Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
Christopher D. Barry, U.S. Coast Guard Surface Forces Logistics Center, Baltimore MD
Typical Aluminum Small Craft – U.S.C.G. 28 Ft. Ports and Waterways Boat
Powered By Two 150 HP Outboards - Designed In-House, Never Built
ABSTRACT
Aluminum is a commonly used material for powerboats, especially military and commercial craft. It is also possibly the
most common material for recreational boats under 18 feet or so and is well proven in this service, though the design and
construction techniques of these small, light mass-produced craft is different in many respects to that of larger heavier
welded craft.
The advent of computerized design and cutting has greatly reduced the cost of aluminum construction such that in certain
applications aluminum construction is cost effective on a limited production or custom basis as well as for series
production, and that is the reason why aluminum one-off boats are common in commercial service.
I have accumulated a range of more or less random information on the design and construction of these boats, mainly in the
20-65 foot range, for commercial and military use. None of this information is particularly novel, but it may be useful to
other designers. I also have to confess to a substantial degree of self-plagiarization; much of this paper is gathered from
other papers or articles covering specific topics that I wanted to bring together and correlate.
The views expressed herein are those of the author and are not to be construed as representing the views or official
policy of the Commandant, the United States Coast Guard or the Department of Homeland Security.
1
NOTATION
2D / 3D Two Dimensional / Three Dimensional GHSTM General Hydrostatics (stability software)
ABYC American Boat and Yacht Council I/O Inboard / outboard propulsion system
ABS American Bureau of Shipping IGRT International Gross Register Tonnage
AWS American Welding Society JIT Just In Time
Back Set The amount of curvature of a plate in one KG Center of gravity above keel
plane; a cylinder has backset LCB Longitudinal Center of Buoyancy
CAD Computer Aided Drafting (or Design) LCG Longitudinal Center of Gravity
CAGE Commercial And Government Entity code MIG Metal Inert Gas (welding – same as
CAM Computer Aided Manufacturing GMAW)
CGT Compensated Gross Tonnage NCCV Non Cargo Carrying Vessels
CNC Computer Numeric Cutting NSN National Stock Number
COTS Commercial Off The Shelf NVIC Navigation and Vessel Inspection Circular
CFR Code of Federal Regulations OECD Organisation for Economic Co-operation
Double Back Set and Development
A plate with curvature perpendicular to the PDM 3D Product Data Model
plane of the larger backset RFP Request for Proposals
DLR Taylor Displacement Length Ratio: RHIB Rigid Hull Inflatable Boat
WLTon / (0.01 L)3 RHT Rectangular Hollow Tube
DnV Det norske Veritas SAWE Society of Allied Weight Engineers
EPE Expanded polyethylene foam SHP Shaft Horsepower (HP or kW)
EPP Expanded polypropylene foam SNAME Society of Naval Architects and Marine
FEA Finite Element Analysis Engineers
FRP Fiberglass Reinforced Plastic SWBS Ship Work Breakdown System
GMAW Gas Metal Arc Welding TDP Technical Data Package
GSA General Services Agency
INTRODUCTION
In order to make a small fortune, start out with a large one, go into shipbuilding, and quit soon.
Anonymous shipbuilder
Though most of us went into the marine industry because we like boats and ships, as a practical matter someone has to
make at least a little bit of money by designing them and building them, and someone else has to be able to afford to buy
them, use them and maintain them. The designer and the buyer / specifier are the first contributors to the process of
providing a profitable, useful, cost effective boat, and like any other endeavor, this requires a combination of a systematic
approach and attention to details.
The world of aluminum boats comprises a range from the ubiquitous small aluminum skiff and canoes to superyachts
and very large fast ferries and naval vessels. This paper mainly deals with boats in the range of 6 meters / 20 feet to 24
meters / 79 feet, because that is my principal experience in aluminum boats and probably the most diverse market. It also
corresponds to the ISO standards for boats, notably ISO 12217-1 and -2 (for stability) and ISO 12215 (for structure).
“Small”, can be related to a couple of other criteria of interest. Det norske Veritas High Speed Craft code defines high
speed as:
Vknot = Weighttonne 0.1667
A 2,000 lb boat over seven knots is high speed. At a DLR of 100 this boat is 21 feet long, at a DLR of 300, it’s 14
feet. A 109,000 lb boat is high speed at over 13.7 knots and is 24 meters long at a DLR of 100 and a 328,000 lb boat is
high speed at over 16 knots and 24 meters long at a DLR of 300, so virtually all aluminum small craft are also “high
speed”. (The great majority of boats in my weight records have a DLR between 100 and 250 with an average of 185 and a
tendency to be between 125 and 175 as the boats get above 50 feet or so. Unfortunately the standard deviation is 63 and the
R2 statistic is well below 50%, so DLR alone is not a very good weight predictor)
Though small aluminum recreational boats actually comprise the largest market for aluminum boats by far, and are
perhaps the largest segment of recreational boats, the design and construction, (or actually the manufacture) of these boats
2
is very different than that of larger boats. There are some special aspects of these boats that are worth noting, but they are
not a primary topic of this paper. Also the important special aspects of much larger aluminum vessels (such as fire
protection and peculiarities of aluminum structure) have been well treated in the existing literature, especially by the Ship
Structures Committee, and in many ways they are similar to steel ships especially as regards marine engineering systems,
but smaller craft have standards and practices in this area that are odd compared to ship marine engineering.
This paper also mainly considers aluminum boats for military, other governmental and commercial purposes. For a
variety of reasons, aluminum recreational boats between 6 and 24 meters seem to be rare. Thus, some of what is considered
here addresses the specific business issues of military, governmental and commercial boats that only peripherally apply to
recreational boats. (Prospective recreational boat owners should be doing much of the same thinking as commercial
owners, but they rarely do.)
In addition, a fair amount of what is discussed applies to other materials to some extent, but special aspects of
aluminum boat building make them more important. Aluminum boats are generally built in relatively small numbers;
anywhere from one of a given design to a dozen or so, and even on an identical hull, they can be extensively customized.
There are very rare contracts with many dozens of boats. (These contracts are the dream of many builders, though they
have the potential to become a nightmare.) The advent of CAD/CAM has made one off or limited production aluminum
boats cost competitive with fiberglass, at least for hard chine, developable surface hulls, so designs can be much more
variable and specialized to a given owner. (All of this is also true of steel boats, but small steel craft are even rarer.)
The cost of tooling for fiberglass boats requires a builder to plan on many more identical or near identical boats so
they are much more of a commodity product and the design process has to be much more generalized. Fiberglass boats are
much more of a mass-marketed product and have to be designed with a wide appeal, and thus are not closely optimized to a
specific owner’s task. A fiberglass boat is usually designed by the builder to what he hopes is a generally desirable
specification and then offered to the market to sink or swim.
This, at least in my opinion, is a distinction between aluminum and fiberglass and especially “Commercial Off The
Shelf” boats and more or less custom boats; aluminum boats are offered in such limited numbers, and are capable of such
extensive customization, that they are not really ever COTS. There is no “Patrol Boats R Us” dealer that has any aluminum
boats actually on the shelf, they are all made “bespoke”, like a custom suit. (And like a bespoke suit, they fit a lot better.)
Fiberglass boats, on the other hand are essentially COTS. Short run aluminum boatbuilding has a lot more in common with
traditional shipbuilding, though in miniature, than fiberglass boat building, and business and design issues are much more
“big ship”.
The “in miniature” issue is a quantitative distinction with regular shipbuilding, though. This especially applies to
design and engineering. One typical project says it all: A small 49 passenger ferry was to be used for school children on a
Native American reservation. During the summer it would serve tourists. The tribal owner approached a builder in mid
January. After a couple of sketches and studies, a contract was signed in mid February for a mid May delivery. The cost of
the boat allowed about 1800 hours of labor, of which less than 10% was supposed to be engineering, including
development of code for numeric metal cutting. The engineering staff of about four also had other design projects
underway. (The boat was delivered on schedule, made speed and cost, and in giving kudos to the Coast Guard, got through
all the necessary approvals in time.)
The small size and cost of typical aluminum boats usually results in a very short time frame, and very limited
resources for engineering and design (and construction). This puts a priority on getting things done quickly so productivity
of both design and construction is emphasized much more than might be the case for larger ships.
There are several themes going through this paper; standardization, design for productivity, and understanding the
details of each step of production and how they relate to design. Another theme is the responsibility of buyers and
specifiers to understand the details of production, applicable standards and issues of the business of building these boats,
because it is easy for a contracting strategy or a specification to box in builders to the point where they cannot provide a
satisfactory boat at a profit. Though perhaps convenient, it is not a good thing to have only one bidder for a contract to a
public agency (and even worse to have none); it indicates a failure on the part of the acquisition to have done due diligence
with respect to market research and developing a realistic circular of requirements and specification.
Finally, though conventional wisdom holds that any type of ship or boat building is a labor of love rather than a good
way to make lots of money (much like veterinary medicine), it is possible to have a reasonable business that provides a
decent return to investors provided good practices with regard to design and production are implemented. The reason that
this is so is also important. Aluminum boat building in this size range is a lot like house construction or similar businesses;
the tools and equipment to get a business going are not terribly expensive, and the money earned is based on a percentage
of throughput of materials and labor.
