Art111 PDF

Design of a Small Shipyard Facility Layout Optimised for Production and
Repair
Hamid CHABANE
Commandement des Forces Navales
Introduction
Productivity and competitiveness in shipbuilding industry depend to a great extent on the
economy of scale. Achieving economic sustainability becomes a top priority goal. This issue
is even more critical for small shipyards intended to produce ships of between 1000 and
5000 DWT, for the related market segment is characterised by an intense and tough
competition.
In addition production processes are rather different than repair and maintenance works.
Their needs are quite different and often irreconcilable, and whilst the former may not
systematically yield benefits despite being technologically efficient, the latter can still prove
highly competitive and profitable. A possible solution could reside in a combination between
a suitable product mix made of high added value ships and appropriate repair activities.
Then a question arises whether it is possible or not to combine the two activities within a
single shipyard in order to address its performances in periods of fluctuating demand? Visibly
this would only be realized through a balanced share of some facilities and resources.
The viability of such a solution will obviously depend on the ability of the shipyard to share
some resources and conjugate jobs and tasks from the two separate departments by
identifying and taking advantage of their similarities. Therefore the layout of the concerned
facilities ought to be methodically designed and implemented and should not develop
according to peculiar circumstances.
This study aims to investigate how could those similarities and interdependencies be
exploited to address the shipyard performances in periods of fluctuating demand?
The study will be based on a thorough and extensive analysis of the work processes that are
implemented by the two industrial activities taking into consideration the practices currently
applied by shipyards of similar features, and emphasizing work organisations that are based
on Group Technology concepts. The layout design will then be carried out and optimised by
means of Muther’s systematic procedure in three steps contemplating respectively:
• a production layout,
• a repair layout,
• a mixed layout combining both production and repair activities,
the latter being developed upon a combination of the results relating to the first two cases.
Work Organization
2.1 Facility Layout Definition
“FACILITY LAYOUT” is defined as the arrangement of facilities aimed to achieve the

operational objectives of an enterprise at minimum costs and with maximum efficiency. A
poor layout can reveal highly detrimental to productivity and consequently to profitability.
Symptoms that are peculiar to a poor plant arrangement can be summarised into:
- great travel distances in the flow of materials
- bottlenecks in the shipment of resources
- excessive handling of materials
- poor information circulation
Symposium International : Qualité et Maintenance au Service de l’Entreprise
QUALIMA01 - Tlemcen 2004
- inefficient communication system

- low rate of machine and labour utilisation
to name but some of them.
The causes that may lie behind such deficiencies may reside in:
- insufficient infrastructures
- inefficient location arrangement of the various departments
- poor handling equipment
- inadequate fabrication processes and technology
- inefficient planning system
Therefore it is primordial to plan a facility layout rather than let it develop according to
the prevailing circumstances. It consists of a procedure that thoroughly contemplates all the
production processes of the enterprise starting from the material procurement and taking into
account the actual prevailing environment. It is expected that such approach will carry some
incontestable benefits, viz:
- optimal utilisation of space and equipment
- more efficient flow of materials
- efficient materials handling
- improved production process
- better planning system
- work organisation flexibility
2.2 Review of Group Technology Principles

“Group technology may be defined as the logical arrangement and sequence of all facets of
company operation in order to bring the benefits of mass production to high variety, mixed
quantity production”, (Storch et al., 1988).
The shipbuilding industry is very peculiar. It produces to order and therefore retains some
basic stages which could be modernised and automated only for very high throughputs.
During the 1960s the tendency was that of large investments and profits resulted from high
production rates. The increasing complexity of the shipbuilding industry coupled to the tough
competition faced by most of the shipyards drew the sector from a fundamentally craft
oriented industry towards the adoption of new production processes based on cost reduction
strategy (Garcia and Torroja, 1994) which culminated in the late 1970s with the wide spread
implementation of Group Technology concepts.
From the 1980s onwards, the concept of Group Technology was developed and increasingly
implemented in shipyards with undeniable advantages and benefits as illustrated in appendix
1.
2.2.1 - Work Organisation

