product
SSBN
12,000,000 HRS
1,000,000 PARTS
18,750 TONS
SSN
BOEING 777
FIGHTER
AIRCRAFT
LAND VEHICLE
8,000,000 HRS
950,000 PARTS
6,900 TONS
50,000 HRS
103,000 PARTS
254 TONS
MISSILE
5,500 HRS
14,000 PARTS
65 TONS
1,700 HRS
5,000 PARTS
1.6 TONS
AUTOMOBILES
57,000 HRS
30,000 PARTS
10 TONS
INCREASING
COMPLEXITY
23 HRS
3,000 PARTS
1.9 TONS
Labor Hours
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
Parts
Weight
70
80
MANUFACTURING TIME (MONTHS)
15
* Ref.: "The VIRGINIA Class Submarine Program: A Case
Study", General Dynamics Electric Boat, February 2002.
This NSRP Panel Project
Ship STEP AP Application to
Full-Ship Analysis Model
Generation
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.
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.
NSRP Panel Project - Ship STEP AP
Application to Full Ship Analysis Model
Generation
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
Toy Illustrations of Early
Sub Geometry Concepts
Captured as Major Surface
Geometry
NSRP Panel Project
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.
AP218: Ship Structures
AP218 semantics have a decided surface ship flavor.
Does AP218 apply equally well for submarine structures?
Structural System
Tank Structure
AP218 Implicit Geometry is
Advantageous
Parts and Features have Parametric Definitions
Bulbflat Cross Section
T Bar Cross Section
Outward Round
Corner Cutout
Drain Hole Cutout
AP218 Files are Verbose
Will they scale for full-ship scenarios?
NSRP Panel Project – Details
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.
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.
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.
Approach and Scope (Cont’d.):
• Explicit geometry definitions are generally adequate for CADCAE 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?
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)
Backup Slides
NSRP Panel Project
Goal
Scope
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.
Develop and publish an
integrated plan to create a moreautomated capability or system
for rapid generation of FEA fullship 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.
We Need More Balance in Analysis Model
Creation (e.g. FEA)
Geometry is not always the same!
CAD-Centric
CAE-Centric
Nominal CAD
Geometry
Idealized
Simulation
Geometry
Analysis
Model (FEM)
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.
We Need More Balance in Analysis Model
Creation (e.g. FEA)
A Traditional CAD-Centric Process
CAD-Centric
Change
Type or
“Gender”
Idealized
Nominal CAD
Simulation
Geometry
Simplify
Geometry
Idealize
De-Feature
Too Inefficient at Full Ship Scales
Pave
Mesh
Discretize
Analysis
Model (FEM)
We Need More Balance in Analysis Model
Creation (e.g. FEA)
A CAE-Centric Process
CAE-Centric
Nominal CAD
Geometry
Add Req’d.
Features
Idealized
Simulation
Geometry
Pave
Mesh
Discretize
Analysis
Model (FEM)
More Efficient Creation of Shell
Analysis Models
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