One typical builder had a book value of about $1,000,000, much of which was intangibles such as good will and
3
intellectual property (but not even patents). The rest was welding machines, forklifts and small hoists, a few forming
machines, and largely conventional hand and bench tools. Space was leased rather than owned and it wasn’t directly on the
waterfront. Because boats of this size can be transported over the road, at least for the initial launch, or even built in a few
pieces and assembled at another location, waterfront property is not necessarily required, though proximity within a mile or
so of the waterfront is probably a good idea. This also substantially reduces costs. In a good year, this builder was able to
build about $12,000,000 worth of boats at about a 10% profit, so the nominal return on investment was well over 100%.
This might seem surprising, except that is typical for a lot of non-manufacturing “building” sort of business, such as auto
body repair, the various contracting trades associated with land construction and so on. It’s about leveraging investment to
maximize throughput and value added, and taking a percentage of throughput.
This means that for a skilled builder / design team, there is a reasonable possibility of having a business that makes a
tidy profit for relatively little investment, either by growing a very small shop, or by jumping in at an intermediate stage,
presumably with some clever idea as to designs, markets, and production. (And there are a lot of builders that have
demonstrated exactly this.)
There are two other important points: First, leveraging works both ways. A ten percent profit on a substantial
throughput is very nice, but it is another matter to “lose a little bit on each boat, but make it up on volume”. A big loss on
one boat can also put a firm out of business. It is also worth remembering that a loss due to an injury or other product
liability problem can also put a firm out of business, so good design from a viewpoint of rigorous compliance to
specifications and standards, and full documentation of the design and construction is very important to avoid such
accidents and to provide a robust defense in case of an accident.
Another point of this paper is that the better users, maintainers and specifiers understand the processes and problems
of builders and designers, and vice versa, the better, more cost effective ultimate product they will be able to acquire,
produce, operate and maintain. Communication between designers, builders, operators and maintainers is key to a
successful boat.
4
When used as a beam, the breadth of the beam can vary at a constant depth so strength vs. density is appropriate. For
the figures of merit used here a higher figure is better. From this, fiberglass is roughly equivalent to aluminum, (depending
on the exact allowable used) and steel will be much heavier. (Wood is actually far and away the best, but…)
6
Figure 3: Fatigue Properties
As to cost, mass produced fiberglass hulls are inexpensive, but the design is inflexible. With modern CAD/CAM the
cost of a one-off aluminum hull, at least with a hard chine, is nearly comparable to FRP. However, in both cases, the cost of
engines, outfitting and so on is usually the biggest part, and that doesn’t depend on hull material. Aluminum therefore is
probably a better material for a boat that will be heavily used, particularly under abusive circumstances, than fiberglass,
whereas mass produced boats used in light service might be better in fiberglass. This is what the market tells us; we see
few larger aluminum recreational boats, but more working craft.
DESIGN
And this is what you will make it: 300 cubits the length of the Ark…
Genesis 6:15
10
Figure 4; Standardized Systems “Some Assembly Required” (Munson Mfg.)
Standard Designs
This brings up a common (perhaps more common) approach to standardization. Many builders, instead of system by
system standardization offer a series of complete boats of various sizes, and then offer limited customization, such as
choice of engines or electronic packages. This has the advantage that a boat can be exhibited that is very close to what will
be delivered, and prospective owners can have confidence in what they will get and can even make an emotional
commitment to it. The cost of construction, the weights and in some cases the performance (mainly because of weight) are
better established and controlled as well. Conventional wisdom suggests that this approach is a better marketing strategy,
especially for smaller users such as municipalities who may have less specific mission requirements and less expertise in
boat design.
These standard boats, though, are usually one of whatever they previously designed and built for a specific customer
and mission, and may not be the best possible fit to another mission. There is also the risk of “just a few small changes”,
especially added weight, that push the design past its capabilities.
This type of approach is pretty much a necessity for fiberglass boats, but given the flexibility of aluminum boat
construction with CAD/CAM, it is easy to have a few standard boat designs on offer as well as the possibility of a
completely custom design, so both approaches are compatible, at least as far as production.
Initial Weight Estimates
The first sticking point of boat design is weight. You have to know how much the boat weighs in order to size the
hull and machinery, but you have to know how big the hull and machinery is to get the weight. This requires some sort of
wild guess as to the boat weight to get started. This type of guess is usually based on experience with previous boats.
Unfortunately, weight data is jealously guarded by most designers and builders. The weight of small aluminum boats is
also wildly variable, especially because special mission equipment can be a big fraction of the total weight and the basic
configuration is highly variable, such as a small center console vs. a full deckhouse.
There are published algorithms that use a few main dimensions that help provide a starting point, if used with
discretion. Calkins suggests an algorithm based solely on length over all (though it is not clear that length includes the I/O
or outboard drive leg) developed by Hobbs, which depends on whether a boat is “runabout” or a “cruiser”:
Log10 (Weight, lbs) = 2.379 Log10 (L, ft.) + 0.551 (for cruisers)
Log10 (Weight, lbs) = 2.315 Log10 (L, ft.) + 0.434 (for runabouts)
This is plotted in Figure 5 against a variety of actual weights of commercial and military craft (using the hull length
without the outboard, or I/O leg). It is clearly on the light side in most cases, but it suggests this can be used for a
reasonable bound of weight up to about 35 feet or so.
11
Figure 5: Hobbs Weight Estimate
Diadola and Reyling (Diadola, 1991) have suggested a more sophisticated approach using length (assumed to be hull
length), beam, depth of hull and shaft horsepower. The algorithm has constants in English units for sportfishers, motor
yachts and express cruisers and in metric units for fast ferries and patrol boats.
Weight = C1 + C2 L * (B + D) + C3 * SHP 1/2 + C4 *(L * B * D) /100
Table 1; Diadola and Reyling Coefficients
13
Figure 7: Diadola and Reyling Weight Estimate: Actual Types vs. Actual Weights
Standard practice is to put a margin on each item based on the certainty of the weight. SAWE and other sources have
recommended practices based on the source of weight information. Though this is somewhat controversial, I also add a
final margin to the whole group for “unknown unknowns” or as guessed overall margins as discussed below. These will be
reduced in as the design matures.
Hull structure (SWBS 100) can be estimated based on about 80% of the weight per foot of the midships section times
LOA (including “smeared” transverse frames) plus the bulkheads, once a typical midships structure has been calculated.
Deckhouses and similar have to be done in some detail as they are extremely variable.
A second level propulsion (SWBS 200) estimate can be based on fairly accurate weight for catalog propulsion
machinery, especially for outboards, I/Os or jet drive catalog data plus a small margin around 5-10% for foundations and
fuel hose, with the larger value if the fuel tank weight isn’t known (fuel tanks are often not integral structure for small craft;
they are actually forbidden to be integral for gasoline powered boats). I/O installations need another small margin that
includes air intakes, perhaps 15%. Jet or surface drive installations need an addition margin for exhaust as well as intake
engine auxiliaries and so on, add maybe 45% if the margin is on the sum of the catalog weight of the engines and the gears
and 60% on the engine weight only, if there is a gear, but it isn’t known, plus the catalog weight of the jet or surface drive.
Both jets and surface piercing drives need the usual Cardan shaft line added as a specific line item if it isn’t in the unit, but
this is usually small. Conventional propeller driven boats need an additional 100% (on the catalog weight of the engine) for
foundations, intake and exhaust, shafts, struts, propellers, fuel service, rudders and so on or. If the gear weight is known as
well, the margin for all of the rest of the propulsion machinery is nearer 60% additional. (Note that these margins include
items that are not strictly speaking in the 200 SWBS group such as struts, rudders and some propulsion auxiliaries. As
more details on specific items are available, they can be moved to the correct group and the overall margin can be reduced.)
Electrical and electronics (SWBS 300 and 400) are also highly variable, mainly if the boat has generators or large
batteries for small boats, but at the end of the day they will be 5% to 15% of the total ship weight.
Auxiliary systems, outfit, joinery and additional special systems like armament, cranes, fishing gear, oil skimming
gear and so on (SWBS 500, 600, and 700) also need to be checked in detail early, because they are so variable boat to boat;
I know of no simple estimating tools that work over a broad range of boats.
Once the second level weight estimate is done, the weight and hopefully the centers have been established well
enough to re-verify weight and displacement equivalence and to do a check on stability and speed and power.
14
The third level weight estimate is just a hard slog with long lists of actual line items and increasingly small margins.
Most CAD software used to define the CNC code for the structure gives highly detailed and accurate weight and center
data, but it still should be keyed to SWBS groups for future estimating use.
The hard part is the bought bits and pieces in the machinery, electrical/electronic systems, and outfit. This is where a
designer will be grateful for extensive standardization of systems; especially if they were weighed going in. (It is only hard
to convince the shipyard owner that this process is worthwhile until a boat goes overweight. Thereafter, it’s a lot easier to
make a case.) Failing that though, designers should use their copious spare time to go over old weight estimates to refine
internal estimating tools and to squirrel away data on weights of specific items. Again though, the designer’s job is to
present a complete bill of materials so that the boat can be made. If you have the bill of materials, a little more systematic
preparation yields the weights as well.