The new trend was “Engineering for production”, that is the necessity to adapt the
engineering work to the requirements of an efficient production system relied on an accurate
and organised information flow (Garcia and Torroja, 1994). Storch achieved a methodical
investigation and study of the work organisation according to Group Technology concepts.
He considered and examined the cases of several US and Japanese shipyards that
pioneered the experience. (see figure 1) (Storch et al., 1988).
The implementation of Group Technology in the design and production process directly
influences the work organisation as it requires an adequate planning system which
extensively uses overlapping and parallelism, particularly between the design, engineering
and construction processes, in the endeavour to reduce costs and maximise the utilization of
investments. Thus the implementation of Group Technology radically modified the circulation
of elements (information, materials, and personnel) between the main components of a
shipyard.
Besides, the complexity of the activity organisation in a shipyard which implements Group
Technology requires a reliable and efficient Quality Control System in order to reduce
rework. Assembling various blocks often produced in separate locations with different
production processes is tributary of a high level of accuracy and coordination.
Figure 1 - Effect of Group Technology on the activity pace of a shipyard (Storch et al.,
1988)
2.2.2 Product Work Breakdown Structure (PWBS)

Storch subdivided the building process into three categories: hull construction, outfitting, and
painting, with zone predominance in planning and managing as shown in figure 2. The final
product results from the integration of different but interrelated processes:
- The Hull Block Construction Method (HBCM)
- The Zone Outfitting Method (ZOFM)
- The Zone Painting Method (ZPTM)
The Family Manufacturing (FM, e.g.: Pipe shop, Machine shop, Electrical shop)
Basically, the ship is broken down into elementary products that can be grouped into families
of units, best known as interim products, achievable through consistent and repeatable
processes. The processes are analysed in order to specify the various operations and
equipment that are involved. The analyses contemplate the products features, the make-vs.-
buy alternatives, and the possible production methods. Various breakdown structures may
be considered depending on the problems that are dealt with (Bruce and Garrard, 1999).
Figure 2 - Integration of different work breakdown structures (Storch et al., 1988)
2.2.3 Outfitting Operations

With the implementation of Group Technology, the outfitting operations shifted from the
former accomplishment by system and sub-system towards the preoutfitting on the units prior
to their erection. Successively, the preoutfitting evolved into the zone outfitting (ZOFM) which
disconnects the operations from the hull construction advancement (Chirillo, 1979). The
products are subdivided into sub-groups independently of the final location on the ship. The
logic is the same as that of HBCM. Indeed, both ZOFM and HBCM must be planned
simultaneously, i.e. a ZOFM can only be applied if an HBCM is implemented.
2.3 Evolution of Shipyard Layouts

Shipyards layouts dramatically evolved from a 1st generation pattern in the pre-WWII to a 4th
generation one in the late 1980s (figure 3), and even to a 6th generation during the last
decade (Bruce and Garrard, 1999). This evolution resulted from a massive implementation of
Group Technology production processes (Storch et al., 1988).
The experience of the 1970s showed that investments in facilities for mainly upgrading the
mechanisation tools and the lifting capacities were detrimental to flexibility and most of the
concerned shipyards collapsed when the 1970s crisis happened. On the other hand, those
which focused more on the integration of Group Technology principles with the existing
technology improved their management and pioneered the 4th generation shipyards which
addressed the work organisation and the management system rather than the facilities
development (Bruce and Garrard, 1999).
Particularly the shift from the 3rd generation to the 4th generation shipyard was accentuated
by the outfitting approach. In the former, pre-outfitting was considered as a separate process,
while in the latter, the layout is based on the integration of HBCM, ZOFM and ZPTM
processes, leading to the subsequently adopted U-shaped arrangement of shops around the
building area better known as compact shipyards (figures 3).
Figure 3 - 4th generation shipyard layout (Storch et al., 1988)

