Designing the Type 26

How about an obscure Type 26 related post?

Software being used to design the Type 26…

  • Sener Marine FORAN CAD/CAM System
  • Virtalis Visionary Render VR Software
  • PTC Windchill Management System

No doubt there are others as well!

Find out more

[browser-shot width=”700″ url=”http://www.foransystem.com/NAVAL/home/en”] [browser-shot width=”700″ url=”http://www.virtalis.com/products/15/visionary-render.php”] [browser-shot width=”700″ url=”http://www.ptc.com/product/windchill”]
21 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
The Limey
The Limey
September 11, 2014 9:07 am

From the first screenshot: ‘Queen Elisabeth Class’. Does not give me much hope for their software.

Not A Boffin
Not A Boffin
September 11, 2014 9:21 am

Software is as software does. It’s only as good as the monkeys operating it, which I suspect might just be the cause of the issue you’ve identified…….

Peter Elliott
September 11, 2014 9:22 am

Cue @NAB to pop up and tell us that it makes no feckin difference which software you use if the adults in charge of the project can’t make (and then stick to) sensible decsisions about the critical trade-offs between Capability, Size and Cost.

NOoooooooo – he beat me to it!!

All Politicians are the Same
All Politicians are the Same
September 11, 2014 9:57 am

CAD can lead to some funnies if not “supervised’. On the LPDs if you come out of the COs cabin and walk directly ahead there are a row of single cabins normally used for embarked Senior Staff. Half way down the row there is a heads with a single toilet in it but it has been dropped into a compartment the size of the cabins around it :)

DavidNiven
DavidNiven
September 11, 2014 10:23 am

Thats the disabled and baby changing toilet!

Dangerous Dave
Dangerous Dave
September 11, 2014 10:29 am

@APATS, I assume that the “luxury heads” could easily be removed and converted to a cabin again – just in case an extra rear-admiral from a visiting navy wanted a bunk! ;-)

That’s the beauty of modular design! :-)

Engineer Tom
Engineer Tom
September 11, 2014 11:53 am

@ Dangerous Dave,

Modular design yes but changing them will be a bitch, the proper way to do it is build the cabin and then during the build just drop them all in before you put the deck above in, they can be installed afterwards but only by building them inside the space they are going to be placed.

Taking a cabin out and putting a new one in will take approx a week or two depending on how many guys are working on it and also whoch systems are already routed to the area, it will also involve ripping out the passageway linings to get to where everything connects up etc etc.

They aren’t plug and play but rather they make the build ptocess easier and also allow they cabin work to be outsourced.

Tom
(above mentioned monkey)

Dangerous Dave
Dangerous Dave
September 11, 2014 1:52 pm

,

Yep, but in my tongue in cheek style, you could easily take out the porcelain, leave the plumbing tails above floor level and cap them off, then put a bunk over it all! (temporarily, of course) ;-)

Also, I was assuming that all the wiring for a cabin was lurking in the bulkheads because, well, someone copy and pasted a row of cabins, then modified one into a toilet in the CAD program! :-) (ducks and runs!)

The Other Chris
September 11, 2014 2:27 pm

Probably a more accurate assessment than you realise…

Not a Boffin
Not a Boffin
September 11, 2014 2:34 pm

LPD was probably the first ship the UK attempted to build using something approximating to a fully digitised product model (which is different to CAD). It was less than successful in execution, resulting in significant delays and cost overruns to the ship. If memory serves, the cabins of which APATS speaks are right at the fore end of the superstructure and would command spectacular views of the forrard Goalkeeper, if only they had any scuttles. Pretty sure they weren’t modular cabins at the time.

Mark
Mark
September 11, 2014 4:47 pm

Cad and dmu are super for visualisation clash detect, interfacing and kinematic ect. The down side is they can look great but not be engineered, this leads to issues if the proper engineering drawing schemes are considered surplus cause of the great looking model or if schedule over rules proper reviews. Just creating pretty models after a couple of week training does not make someone an engineer. It is very difficult to get senior managers to understand these concepts when promising all sorts to customers.

Engineer Tom
Engineer Tom
September 11, 2014 5:10 pm

That is what the Visualisation software is for, to distract senior managers whilst everyone gets on with the engineering. But to be honest you would be surprised how little detail on drawings is actually required when building a ship. Apart from the structure and pipework, everything else is really integration the detail is mostly in the supporting databases etc not on drawings. But you need to understand the engineering to be able to specify what equipment goes where and what has to connect to it. 3D CAD is a necessity though so you can pick up issues before you try to build the ship as the fewer ships you build the less chance you have to use the first of class to find errors.

The Other Nick
The Other Nick
September 11, 2014 5:39 pm

Puzzled as no mention of Qinetiq Paramarine advanced marine design software as BAE Systems listed them as one of the ten members of the Industrial Team selected to date.

Rocket Banana
September 11, 2014 9:13 pm

Does the CAD mesh not get imported into FEM/FEA or CFD software?

Isn’t the output of modifications in these systems put back into CAD to reposition critical system components, etc?

And then iterate until happy :-)

I hope so otherwise things have taken a turn for the worse over the last 20 years. I’d have thought ship design software would do all the structural and hydrodynamic loads for you (just like aeronautical and automotive design systems do).

Not a Boffin
Not a Boffin
September 12, 2014 7:11 am

One tends to do the early elements of a design in spreadsheet form, moving into Paramarine or Maxsurf or Tribon/Aveva when you have more detail. Those tools tend to work out the global hydro and other structural loads. You can export from them into infinite element software or CFD if you need to, but the point being only if you need to.

However, the most important element of the design package is the output in terms of drawings and associated component / material lists which you need to build the actual ship. That’s where you get into Foran and the like.

Mark
Mark
September 12, 2014 8:42 am

I haven’t seen the process work like that in aerospace Simon. Parametric models would give basics then aero surfaces would be created in cad into icem for meshing for cfd or a company developed packages, then cad models would get produced surfaces of those would go into nastran/patran for fea meshing and analysis and iterate from there.

The Other Chris
September 12, 2014 9:15 am

You also see a large number of models where it’s clear no thought has been applied as to what process is required to actually engineer the components and fit them together regardless of how well the designed components would perform in theory…

Rocket Banana
September 12, 2014 9:56 am

Mark,

I think we’re talking about the same thing: a to-and-fro between modelling and validating the model computationally.

Ultimately leading to engineering drawings from AutoCAD.

However, I would not be at all surprised that large companies didn’t merge them all into a single program. I’m pretty sure I’ve seen an F1 company do this a few years ago (although I couldn’t possibly comment).

Engineer Tom
Engineer Tom
September 12, 2014 11:03 am

Everything tends to be done in the major 3D CAD packages, for UK ships that is Tribon/Aveva and Foran, the FEA etc is done using external packagesand tends to be done before the main design process really starts. The drawings are then generated using the 3D software’s built in drawing package. Linked to the 3D package will also be the supply chain software and the planning software this should ensure everything matches. During production the 3D model can also be made available to the yard using either the built in viewing software or sometimes external software for tablets etc, and also the new 3D viewing suites allow model walkthroughs.

Autocad is only really used during concept design as it can’t be linked directly to the model so you would have to draw everything twice once in 3D and once in 2D.

Mark
Mark
September 12, 2014 12:32 pm

No autocad, 3-d models, detail parts usually now model based definition and 2-d assembly drawings all done in Catia v5. At about 40k a licience.