At this point, the author would like to present a small rant towards equipment vendors. The only thing worse than
making up lists of the weight of numerous small items is searching for the weights in the first place. If I am going to use
your product, I need to know the salient properties of it. This includes weight, centers, connections, patterns and sizes for
mounting fasteners, dimensioned envelopes for the item and any movable parts such as swings or equipment removal,
current draw, compliance to standards, and in the case of Navy or other governmental boats, logistics information such as
NSN and CAGE codes. All of this information is available to you, and you often paid good money to get it. It really isn’t
that hard to put this stuff on your website. Please share.
Limits for Weights
Given that weight data is not particularly accurate at an early stage, the best approach for assuring performance is to
develop an envelope of allowable weight and center rather than repeatedly calculating whether the estimated weight and
center is stable, makes speed, etc. at each stage of weight estimate (and at delivery). It is even better than waiting these
analyses until weighing the boat and inclining it to find out it doesn’t meet criteria. In addition to ultimately saving effort,
it also illuminates the amount of effort needed to estimate and control weight.
Generally stability comprises the most important limits. Most stability software has features that allow the calculation
of a limiting VCG/LCG/weight envelope vs. simple compliance to criteria. In the GHSTM stability software system the
process is to set criteria via a series of “LIMIT” commands and the “KGMAX” command finds the highest KG that just
meets the criteria for user set combinations of weight and LCG (or draft and trim). Remarks specific to this process
(especially to GHS) are worth noting:
There are a wide range of applicable stability standards for small craft, including none. (A stability standard is a set
of individual stability criteria; specific tests or analyses of freeboard, righting arm, etc.) Most workboats falling under
46 CFR SubChapter C, yachts over 20 feet and fishing vessels under 79 feet do not have to legally meet any
standards. However, builders and owners should probably voluntarily impose appropriate stability standards and
ensure the boat meets them. Barry (Barry, 2014) has presented and compared a series of standards for small military
craft including 46 CFR 28.500, which is intended for larger fishing vessels, ISO 12217, which is intended for both
recreational and work boats under 24 meters, Navy standards and some Coast Guard standards for small passenger
vessels, and they are all relatively equivalent in terms of the resultant limits they impose. ISO 12217 has the force of
law for most boats in Europe and commercial craft in Canada, so it is beginning to become a standard of care for
small craft stability. Alternatively, Terremolinos based standards such as the IMO small fishing vessel standards and
46 CFR 170.173 “Unusual Form and Proportion” (and NVICs derived from it for specific boat types) are widely used
for small commercial craft as well and are relatively simple to analyze.
Small boats with large open cockpits can be sensitive to capsizing due to cockpit flooding, and should be checked
against a standard such as ISO 12217 or 46 CFR 28.565 if they are intended to be operated in a seaway.
Some criteria, for example, self-righting (i.e. positive righting arm through 180o roll) can be very sensitive in any
software and may have trouble converging. It may be necessary to set proxy criteria that are less sensitive. (In the
case of self-righting, positive righting arm through 170 degrees or so is usually the best that can be done, because by
definition the righting arm goes to zero at the inverted balanced condition, and is very near zero close to it.)
Especially if proxy criterion were used, the limits determined should be rerun as cases of specific weights and centers
to verify that they are in fact limits.
Small craft often have disproportionately large fuel loads. It is strictly speaking inaccurate to present a limit of weight
and center that is based on damage to fuel tanks without considering that the only way that the boat can be in that
weight condition is with the tanks full. This requires considering runoff out of the tank, but adds levels of complexity.
It can be a problem to deal with fuel runoff analytically in damage cases and even to present limits based on
15
combinations of damage and initial load to small craft operators. It is best, at least at delivery, to set weight limits
based on weights magically appearing onboard with empty fuel tanks, and to leave the resulting margin for the owner
for future weight growth.
GHS starts with whatever KG is currently set, (which may be surprising), and does not try KGs below that, so it is
wise to set the KG to an arbitrarily low value before issuing the command.
Small craft often have limits based on pure freeboard, such as the freeboard limits of ISO 12217-1 or the cockpit sole
height of ISO 11812 or ABYC H-8. These limits are quite easy to develop; simply pin the key points at a fixed
freeboard and do hydrostatics at a series of waterlines rotated around them,
Most small craft are not required to have any protection against accidental flooding except under ISO 12217-1, option
3 or 4 or for recreational boats under 20 feet in the U.S. and Canada. Craft that go into harm’s way or are otherwise
heavily used probably should have such protection, either via foam flotation or subdivision. (The Finnish Maritime
Rules require subdivision for most small commercial craft.) It is also worth noting that most small craft flooding
incidents, including every flooding I have seen of a small craft, did not originate in heavy weather or by hull damage,
but by failure of some internal system (often the toilet) in mild conditions. Aluminum craft are generally quite light
for their volume, so that subdivision is relatively easy; a bulkhead near each end is usually sufficient, except for boats
with long engine rooms all the way aft, like jet or surface drives. These latter boats can generally make subdivision
by some sort of aft buoyancy box, aft deck lockers, or some combination of them, the further aft the better. (This is
why jet boats often have overhangs aft, as well as providing protection for the jet, as noted earlier regarding weight
estimates.)
Floodable length limits can be done in a similar fashion by rocking the boat on a series of waterlines that just meet the
post damage criteria. (Barry, 2004) The displacement and LCB including flooding are also the limiting LCG and
weight before damage. This is often easier for small craft than the tradition floodable length curves because the
location of bulkheads is usually set by criteria other than floodable length, and it is simpler and faster for most
software than iterating on floodable length and displacement. This method (depending on the software) can also deal
with subdivision that isn’t defined by plane transverse bulkheads.
Boats smaller than about 30 feet will generally have foam flotation rather than subdivision, because the subdivided
spaces would be inconvenient and there is a good chance of damage that extends for more than the length of a
relatively small compartment. The main challenge with foam is getting enough flotation aft to support the weight of
outboard or I/O engines. In this case, aft deck lockers or protective overhangs are useful, though mostly filled with
foam. Most outboard boats have lockers adjacent to the splash well and space beneath it, and filling these spaces with
foam is usually required.
Specific to aluminum boats, flotation must be resilient foam such as solid or beaded EPE or EPP rather than pour in
place two part polyurethane. Polyurethane is relatively brittle and the foam against an aluminum shell will crumble as
it flexes, leaving a faying surface that absorbs water (and gasoline) and promotes internal corrosion. Polyurethane
also is highly flammable, produces toxic fumes in a fire, and must be removed prior to any welding. (Polyurethane
can be removed by pressure washing.) It also gives off fumes that can cause respiratory distress to sensitized
individuals when it is poured in for repair. Unfortunately, EPE and EPP cannot be blown in place and must be
purchased as sheets, stacked and cut to fit. This is a substantial increase in initial cost, but it prevents corrosion and
allows the foam to be removed intact for repairs and put back in.
Another important source of limits is speed and power. Resistance and propulsion requirements should be checked
for a range of weight and longitudinal centers, and this is possible with relatively early stage information on hull geometry.
Most aluminum small craft are more or less planing boats and Savitsky, (Savitsky, 1976) and Blount (Blount, 1976) have
developed increasingly sophisticated methods of predicting resistance that are sufficiently accurate for most purposes, given
correct weights and centers. It is also important to check the propulsors. Propeller or propulsor efficiency cannot be
assumed; it is sometimes impossible to match a given engine, gear and shaft configuration with an adequate propeller, so
speed and power calculation needs to include evaluation of reasonable propeller matches at each step. Waterjets also can
have problems making enough thrust, particularly when going through hump. The manufacturer of the jet will generally
provide extensive data on thrust production for a range of impellers based on speed, and engine characteristics. Surface
propellers also have a potential problem at low speeds in that they can overload the engine (Kamen, 1989). Kamen also has
a simple Savitsky-Brown program that is not only useful for surface propulsion, but provides tables of resistance for a range
of any two of any of the variables applicable to a planing boat, which is very convenient for setting allowable limits. There
are many other resistance estimating tools ranging from spreadsheets to integrated programs that offer hull surface
definition and hydrostatics as well.
16
Under “etc.” above, note that weight and LCG position also affects the dynamic stability of a planing boat (Blount,
1991), so LCG should be checked against limits for bow steering and porpoising (Angeli, 1973). Another possible limit is
that most planing craft scantling rules include weight as a parameter and some include trim. The margin by which the
actual structure meets the minimum requirements will determine if this is an important limit. It is also becoming possible
to check seakeeping with simple geometry, (Akers, 1999) though this probably doesn’t usually define a limit on weights
and centers. It can, however, feed into structural design for especially demanding and sophisticated projects (Akers, 2015)
and provide operational speed and sea state limits. There may also be other operational limits such as hoist weight and
perhaps LCG (so the boat doesn’t trim excessively when hoisted on a single point); trailering weight, draft and many other
possibilities, though in most cases only one or two dominate.
The goal is to determine a conceptual three dimensional surface for each limit comprising weight in one axis, LCG in
another and VCG in a third for each limit. (This usually expressed in two graphs, both with weight as the X-axis, one with
VCG as the Y-axis and a series of lines for LCG (or trim) for stability limits, and the other with weight and LCG only for
powering, pitch stability, other criteria.) The surface comprising the lowest portions of each limiting surface controls the
design, and hopefully the estimated weights and centers remain below this surface as the design and construction proceeds,
The relative position of the spots for each load condition, and the limiting curve or surface provides an excellent means of
not only judging compliance, but judging the effort required to ensure compliance.