Methodology
3.1 Review of the Systematic Layout Planning Design Method
Until the advent of systematic approaches in the 1970s, layout planning was perceived as an
abstract achievement, and most of the approaches which were undertaken resulted from a
combination of experience, customs and established procedures.
Richard Muther is the first designer who ever formalised in a well structured pattern the
layout planning design process (Muther, 1973). It is quite evident that such an approach
helps avoiding obvious insignificant mistakes that might yield unwanted consequences over
a long term.
Layouts are designed to satisfy existing demands in defined contexts. The proficiency in
designing good layouts is ineffective if the demand is ill identified and defined. There could
be no good solution to a false problem, for too simplistic assumptions would represent an
unrealistic situation leading to a useless answer (Apple, 1991). Two questions are central:
• What is to be produced?
• How much is to be produced?
A great attention must be paid to the initial data which must be reliable and accurately
defined and estimated. The basic data that are required as input to the procedure amount to
five, viz.: the Product P, the Quantity Q, the Routing or Process R, the Supporting Services
S, and the Time T (figure 4) (Muther, 1973).
Figure 4 – Systematic Layout Procedure pattern according to Muther (Muther, 1973)

In the early stage of a layout design, the industrial processes are broken down into
elementary actions and tasks, analysing for each unit the operations to be performed along
with the subsequent required equipment. This is the stage where some fundamental
decisions are taken: which parts will be produced on the location, which parts will be
subcontracted or purchased, which services will be relocated, and where will it occur, etc...
The optimisation technique is basically graphical. On the other hand, sophisticated
quantitative methods are available but they necessitate accurate and reliable data, which is
often unlikely especially in the case of a new design. Yet, it must be pointed that a
conventional graphical procedure can sometimes prove more valuable and productive for a
simple layout, while some probabilistic methods can reveal more appropriate in the case of
irregular service performance due to a random demand.
3.2 Materials Flows

All these prerequisites yield the flows of elements, were they comprised of personnel,
materials or parts. This stage of the planning is capital since it underpins the efficiency of the
enterprise (Apple, 1991). A great emphasis is put on the evaluation of the flow of materials,
since an imperfectly appreciated flow of materials would likely lead to an unsuitable solution
(Muther, 1973). Therefore it is of the utmost importance for the flow pattern to be planned
and not left to develop in a haphazard way.
3.3 Adopted Approach

The approach that is adopted for the case study consists of three main parts that are
developed in sequence.
The first part concerns the layout design of a facility intended for production. Firstly some
basic assumptions will be made regarding the product mix and related volumes of production
of the shipyard in project, the work organisation, the outsourcing strategy, and subsequently
the main facilities that will be retained on site. The space requirements will be determined
either using standard data, or based on statistics relating to shipyards of similar sizes and
features.
In the same way the second part deals with a facility dedicated to ship repair. The main
assumptions regard the repair workload that will relate to that of a similar shipyard object of
an MSc Thesis developed at the Department of Marine Technology of the University of
Newcastle upon Tyne (GB) in 1989 (Zenasni, 1989). A thorough analysis will be carried out
about the docking and berthing capacities required by such a workload, for these facilities
comprise the backbone of a ship repair yard.
Finally the third part will contemplate a mixed facility designed to handle both production and
repair activities. The emphasis will be on the facilities allocation: which facilities ought to be
totally segregated? Which structures might be partially shared and to what extent? Which
services are basic and thus would be common to both activities?
DESIGN OF A SHIPYARD FACILITY LAYOUT FOR SHIP PRODUCTION

4.1 Features and Data Determination
4.1.1 - Shipyard Size and Features
To be economically viable, the development of a new shipyard requires the fulfilment of five
basic requirements: existence of potential customers, availability of skilled workforce,
financial funding, selection of a suitable product mix, and implementation of an efficient
production process.
For the case under examination, the shipyard in project is assumed to be located in a
developing economy area such as North Africa and mainly intended to build small tonnage
specialised ships with high added value, as it could target the segment of small patrol naval
vessels, with a displacement ranging from 1000 to 5000 Tonnes deadweight. The work
organisation is then expected to be labour intensive. Consequently there are no
requirements for high productivity levels.
The shipyard in project may be assumed to be equipped with building capacities to handle
simultaneously three ships in progress. The erection area may be expected to comprise of at
least three distinct building platforms, which may consist of berths, graving docks or even a
synchrolift depending on the site configuration and the future prospects of the shipyard.
Besides ships are expected to be launched, completed and delivered at different dates, thus
it is likely that two piers or quays for afloat outfitting operations should fill the requirement.
4.1.2 - Work Organisation

