This page contains a Flash digital edition of a book.
• There are many Shipbuilding CAD/ CAM Software vendors (lack of


industry reduces competitive need for productivity


• Tere is a lack of large immediate payoff for change.


standardisation) However, there are trends and


technologies on the horizon that could help deal with these issues.


Utilising shipbuilding specific software One way of helping shipbuilding catch up with other industries is to piggyback on the R&D efforts of CAD vendors focused on other industries. Niche shipbuilding CAD software developers do not have the R&D budgets to help implement cutting edge technologies while larger CAD vendors are more focused on the larger aerospace, automotive and oil & gas businesses. A way to get the best of both worlds is to utilise a CAD soſtware package optimised for shipbuilding yet closely tied to a larger vendor with strong R&D capabilities. For example, ShipConstructor software is a niche shipbuilding application built on top of an AutoCAD foundation from Autodesk Inc., a company that is actively pursuing development of all of the technologies described in this paper.


Cloud computing Te size and complexity of shipbuilding 3D models present technical difficulties for digital prototyping and shop floor 3D but, cloud computing could help solve this problem since cloud computing harnesses the immensely increased processing power of distributed computers around the world, scaling to the needs of usage at any given time. If an entire shipbuilding model was stored on the cloud and all computations were performed on the cloud, only a remote viewer would be needed to download the results so data transfer time would be less of an issue. Furthermore, since cloud computing typically entails a Soſtware As A Service, pay-per-use model, the cost to a naval architect or shipbuilder could be reduced because less hardware and soſtware would need to be purchased.


The Naval Architect July/August 2011


Display installed in factory shows products being manufactured. Photo from: “Improving Lean Manufacturing Through 3D Data,” by Hiroshi Toriya.


Companies such as ShipConstructor are currently investigating implementing cloud-based solutions.


Parallel processing Perhaps the most noteworthy technological development that could solve the complexity problem is the fact that new hardware is increasingly utilising parallel processing. Tis is happening at the CPU level via multi-core technology and can also be seen with recent trends in Graphics Cards. Te performance improvement of the additional processing units is largely dependent on the implementation of the software programme architecture. If CAD vendors adapt their soſtware to take advantage of this development in hardware architecture, performance will be dramatically improved. Both Autodesk and ShipConstructor have recognised this and are developing soſtware in such a way as to utilise the power of the increasing processing units.


Implementing a scalable solution The main cost of implementing new technology is the cost of developing


new business processes and training, not purchasing hardware and software. Terefore, a scalable solution is generally recommended. Costs can be spread out over time and resistance from employees can be lessened if new methods are introduced in a gradual, step by step fashion. Fortunately, there are modular shipbuilding software packages such as ShipConstructor that can be implemented in a scalable fashion.


Conclusion Shipbuilding is a complex industry with a unique structure. While some shipbuilders are utilising new technologies such as laser scanning, digital prototyping and shop floor 3D, these technologies are not as common as they are in other industries. Tere are several reasons why this is the case and these reasons involve complexity, culture and money. Fortunately, new technological developments are helping mitigate each of these factors. Tese factors include scalable shipbuilding software solutions tied to large generic CAD vendors with high R&D budgets, Cloud Computing and Parallel Processing. NA


35


Feature 1


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50  |  Page 51  |  Page 52  |  Page 53  |  Page 54  |  Page 55  |  Page 56  |  Page 57  |  Page 58  |  Page 59  |  Page 60  |  Page 61  |  Page 62  |  Page 63  |  Page 64  |  Page 65  |  Page 66  |  Page 67  |  Page 68