Design Services
I keep engineering in house so I can get my hands around the designer’s neck.
Anonymous shipyard owner
Some small yards depend on outside design services, mainly because they don’t have enough engineering work to
employ a full time staff or are seeking to reduce overhead. Others have portions of a design staff but farm out some
specialized aspects of design, often stability analysis (at least partly because of the cost of some stability software). The
main problem with this is that any extra design effort is a direct expense, and developmental efforts like weight analysis
and development of specialized standards and software are neglected. Each shipyard needs to define what core expertise to
keep in house, but it is important to understand that the development of weight estimating data, standards, trademarked
designs, and specialized software such as CAD routines or spreadsheets is valuable intellectual property and presumably
was done so it pays off in the long run. The other problem with outside design is that any changes will cost real money, not
staff time. This means that changes, especially changes that might improve production, probably won’t be implemented,
and changes that the customer requires will result in a fight,
One way to work around this problem is to form a long term alliance with a particular design firm. The alliance
should be incentivized by some sort of reward to the design firm when a project goes well. There also has to be some clear
bounds as to what is whose intellectual property and how much of it can be used for other customers.
DEVELOPABLE SURFACES
The vast majority of aluminum boats are more or less developable surfaces. An understanding of developable
surfaces is important to be able to properly use computer surface definition software to produce a fair, readily constructable
hull surface. In fact one inspiration for this paper was various problems observed in the design of aluminum boats because
of use of computer software without fully understanding the implications of developability.
Developable surfaces can be formed from flat sheets without stretching, so the forces required to form sheet materials
into developable surfaces are much less than for other surfaces. Another advantage of developable surfaces is that the
development, or flattened out shape, of such a surface is exact so that they can be cut neat. When other types of surfaces are
expanded (note the difference in terms - “expansion” is flattening out a non-developable surface) the shape of the expansion
depends on the distortion field applied to form it, so that there is no single exact expansion without detailed forming
information.
A developable surface is mathematically defined as a surface with “zero Gaussian curvature”, (Faux and Pratt, 1981)
which means that the largest curvature times the smallest (these are the “principal curvatures”) is zero. This of course
requires that one of the two principal curvatures be zero. The surface must contain straight lines (which have zero
curvature), but it requires more than that - the straight lines must be the smallest (“least principal”) curvature on the surface.
(Unfortunately, “chine” is conventionally used both to mean any edge of a developable surface and also to mean the joint
between the bottom and the side of a boat.)
17
Figure 8: Non-Developable Ruled Surface
A simple experiment helps to understand this. Take three or four rubber bands and stretch them between two pencils,
spaced along the length. With the pencils horizontal, pull them apart to tension the rubber bands. The rubber bands and the
pencils are all straight lines, and they form a plane. If you twist the pencils so that one point is higher than the other, the
pencils and the rubber bands are still straight, but you had to stretch the rubber bands near the ends of the pencils. Despite
the fact that the surface contains straight lines everywhere, it can’t be formed from a plane without stretching the material.
This is because the largest curve is the curve concave up running from the high end of one pencil to the high end of the
other (let’s call this positive curvature). However, the smallest curvature is not one of the straight lines, but rather the
concave down curve from the low end of one pencil to the low end of the other. Since this curve cups in the opposite
direction to the concave up one, its sign is opposite, so it’s negative and hence the smallest. When the two curvatures are
multiplied, the Gaussian curvature is negative, not zero. (Figure 8) This is an important distinction, which often causes
problems for builders and designers. It is not enough for a surface to have straight lines (or rulings); the rulings must be the
smallest curves. The most common problem for builders is when a hull has straight frames that are not parallel. These
forms are not developable. This stretching violates the practical definition of developability: A surface that can be plated
from flat sheet material without stretching the material.
18
Such a surface is a “warped surface”, with negative Gaussian curvature. In general, surfaces with rulings (“ruled
surfaces”) between two curves in space are warped. In fact, there is at most one developable surface between any two
curves and there may be none. Figure 9 shows two edges, specifically co-axial identical circles. On the left is the only
developable surface between these two edges, a right circular cylinder. On the right is a nondevelopable surface on the
same circles created by warped rulings; a hyperboloid of revolution. This surface is formed by connecting evenly spaced
points on two coaxial circles such that the points are not coplanar with the mutual axis. There are rulings at every point on
the surface. The greatest curvature at any point is the hyperbola formed by a section through the surface containing the axis,
but the least curvature is the circle in a plane perpendicular to the section, not the rulings. It has a (numerically) large
negative curvature. The Gaussian curvature is thus non-zero.
19
ruling, the intersection of the two and any other point on the other ruling. This definition gives us the graphic methods of
designing a developable surface, the conic and multi-conic method.
23
the next point. The user must often try various combinations of fan and warp settings to get the desired surface. In addition,
the user can change which end the algorithm starts with and the density and distribution of points on the chines (the
program may place more points in areas with tight curvature). In the common case of a short chine as above, the chines can
be arbitrarily extended. By adjusting parameters, the bad fans can be forced onto the extended portion of the surface. This
portion can be trimmed away, or the curve forming intersection of the surface and the desired end can be added to the short
chine. (This also requires that the software be able to add a hard breakpoint that the search algorithm can span where the
short chine meets the new curve.) Despite this, it is still common to be unable to find a satisfactory surface.
In this case, the old-fashioned techniques can be used to help find a good surface, by either refining the chines or by
determining a few rulings. Once several approximate rulings are found, they can be used to break the chines into segments.
Since each segment will begin and end on a desired ruling, the algorithm will (perhaps with a bit of prodding with warp and
fanning) find a good developable surface close to that intended. In some cases, depending on the capability of the software,
it may be necessary to define surfaces that are in practice developable as double curved surfaces. In this case, the rulings
can be used as some of the network of curves to define it.
DOUBLE CURVATURE
Some vessel types are traditionally constructed with double curvature, at least in some areas. This brings up several
questions; how is double curvature achieved and controlled, how is it defined, and how can a hull incorporating double
curvature be designed to be most economical?
Terminology widely varies from yard to yard and region to region, but the distance between the surface of the plate
and a straight line along one axis of curvature is the "backset" of the plate in that direction. In most cases, the bilge plates
on non hard chine boat will have backsets in the both the longitudinal and transverse direction, (so it is “double backset”)
usually toward the inside of the boat with the transverse backset being much larger. A plate can be rolled to put transverse
backset in a plate, but the problem is putting longitudinal backset in a plate that already has transverse backset. A double
backset plate can't be bent easily out of a flat sheet because some parts have to change length to achieve the double
24
curvature. In the case of a plate with both backsets inboard, like a bilge strake, we must either stretch the middle to form
the bulged out portion or shrink the edges to form the sides. In steel construction, line heating (Chirillo, 1982) is used to
shrink the steel, (in this case, at the outer edges of the plate) but line heating can’t be used on aluminum. Instead we stretch
the middle.
Figure 16: English Wheel (Harbor Freight) Figure 17: Adjustable Sight Templates (Chirillo)
The most common tool for doing the stretching is an English Wheel, which comprises a pair of heavily loaded rollers,
one flat and the other crowned. The crowned wheel pushes into the aluminum, and by virtue of its small radius, (note the
size of the lower crowned roller in Figure 16) produces enough contact stress to slightly thin the metal, and the metal
pushed away causes the plate in the area to expand slightly. The plate is pushed back and forth to produce lines of very
shallow depressions. The tool itself looks like a large C clamp on a stand and has either a screw drive to press the rollers
together, or hydraulics. For small craft usually two operators push and pull the plate from opposite sides of the English
wheel. English Wheels are a common tool for fine auto body work, and are often shop made rather than purchased. (Note
that many users prefer stainless steel rollers for aluminum to prevent corrosion due to particles of steel being embedded in
the aluminum, but in any case, the rollers have to be kept very clean.)
The required shape of the plate is defined by placing a series of “Sight Templates” on the surface as it is formed.
Figure 17). The sight template pointers are set to the transverse backset and the relative height of the series of templates
defines the longitudinal backset; they are called “sight” because they are aligned to the correct curve by visually lining up
targets on the vertical staffs. Most often a laser pointer is used for this. Chirillo provides information on developing and
setting up sight templates and some shipbuilding software has automated features for generating them.
It is worth noting that there is no unique expansion for a plate that will be distorted in order to be formed into a double
backset surface. Plates that will be double curved can only cut neat given the specified distortion parameters. More
specifically, steel is shrunk by line heating and aluminum is stretched, so expansion software has to be able to be able to be
set for only stretch or only shrink, and should have an option for outputting the distortion field and the lines for heating or
wheeling (which are sometimes marked directly on the plate).
However, the difficulty of making double backset plates means that the hull should still have as much surface as
possible developable, with double backset plates and developable surfaces clearly delimited and with the seams between
them defined. Note here that this is an issue also relating to radiused vs. parabolic plates; the edge of a developable plate
will probably have no curvature adjacent to the seam, so if it joins a circular cylindrical plate, the join cannot have second
derivative continuity (whereas a parabolic section might). This sometimes looks slightly off. If such a join is used, it
should be checked in the computer model by “zebra stripe analysis” or by setting the hull as a reflective surface and
rendering it with a featured background reflected in the surface (Rhino3D defaults to a background of the Space Needle).