One of the basic assumptions is that there are no site constraints as there are no previous
facilities to integrate within the newly developed one. Consequently, the layout may be
designed according to the straight continuous flows patterns of materials, personnel and
information. Actually the straight-line model is the simplest one but many external factors
may prevent its implementation. The general trend is to transfer as much work as possible
into the steel hall and the various workshops in order to minimise works contents and times
on the erection area.
4.1.3 - Product Mix and Volumes of Production

The product mix would consist of high added value small tonnage specialised ships with
displacement ranging from 1000 to 5000 tonnes deadweight. The average building period for
the former types and sizes is around 12 months, except for naval ships. In the most
optimistic case, the shipyard is expected to have continuously three ships in progress over a
three years period, which is considered as a base reference for the estimation of the yearly
throughput (Bruce and Clark, 1992). The productivity and therefore the number of employees
will be estimated upon these assumptions. Therefore a broad workload planning for the
shipyard is proposed in table 1.
Ship 1st year 2nd year 3rd year

A
B
C
D
E
Preparation and prefabrication

Hull construction and advanced outfitting
Launch and final outfitting
Table 1- Assumed production planning
Three ships which detailed characteristics are summarised in appendix 2 were chosen as
models. Though they are of different types, they are characterised by the same construction
pattern: a long uniform main body comprised of holds enclosed between a stern castle and a
fore body. Assuming a full orderbook, the shipyard would complete the building of 5 ships
over 3 years, consisting of 2 reefers, 2 chemical carriers and 1 combined cargo.
4.1.4 - Productivity Targets

Productivity is usually defined as the output from a process related to the input to that
process. Since the 1960s, various measures have been used, but the increase of the number
of ships types and sizes rendered those metrics inadequate to relate shipyards with their
respective productions and productivities.
The estimation of the expected productivity of the shipyard in project will be achieved
according to the approach proposed by Lamb and Hellesoy (Lamb and Hellesoy, 2002). The
CGT data (Compound Gross Tons) of the models in the mix are obtained by means of the
CGT Coefficients for ships of various types and sizes which were first proposed by Bruce
and Clark (Bruce and Clark, 1992) (Appendix 4).
4.1.5 - The Outsourcing Strategy

Most of the heavy industries outsource and subcontract several stages of their production
processes. These purchased items and services contribute considerably to the added value
of the final product. Based on a zero profits evaluation for the company, materials used for
onboard outfitting and work subcontracted either out of and at the yard, respectively
accounts for 35.3 % and 5.8 % of the added value (Koenig, 2002). More generally
outsourced products and services account for 50% to 80% of the total cost of a new project
in shipbuilding industry.
Consequently there must be a strategic approach to make-vs.-buy decision-making process.
Products and services likely to be outsourced must be carefully and thoroughly evaluated
because outsourcing will inevitably entail reduction in self-sufficiency and flexibility of the
shipyard (Wilson et al., 2001).
4.1.6 – Production Layout Main Components

In the last decade, the American board in charge of the NSRP program conducted a
comprehensive survey of six among the most competitive Asian shipyards (Baba, 2000).
Some operations were identified as basic and are commonly implemented in modern
commercial shipyards. These operations relate mainly to: Steelworks, Outfitting and storage
operations, Pre-erection activities, Ship construction and outfitting. Given the preceding
considerations and the assumptions made about the outsourcing strategy, the facilities to be
retained within the shipyard in project may principally consist of:
1. A steel stockyard 12. One building accommodating the

2. A steelwork hall production supporting services
3. An Outfitting centre 13. One building accommodating the
4. A pipe shop management and administrative
5. A general-purpose shop offices
6. A paint shop 14. A health and medical service
7. A warehouse 15. A training centre
8. A units and blocks storage area 16. A building accommodating the
9. An erection area consisting of three catering services
platforms 17. A transportation station
10. Outfitting quays 18. A parking
11. Lifting and handling installations
4.2 Shipbuilding Facility Layout Design