25
Rolling Backsets
Having a bilge that is part of a circular arc is common practice, but it is worth noting that rolling a plate into a part of
a circular cylinder is not a trivial problem. A circle requires a constant rolling moment be put into the plate. This requires
either rollers that can exert a substantial amount of force, since the moment arm will be small, or a series of closely spaced
“air bends” with a press. There will inevitably be a portion of the plate that is needed to hold the plate edges that will have a
short section with decreasing curvature and a straight section. This part often has to be cut off and discarded. Circular arcs
are more acceptable for transom corners and other deeply curved plates without double backset, and in this case the edges
can be left on if the designer knows their geometry accurately (so the rounded transom corner plate extends beyond the
tangent of the radius). If a straight portion is designed in and left on, it increases the difficulty of getting the plate double
backset. A parabolic backset is done by a three point bend and can be easier to produce, depending on the available
machinery. In this regard it is worth remarking on bow cones. It is can be difficult to produce a bow cone with a zero
radius at one end, and very easy if the small radius is large enough. In all of these cases it is important to understand the
capabilities of the equipment and the press and roller operators in detail; in many cases they can do remarkably work, but
there is no point in making things hard if a more feasible part will suffice. It is also important to be able to present
instructions, and possibly CNC templates to accurately communicate the desired geometry in a form that is easy to use.
Lapstrake Construction
Though perhaps a bit strange, one means of getting a “shapely” traditional hull is lapstrake construction. A lapstrake
hull is just a developable surface with perhaps six or seven chines, so it is not particularly difficult to design. It will require
more welding, but the seam welds will be fillets, not butts and will be faster. The lower outside (“sight”) edges will be
mainly defined by the cut edge, not how the welds meet up, so they may also present a fairer appearance. I have never seen
a lapstrake aluminum hull, but it might have some purpose, perhaps for a sailing yacht. (Lapstrake steel hulls do have a
special niche; “drag” electrodes make fillet welds very rapidly with little weldor skill. Before CAD/CAM the extra cutting
and fitting labor made them uneconomic, but that is no longer the case and the increase in welding speed might cover the
time for the extra welds.)
Also as regards yachts, there are plenty of double curved aluminum sailing yachts, and double curved large motor
yachts are also common, but it is worth wondering if there might be a market for smaller developable surface aluminum
sailing yachts. Developable surfaces add a small amount of wetted surface; hence drag, especially at the lower speeds of
sailing yachts. The chines also add form drag. However, there is a contrary opinion that if the chines are well laid out they
resist leeway for sailing. I am only aware of a few hard chine, mainly home built, aluminum sailboats in the U.S. but they
are more common in Europe, especially sailing yachts in France, and it might be a small niche market.
Small Craft
Aluminum boats under about 6 meters / 20 feet often have double curved hulls, but are made by high volume
production methods, mainly stretch forming. In this case the panel is held at the two ends in the basic transverse shape at
those locations. The panel is then stretched out longitudinally a bit until it becomes plastic and then pulled transversely
against a shaped form that provides the net shape. This is probably not feasible at the lower production rates of larger
boats, but it is worth thinking about, especially considering the opportunities of 3D printing.
There are techniques common for small boat construction that are worth thinking about for larger boats, though.
Small craft frequently use specialized extrusions to join the strakes. For example, the DuroboatTM has a developable hull
and has special extrusions at the gunwale, chine, and keel. The side and bottom sheets slip into grooves in the extrusion
and a plastic wedge is forced in to seal the joints and lock the sheets in. This allows very light plates and hence a very light
and tough boat. This type of joint, even if welded instead of wedge locked, might be useful for some boats.
Some very small craft also make extensive use of structural adhesives, and because adhesives don’t produce welding
distortion, and are becoming stronger and easier to use, may be worth considering for uses such as stiffeners for flat plates.
One interesting idea takes advantage of the rulings in the developable hull surface. The rulings are by definition straight, so
instead of welding curved longitudinal stiffeners onto the plate, U-channels with flanges are glued flange down along the
rulings to stiffen the bottom and sides. (Note here that it is possible to draw a vacuum in a flanged u-channel to get
clamping pressure on an adhesive joint.)
26
STRUCTURE
Structural Standards; NVIC 11-80, DnV, ISO
You ... Must have a code, that you can live by …
“Teach your Children”, Crosby, Stills, and Nash
Small craft of this type can be designed based solely on previous or traditional designs, but it is preferable to have at
least a screening standard for adequate structure, and optimization of design requires some sort of more systematic process.
Rules explicitly applicable to aluminum boats include: NVIC 11-80, (Lusk, 1980); DnV Standard 2-21, (DnV, 2010);
ISO 12215, (ISO 2002); as well as other major classification rules such as Rules … Special Service Craft, (Lloyds, 2012).
Lloyds, ISO and DnV are specifically applicable to boats of the size mainly considered here.
WELDING
Virtually all welding in an aluminum boat is done by GMAW (MIG), but welding equipment and techniques
specialized for aluminum are important. In general pulsed MIG systems should be used for aluminum. These power
supplies automatically rapidly ramp the current up and down so effective metal transfer and good fusion occurs every high
current pulse, but the lower background current reduces heat input (hence distortion) and possible burn through.
It is also important to systematically experiment with the welding parameters (on scrap) and document them. Line
workers should be doing these experiments, not supervisors, because it is also a training opportunity and a part of worker
buy in to processes.
Distortion control
The less weld metal, the less distortion. Welds should be designed to minimize the amount of metal deposited, and
detailed, or carefully standardized. This also reduces cost. Welds sizes should be should be calculated against a structural
code or a reference such as “Fabrication, Welding … Craft Hulls” (NAVSHIPS, 1971) or one of the documents that
replaced it (unfortunately, most of them are limited distribution). In particular, intermittent welds tend to minimize
distortion, but a longer, smaller intermittent weld has more throat area (hence strength) per metal cross section than a
shorter, larger one. The length of a weld is less significant for welding time than the number of welds, so this also can
reduce operating factor.
It is also very important to make sure weldors follow processes and accurately size welds to control distortion:
It is tempting for a weldor with a MIG gun to just run a single long pass rather than an intermittent weld.
Backstepping is an important procedure that also is a bit inconvenient with MIG. Long welds like seams
should be run as a series of relatively short runs, less than a foot, with the weld direction opposite the step
order. For example a first step is made starting six inches from the right side of the seam, running right. The
next pass is started six inches from the left end, running right again to the start point of the previous weld,
and so on.
33
All weldors should have weld gages and know how to use them. One tongue-in-cheek shipyard sign notes the
“top ten” cures for welding distortion: All ten are “Never Overweld”.
Other procedures as to the order of welds on the overall structure and so forth are well known, but they have to
be documented and be readily available to the weldors in order to be effective.
Note that training is a big part of this, and that is the reason that weldors should participate in the experiments and
tests proposed above.
One very interesting possibility involves vibrational weld relaxation. This process vibrates a structure at specific
frequencies, monitoring the response. This is supposed to release welding stress and distortion. I don’t know of any
systematic experiments on typical small aluminum craft weldments, but it would certainly be a good topic for Ship
Structures Committee or the National Shipbuilding Research Program.
36
Design for Outfit
We always make money on aluminum, but outfit eats our lunch.
Anonymous shipyard owner
Optimizing outfitting is at least as important an opportunity to improve productivity as structure, perhaps more.
Outfitting is also an important source of unexpected cost overruns and schedule delays. As an example, it seems that for
the last few weeks of work on a typical aluminum boat, it is impossible to move without tripping over an electrician,
usually in some awkward position trying to pull cable. It is the designer’s responsibility to keep outfitting in mind and to
design for it.
Electrical outfit provides one simple example: Most electrical outfit is in an overhead. The overhead can be designed
with a pair of deep girders close to center running as far fore and aft as possible, instead of beams across the full width
(with stanchions as necessary). The transverse beams run outboard from the girder and the center span is short enough so
that the transverses between the beams are either unnecessary or very small. This provides a central channel for all of the
wiring so that it doesn’t have to be pulled through the beams. The wiring can be put up in one big harness with only
smaller wires going through the deep girders outboard when required.
One other strategy that can be borrowed from big ship design is similar; systems are assigned “rights of way”; routes
through the boat that are designed in at an early stage so that interferences are minimized. On block outfitting is another
big ship idea.
Designers need to consult closely with yard trades to find out what they need and what is difficult, and then working
together, develop standardized (yes, again) solutions to design for outfit. Outfit is too cumbersome and expensive to be left
as an afterthought.
It is also worth remarking that any standard or practice needs to be developed with input from all of the stakeholders,
especially the trades. Each yard will have developed expertise in certain ways of working, relationships with suppliers and
so forth and these have to be respected, and hopefully built on rather than being arbitrarily replaced.
LEAN MANUFACTURING
Lean Manufacturing is the current term for various practices to improve productivity. Most of these practices are
derived from the “Toyota Production System” and comprise a unified approach to continuous improvement, with ‘Do it
right the first time’ being the fundamental goal of this process.
Lean manufacturing was originally mainly considered applicable to mass production, (though Hann originated much
of it as a consultant to the Japanese shipbuilding industry). The application of Lean to “High Mix Low Rate” production
requires more thought, and again, standardization is one of the keys to getting the most out of Lean in small shipyards
because it brings many elements of mass production into limited rate boat building. Though a 3D Product Data Model is
not absolutely required for some elements of Lean, it is an import “automating” tool.
The key elements of Lean are:
• Kaizen – continuous improvement
• Just In Time – reducing on hand inventory and costs associated with value of money, warehousing and
inventory control
• Takt time – cycle time for manufacturing a product
• Cellular Manufacturing and Palletization – building like components in standardized workstations, and
grouping materials for assembly as pallets or kits.
• 5S and the Visual Workplace – Cleaning up and organizing. 5S derives from the five Japanese terms Seiri,
Seiton, Seiso, Seiketsu and Shitsuke. The English translation is Sort, Set in Order, Shine, Standardize and Sustain.
• Six Sigma – an analytical, data driven approach to process improvements
Effective use of the Product Data Model, especially with system standardization, enables a number of Lean activities,
which could be of particular benefit to boat builders seeking to increase or improve an already tight profit margin. The
main aspects of the PDM that enable Lean are the ability to readily break the whole process into small work process, the
ability to link these processes to resources, and the ability to visualize products and processes that have not yet been made.
This last part is what brings Lean from mass production into custom production. Some of the benefits are described as
follows:
Kaizen
Continuous improvement in production starts with engineering. The PDM design process provides an opportunity to
improve the quality and quantity of output from design to production. Quality improvements include model reviews in 3D,
3D assembly drawings, incorporation of multiple systems in easy to read and understand views, detailed and accurate bills
of material, precise dimensions, and incorporation of accuracy control tools into the drawing output. In general, the PDM
is an enabler for engineering kaizen. For example, the workforce will probably find unanticipated uses of the PDM.
However, every successful implementer of kaizen notes that cultural issues are very important. There has to be an
atmosphere of trust and cooperation to enable and motivate the workforce.
41
Just-in-Time
Just in time can have many connotations in boatbuilding, including but not limited to purchasing, manufacturing and
delivering. From the small boat builder’s perspective the most important aspect of just in time is the impact on cash flow.
The PDM is a valuable enabler of JIT philosophies, if it is implemented correctly and the PDM, can be a powerful
scheduling tool. The PDM enables a build strategy to develop a logical assembly sequence. By defining the fabrication,
assembly and installation steps as individual activities (an activity is a combination of labor and material to produce an
interim product), material becomes associated with the proper stage of assembly. The production activity is planned based
on back scheduling from the vessel delivery date, and the material order date is calculated by subtracting the lead time from
the need by date.
Properly planning the PDM development using a build strategy concept enables concurrent engineering practices,
which are critical given the short schedules of small boat builds.
Takt Time
Takt time is a standard unit of time. The word means “beat” in the musical sense (in German). Each task is worked
into an integral takt time. The key to takt time is the notion that processes can be broken up and assigned resources such
that each step takes one similar time cycle. This keeps processes in phase. Standardized elements with their information
linked into a PDM help enable takt time.
Kanban
Kanban is (pronounced “con bon” – sometimes “Card Order Notice – Build On Notice” in the U.S.) is an important
part of just in time, and requires takt time as well as small specific work packages. The term means “signal card” in
Japanese. The classical kanban system uses one or two cards attached to an interim product. When the product is moved to
the next stage of processing, the cards are returned to earlier stages, thereby signally the early stages to replenish the supply
of this product.
Because kanban is associated with repeated replenishment of a repetitive product in mass production, it has not been
widely considered for shipbuilding. However the PDM allows a variety of kanban systems, especially with standardization
of small systems.
Use of the generic one card system requires that a work order be available. Fortunately, work order data is contained
in typical work tree information in the database associated with the PDM. In this tree (generated as the product model was
defined by the designers), piece parts are built into assemblies, which are built into modules, and so on, forming an inverted
tree.
Another system, called a “kanban sequence table” could also be considered. This uses a board with three rows in
different colors, red for highest priority, yellow for less urgency and green for other priority, and columns for product type.
A returned kanban is put on the left side, in the row indicating priority and cards to start new work are picked up from the
far right, red row first.
One possible system for boat builders is the “clipboard” system. Real clipboards are marked specific to a given
process, such as the CNC cutting table. When parts are cut, the kit instruction for using those parts is passed on the
clipboard to the next stage with the parts. When the next stage is done assembling them, part of the instruction sheet is torn
off and filled out with time and other data and set for collection. A new instruction for the next stage is put on a clipboard
for that work stage and the empty cutting clipboard is returned to the CNC table, which meanwhile has picked another work
instruction and clipboard off its kanban sequence board. There are also computer kanban systems.
The point of any kanban system is that work is pulled through the system by end stage demand rather than being
pushed to produce “just in time” production. Use of kanban also reduces scheduling effort by management, since in
general, tasks need only be ordered correctly, not timed. With a motivated, cross-trained workforce, kanban will also allow
workers to speed up the schedule, because they will not wait on work.
Cellular Manufacturing and Palletization
Further customization and development of in house standards allows the designer to assign intelligent part coding
conventions or to populate other databases which then allow planners to group components in a variety of ways, including
work content, facility requirements, need by dates and module assignments. Part coding is standard practice for the
machining industry but is underutilized in most small boatyards. However it will promote maximum efficiency across the
boatyard, especially through information for process and design changes (i.e. kaizen). In the case of welded components, a
part is characterized by its size, (hence the lifting resources required) whether or not it is flanged or otherwise formed,
42
whether it is a part comprised of two other parts that have to be welded together, if it is a part that will be outfitted in some
way before it is aboard the boat, or installed as is on the final boat, and so on. This related to the “parts tree” concept.
One example from a now bankrupt boat builder illustrates this: The builder made reinforcing rings to pass cables
through beams. These rings were aluminum flat bar bent into an oval on a general purpose press brake, then welded into a
hole. They cost several hours of labor each. Though the purchase of a special machine might seem a solution, the first step
would be to interrogate the PDM and determine if one or two standardized ring sizes could be purchased in bulk from a
specialist manufacturer for a few dollars each. Another answer would be to carefully examine the PDM and determine if
the ring could be designed out by not passing cable through the beam. This would also save enormous amounts of labor
pulling cable.
A simple example from another yard was based on carefully tracking resources, labor and costs through application of
cellular concepts, small work pallets and an early PDM: This enabled very detailed information on welding costs in an
integrated computerized bidding system, and good information on required plate sizes from the PDM. Discount lots of
short aluminum plates were frequently available, but they would require more welding labor due to extra seams. However,
the purchasing agents had detailed information readily available on increased welding costs that would allow them to
determine exactly the total cost of a discount plate and thereby make a profitable bid. At this point it is also becoming clear
the interrelated nature of each technique – controlling standardized pallets by kanban in takt time is certainly enhanced by
data derived from the PDM.
5S and Six Sigma
The PDM by its very nature organizes the work content of a boatbuilding project. Sorting, Setting in Order and
Standardizing are all enabled by the use of a PDM to design and define the vessel. The problem that most organizations
encounter with 5S is always in the last S – sustaining.
One of the core tenets of Six Sigma is statistical process control – identifying out of control situations and bringing
them back into specification. Six Sigma also effects quality, which in boatbuilding is often related to accuracy control.
Integrating the PDM data with Six Sigma process templates provides boat builders with a data centric methodology to
identify out of control processes, and to record measurements for accuracy control and any necessary remedial actions.
Examples of this can be found in the accuracy control matrix on assembly drawings, where the diagonal design dimensions
for panels and assemblies are identified, and spaces are reserved for recording actual measurements. By linking statistical
process control systems with the product data model, the boatyard has a tool to effectively use Six Sigma principles to
improve efficiency, accuracy and product quality.
Productivity Benchmarking
In order to gauge improvement, there have to be benchmarks. Internal bench marks are useful, but they only work
well for highly similar designs, and don’t provide any competitive information. Fortunately there is a well established
system that yields a key metric, manhours per compensated gross tons. This is based on the International Gross Register
Tonnage of a vessel using an OECD (OECD, 2007) formula that adjusts the tonnage to account for vessel size and
complexity by type. This process probably doesn’t work correctly for very small craft relative to the cost of tankers, for
example, but it allows consistent metrics so that progress can be measured internally.
International Gross Register Tonnage is not related to weight, it is based on all of the internal volume of the boat, hull
and deckhouse, without any curious deductions or exemptions of various traditional systems. (So a good estimate is
available early in design.) Specific definitions of tonnage measurement are in MTN 01-99 (U.S.C.G., 2005)
IGRT = ( 0.2 + 0.02 log10 V ) * V (where V is the internal volume in cubic meters)
Compensated Gross Tonnage is then
CGT = A * IGRTB
A and B are defined for a wide range of cargo ship types, but only four are applicable to small craft builders:
Ferries: A = 20, B = 0.71
Fishing vessels: A = 24, B = 0.71
Non Cargo Carrying Vessels (NCCV), A = 46, B = 0.62
and possibly
Passenger ships: A = 49, B = 0.67
Unfortunately, there is little agreement on factors for warships, but it is unlikely that they would be applicable to
43
military small craft anyway.
It is a bit difficult to prise out data on shipyard productivity, but what can be found is illuminating. Most U.S. small
yards are near 45 to 50 MH / CGT. The world’s best shipyards are as low as 9 but mostly around 15. My records for one
small aluminum boat builder that was very successful was about 15 as well after a year of rigorous productivity
improvement (based on boats typed as either ferries or NCCV). Though this latter figure may not well predict how that
yard might build a bulk ore carrier, it is at least a consistent measure internally and was reflective of that yard’s ability to
price its boats competitively.
Each yard should track hours and try to establish its own productivity in this system. It may be advantageous, once
enough data is available, to establish special coefficients, but it doesn’t really matter as long as the data is consistent.
Cost / Price Estimates
There are a number of cost and price estimating models, in the literature but the system above yields a remarkably
simple early stage cost and price model for U.S. construction:
1. Calculate IGRT based on estimated volume; (at a very early stage, use the simplified U.S. tonnage system
(U.S.C.G., 2005) to estimate volumes).
2. Calculate CGT
3. Calculate manhours based on about 50 MH / GT
4. Calculate labor cost at about $80 / MH (as of 2016)
5. Double that to account for material
6. Add in any high cost items such as engines, cranes, etc. at retail
7. Add in 10% for builder profit
This will probably be a reasonable price, though very small one-off complex boats, very fast boats or other special
cases might be well above this. It is wise to look at any recent public data of contracts for similar craft as a sanity check.
Then deduct standard labor productivity and cost, and replace it with your yard’s productivity and cost (don’t change the
material based on your labor; engines and aluminum cost the same no matter how productive your labor is). Other cost
estimates should also be used as soon as enough data is available, and any bid should be based on a systematic database
using standardized work packages and other detailed data.
People Cells
A practice related to worker buy in, Lean and cellular manufacturing is to group work in multi-trade teams of people
cells or modules. A cell in cellular manufacturing is conventionally an area with a variety of machines grouped to produce
a particular interim product. For example instead of having rows of drill presses, and further on a row of lathes, there is
drill press, a lathe, a milling machine and other tools dedicated to producing a particular part in a dedicated cell. A people
module or people cell puts together a team of cross trained trades to accomplish a particular task on a module or on board;
the cell goes to the product, but the concept is the same. People cells also facilitate gain sharing; incentivizing workers to
improve production through targeted bonuses. Turner (Turner, 2002) presents a case history of productivity gains through
this process for a series build of small buoy tenders.
BUSINESS ISSUES
Markets
Governmental users are an attractive market for aluminum boat builders. These include the military, other federal
governmental agencies such as Customs, National Parks, NOAA and Army Corps of Engineers, and state and municipal
agencies such as police, fire departments and port authorities. An important attraction for some federal contracts, especially
military, is the possibility of multiple orders. These contracts often come with other costs such as logistics documentation
support and long term warrantee and parts support which should be fully understood and accounted for in a bid. Many
other federal and some state and local contracts are placed through the General Services Agency, which acts as a
purchasing agent, (sometimes called “Amazon for governments”). Boat builders interested in these markets need to fully
understand the GSA process.
Commercial workboats include fishing vessels, oil and gas industry service craft, bar pilot boats and a wide range of
very specialized craft such as survey boats, boats that work on objects at sea, oil skimmers and the like. Many of these
missions are highly specialized and benefit from a customized design.
Landing craft are a good example of a specialized workboat niche market that is dominated by aluminum boats, and
are a good example of the need for mission specialization: Many port authorities, dam operators, and other organizations
44
that manage waterfronts need to carry bulldozers, cranes, fire trucks and other vehicles or specialized heavy equipment
across bodies of water. Overall weight is often critical because of the need to get the boat to a remote body of water in the
first place or otherwise maintain it in service with limited facilities. The mission of these boats is also generally draft
limited, because it often involves loading the vehicle over a beach or otherwise operating in shallow water, so weight is
again critical. The unique weight, center and envelope of the equipment the boat carries is often very specific, so a boat is
designed around a bulldozer. Each such boat tends to be unique in terms of many aspects of hull form so only aluminum
construction provides light weight and design flexibility.
The design of these boats may also present challenges in hydrostatics in terms of stability while afloat. In general, the
bulwarks of the boat will need to provide significant buoyancy and may need foam flotation. The deck should also be
designed to constrain the transverse movement of the vehicle to a significant angle of heel, preferably without any tie
downs or other components that the crew might be tempted to skip for just a short trip. Remember that if the vehicle slides,
it doesn’t just change the transverse center of gravity, it puts energy into roll, so the extreme instantaneous angle of heel
will be larger than the eventual static angle of heel; use energy based stability criteria for movement of the vehicle. The
boat also has proportionately an enormous cockpit, so free surface of water on deck is critical. The deck must drain fast,
and the boat should pass some kind of energy based criteria for water on deck. One such criteria is 46 CFR 28.565, for
fishing boats, but it might be very difficult to get this to pass unless the bulwark has a partial low point (probably aft) to
spill out the water with heel.
The other hydrostatics problem is getting the boat up onto the beach to load the vehicle light but still being able to get
the boat ungrounded when the vehicle is loaded. This may require ballast tanks or, more often, the owner has to be
convinced that he needs a longer boat than just the bulldozer length, because the most straight forward way of getting off
the beach involves driving the dozer all the way aft to get the bow of the boat loose. This means that the boat should be
designed to run in the aft trim condition so the bulldozer doesn’t have to be moved again once the boat is floating. This in
turn often requires creative solutions for control spaces, engine ventilation and so on so the deck is clear the full length as
well as hydrostatic analysis of the boat in the grounded condition and both trim conditions. (One specialized landing craft
carried live sheep – a “trot on, trot off” boat. Presumably the heeling moment due to loose sheep was considered during
design.)
Many small passenger vessels are aluminum. Fishing charter boats are a good candidate for aluminum as are dive
boats, so that they can get on the fishing grounds or a dive site quickly. Other small passenger boats include specialized
ferries like the river “school bus”, mentioned previously and tour boats. Larger ferries are also often aluminum, but it is
worth noting that U.S. passenger vessels with over 149 passengers are regulated under SubChapter K, which requires fire
resisting structure “equivalent to steel”, so the structure must have fire resistant insulation. This is not a trivial problem and
adds cost and weight. Builders should approach their first “K boat” with caution.
Ocean renewable energy is a new market for aluminum boats. There are several builders of aluminum boats
specialized for carrying personnel to offshore wind turbines in Europe and at least one in the U.S. The problem here is
similar to that of taking personnel to oil rigs; the transfer from a small boat moving with the waves to a fixed structure is a
potentially dangerous process (especially since a turbine is unmanned and can’t pick workers off the boat deck with a crane
basket). This is an opportunity for inventors of clever boarding systems. Another form of ocean renewables is kelp. It is
currently used as source of food additives (mainly thickening agents for jelly, candies, ice cream and cosmetics) and is a
actually a significant market for specialized harvesting vessels in Ireland and France. Recent work has found ways to use
kelp as a biofuel feedstock.
The recreational market has largely resisted aluminum boats over about 18 feet except for a few large inland lake
houseboats. This again might be an opportunity if the right market and branding can be found; one builder was developing
a center console quasi-military RHIB type aluminum boat for offshore fishing, as a safer, more rugged alternative to
conventional FRP boats (the large RHIB market, though mainly in FRP, also seems to be a good one in Europe, Australia
and New Zealand).
Cost Control / Production Planning / Work in Progress
One key to good business management is accounting for funds and progress. Shipyards almost always have work in
progress, and accounting for this properly is required to maintain control of finances. By breaking a construction process
into well defined, short term pallets and linking the PDM database to an ERP system, accurate control and assessment of
progress is possible, and adverse trends can be spotted, corrected, or accounted for. This is especially important for larger
boat orders (either multiple boats, or larger boats) because owner changes are common, and rarely accurately priced. The
shipyard often fails to charge enough for delay and disruption of the schedule and thereby loses out.
45
It is also critical to track actual costs accurately. This requires short period well defined work orders (using
standardization and the PDM, yet again). There are a number of useful methods of getting accurate data; welding data can
be captured by adding a timer that tracks full weld power on vs. real time, and time with the machine on, but not at full
power. This gives the operating factor. Since the time of actual weld power on can be determined by the amount and type
of weld, this allows labor cost predictions. Returned work orders should also have hours, so time for fitting, moving things
and so on can be captured. However, getting good data requires building trust and getting workers to buy in the process so
they don’t think it is an attempt to spot “goofing off”. It has to be emphasized that this is a way to improve bidding and
improve processes, and the way to do this is to involve workers in the bidding process up front, by listening to their ideas
on how to improve work processes, and by gain sharing (note that if you don’t measure work accurately, you can’t know if
there are any gains to share).
Hedging
Hedging is a common business practice to reduce risks in costs due to fluctuations in materials prices and was
originated by food processors to stabilize costs of commodities such as wheat so their retail prices could be stable. This is
why commodities markets such as the Chicago Board of Trade exist. Some boat builders have hedged aluminum when its
price has been particularly volatile to protect themselves. This is done by buying a future contract, or an option on a future
contract, for aluminum on one of the commodity markets. The builder isn’t actually going to take delivery of the aluminum
in question, instead the contract is sold (if the option is exercised) just as any other trader does. If the price of aluminum
goes up, then a builder might lose out by buying more expensive metal, but the option covers the loss, and if metal prices
go down, some money is lost on the option, but there is a gain on material cost. This strategy is appropriate in the case of a
contract for multiple boats over some time or other cases where production is reasonably predictable and boat sale price
stability is important. It also requires some level of sophistication and should not be undertaken as a means to make money
on its own unless a builder has a full understanding of processes like “contangos”, and has deep pockets (I don’t have either
– don’t ask me). It is also worth noting that there is no established commodities market for marine alloys, so there is still
some risk on an arbitrage between commercially pure metal and marine alloys.
Hedging is much more important to builders (especially outside of North America or Europe) who might be selling
boats or buying supplies in currencies other than their own. It would be easy for a small currency shift to turn a profit into a
loss. It may also be important for U.S. builders selling into foreign markets. Though forcing a customer to pay in the
builder’s currency is one solution, another is to get a future option on the foreign currency on a FOREX market, (keyed to
planned progress payments) which might lift a barrier to a potential customer.
Proposals
The importance of the government contracts in the aluminum boat market is worth a few remarks on developing
proposals, though there is a great deal more to be said about successful proposal development: First, the rules for
responding to a proposal, and for the government to evaluate them are very clear and rigid to ensure a good value for the
government and a fair process for the bidders. If you intend to bid on federal contracts, know the process and the rules.
There are numerous references that explain the Federal Acquisition Regulations and the Defense Acquisition Regulations in
more or less detail, and they are worth some study, especially as understanding the process that evaluators have to use.
Needless to say, the process by which a specific proposal will be evaluated and has to be made is detailed in the RFP
and should be adhered to. In particular, if it isn’t in your proposal it doesn’t count, so make sure you say everything that
you want the evaluators to know about your boat. One good tool, at least for internal use in developing the proposal, is a
compliance matrix, which lists each feature the specification calls out, how your boat meets it, and where in the proposal it
is covered. If allowed by the RFP, it is worth including in the proposal.
Literally the final part of a proposal is the “Red Team”. This is a group of subject matter experts that hopefully
reflects the government evaluators. Their job is to find everything wrong with the proposal, so they must be free to speak
truth to power and can’t have been involved in the development of the proposal. The most important reason they are
needed is because a proposal team knows too much about the boat and may forget to mention it clearly in the proposal; it is
obvious to them, so this is a key to selecting a Red Team.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I would like to note that this paper owes whatever good ideas it has to the many people I have worked with through
the years on various boats; Coast Guard military personnel, Coast Guard Yard and SFLC personnel, Coast Guard
engineering and acquisition personnel at HQ and the various support commands, various paper co-authors, the teams at
46
Munson, Elliot Bay, Lee, MonArk, Black Lab, ShipConstructor and many other builders and designers, and all of the
people at SNAME who devote their time to promulgating knowledge about ships and the sea. The silly stuff is my own.
REFERENCES
ABYC, “Propeller Shafting Systems”, Standards and Technical Information Reports for Small Craft, Project P-6, American
Boat and Yacht Council, July 2002
ABYC, “Reboarding Means … Lifelines”, Standards and Technical Information Reports for Small Craft, Project H-41,
American Boat and Yacht Council, July 2009
ABYC, “Seacocks, Through Hull Fittings and Drain Plugs”, Standards and Technical Information Reports for Small Craft,
Project H-27, American Boat and Yacht Council, July 2008
Akers, R., “Dynamic Analysis of Planing Hulls in the Vertical Plane”, New England Section, Society of Naval Architects
and Marine Engineers, 1999
Akers, R., Structural Load Prediction for High Speed Planing Craft, SSC-471, Ship Structure Committee, 2015
Angeli, J., “Evaluation of the Trim of a Planing Boat at the Inception of Porpoising”, Spring Meeting Proceedings, Society
of Naval Architects and Marine Engineers, 1973
Barry, C., “Watertight Subdivision in Sailing Yachts”, Small Craft Sailing Panel Newsletter, Volume 1, Society of Naval
Architects and Marine Engineers, June 2005
Barry, C. and Hirsimaki, P., “Comparison of Stability Standards for Military, Paramilitary and Other First Responder Small
Craft”, Fourth Chesapeake Power Boat Symposium, Society of Naval Architects and Marine Engineers, Annapolis, MD
June 2014
Beach, Nappi & Sielski, David W. Taylor Naval Ship Research and Development Center Report DTNSRDC-84/015, 1984
Blount D. and Fox, D., “Small Craft Power Predictions”, Marine Technology, Society of Naval Architects and Marine
Engineers, Nov. 1976
Blount D. and Codega L., Dynamic Stability of Planing Boats, Fourth Biennial Power Boat Symposium, Society of Naval
Architects and Marine Engineers, Miami FL 1991
Bushfield, H., Cruder, M., Farley, R., Towers, J., “Marine Aluminum Plate - ASTM Standard Specification”, Society of
Naval Architects and Marine Engineers, 2006
Calkins D., “Interactive Computer-Aided Design Synthesis Program for Recreational Powerboats”, Transactions, Society
of Naval Architects and Marine Engineers, 1983
Chirillo, L., D., The National Shipbuilding Research Program: Line Heating, Naval Surface Warfare Center CD Code 2230,
1982
Det Norske Veritas, Standard for Certification No. 2-21, Craft, April 2010
Daidola, J., Reyling, C., “Weight Definition and Control for Fast Craft”, Marine Technology, Society of Naval Architects
and Marine Engineers, Nov. 1991
Faux, I. D. and Pratt, M. J., 1981, Computational Geometry for Design and Manufacture, John Wiley & Sons
Henrickson W. A., Spencer J. S., “A Synthesis of Aluminum Crewboat Structural Design”, Marine Technology, Society of
Naval Architects and Marine Engineers, Jan. 1982
ISO, Small craft — Hull Construction and Scantlings, International Standard ISO 12215, First Edition, 1 May 2005
Kamen, P., and Railton, D., “Application of Surface Propulsion Systems” Northern California Section Society of Naval
Architects and Marine Engineers, Mar. 1989
Kilgore, U., “Developable Hull Surfaces”, Fishing Boats of the World, Food and Agriculture Organization, U.N., 1967
Leake, J. M. and Calkins, D. E., Small Ship Productivity, Journal of Ship Production V. 12, No. 2, 1996
47
Lloyds Register, Rules and Regulations for the Classification of Special Service Craft, July 2012
Lusk, C. T., “Structural Plan Review Guidelines for Aluminum Small Passenger Vessel”, Navigation and Vessel Inspection
Circular (NVIC) No. 11-80, 9 October 1980
Mercier, L., Byington, T., Senkwic, W. and Barry, C. (1997) “Implementation of Integrated CAD/CAM Systems in Small
and Medium Sized Shipyards: A Case Study”, Ship Production Symposium, Society of Naval Architects and Marine
Engineers, New Orleans, LA, April, 1997
Miller, P., “Fatigue Prediction Verification of Fiberglass Hulls”, Marine Technology, Volume 38, Number 4, Society of
Naval Architects and Marine Engineers, October 2001
NAVSHIPS, Fabrication, Welding and Inspection of Metal Boat and Craft Hulls, NAVSHIPS 0900-060-4010, Jan. 1971
Nolan, T. 1971, “Computer Aided Design of Developable Surfaces”, Marine Technology V. 30, No. 4, April 1971
OECD, Council Working Party on Shipbuilding, Compensated Gross Ton (CGT) System, OECD Directorate for Science,
Technology and Industry (STI), 2007
Oetter, R., Barry, C., Duffty, B. and Welter, J. (2001), “Block Construction of Small Ships Through Use of Developable
Panels”, Journal of Ship Production, Vol. 10 No.1, 2001
Oetter, R., Cahill, P., and Barry, C., “High Performance Large Yacht Construction Using Product Data Models” 2006
HPYD, Auckland, NZ, Feb. 2006
Rabl, S. S., Multiconic Development of Hull Surfaces, The Planimeter, 1958
SAWE, Marine Vehicle Weight Engineering, Society of Allied Weight Engineers
SAWE, Weight Estimating and Margin Manual for Marine Vehicles, RP-14, Society of Allied Weight Engineers, May
2001
Savitsky, D. and Brown, P., “Procedures for Hydrodynamic Evaluation in Smooth and Rough Water”, Marine Technology,
Vol. 13, No. 4, Society of Naval Architects and Marine Engineers, Jan. 1976
Scott, R. J., Fiberglass Boat Design and Construction (Second Edition), Society of Naval Architects and Marine Engineers,
1996
Turner, J., Wharton, R., and Barry, C., “Group Technology Through ‘People Modules’: A Case History”, Ship Production
Symposium, Society of Naval Architects and Marine Engineers, October, Boston, MA, 2002
Underwriter’s Laboratory, “Standard for Marine Through-Hull Fittings and Sea-Valves”, ANSI / UL 1121, Nov. 1998
U.S.C.G., Coatings and Color Manual, COMDTINST M10360.3, Chg 1, June 2006
U.S.C.G. Marine Safety Center, “Tonnage Technical Policy” Technical Note (MTN) NO. 01-99, Change 7, March 29, 2005
48