4.2.1 - Flows Analysis of a Production Facility
Flow analysis is of the utmost importance in the framework of a layout design. Flow analysis
deals with quantitative and qualitative assessment of movements of materials, personnel and
information between facilities. Yet the emphasis is on the flow of materials since the layout
must be optimised for the most efficient flows of products (Francis and White, 1974).
The Activity Relationship Chart (REL) was first proposed by Muther (Muther, 1973) and
rather than quantitative values, it contemplates alternative qualitative parameters which
relate to facilities interrelations. This proves very useful when detailed quantitative data are
not available at the design stage, or when the matter concerns services that do not deal with
flows of materials such as supporting or auxiliary services.
Muther defined the rating of closeness between facilities and as a rule of thumb, most of the
layout planners suggest to roughly comply with the proportions of the various rated
relationships as reported in table 2:
Table 2 - Closeness rating labels and recommended proportions (Muther, 1973)
% of total
Closeness rating Reasons for desired closeness
number of relations
A = Absolutely necessary <5 1. Sequence of work flow
E = Especially important < 10 2. Share of equipment
I = Important < 15 3. Better material handling and
O = Ordinary closeness < 20 transfer
U = Unimportant > 50 4. Environmental disturbances
X = Undesirable <5 5. etc…
Establishing the rates of the desired closeness between all the facilities is a laborious
process. It is a subjective approach, which requires minimum background and experience
about the activities to be implemented within the projected facilities.
The flows of materials, personnel and information were taken into consideration. The Activity
Relationship Chart (REL) was compiled and reported in table 3.
4.2.2 – Production Activity Relationship (REL) Diagram

The actual layout is primarily based on the Activity Relationship Diagram that results from the
compilation of the REL chart. Actually, the REL diagram constitutes an anticipated broad
configuration of the final layout. The procedure generates a set of feasible alternatives which
should be traded off with respect to the space requirements, modifying considerations and
practical limitations as recommended by Muther.
Subsequently, the compilation of the REL chart yielded the Activity Relationships diagram
using the symbols of the ASME and the rates coding as defined by Muther (appendix 3). The
various rated relations are diagrammed according to Muther’s procedure. At each step, the
diagram must be rearranged seeking the best compromise. It may require several attempts
before achieving a satisfactory result. The REL diagram for the case study is reproduced in
figure 5. This algorithm is deterministic, thus it generates always the same layout from the
same original data.
4.2.3 - Space Requirements of a Production Facility

Once the REL diagram has been completed, the space allocations of the various facilities are
required to initiate the drawing of the actual layout. Fitting into the REL diagram figures of
those spaces drawn to the scale 1/500x104 yields the Space Relationship Diagram (figure 6)
which actually represents a crude layout, i.e. the basis that requires adjustment and
rearrangement to obtain the final layout configuration. The results are summarised in
appendix 4.
4.2.4 - Production Layout Design

The Space REL Diagram yields the actual layout when the various facilities are appropriately
joined together. Then it needs to be adjusted and rearranged according to specific modifying
considerations and/or practical limitations (Muther, 1973), which essentially pertain to the site
and facilities peculiarities. It is the most creative phase of the whole process and often it
involves the personnel who will be in charge of the installation and operation of the designed
layout. The final layout configuration will be selected according to explicit requirements
pertaining to its future utilisation.
Different layout alternatives, which one of them is reported in figure 7, were generated in
order to highlight the various possibilities that are available to the planner. In each case, the
basic idea consisted of concentrating the facilities into three main areas: a preparation and
prefabrication area, a construction area, and an administrative area and other services.
Table 3- Activity Relationship Chart of a production facility

Legend
1 Steel stockyard 15
2 Steel work hall
3 Outfitting centre
4 Pipe shop
5 General purpose shop
6 Paint shop
7 Warehouse
8 Units and blocks storage areas 13
17
16 12 7
14
3 8 9 11
4
9 Erection areas
10 Lifting and handling installations
11 Quays
12 Production supporting services
5 10 10
2
13 Training centre
14 Managers and administrative offices
15 Transportation station, parking 6
16 Catering services
17 Health and medical service
1
Figure 5 - Production layout: Activity Relationships Diagram

1
15
17
1 1 7
3 9
4 8
11
10
2
Figure 6 – Production layout: Space Relationship

Diagram
1
15
Legend
14 16 1 Steel stockyard
15
2 Steel work hall
3 Outfitting centre
4 Pipe shop
5 General purpose shop
6 Paint shop
7 Warehouse
11
10
12 7 8 Units and blocks storage areas
9 Erection areas
17
10 Lifting and handling installations
11 Quays
4 3 8 8 8 12 Production supporting services
13 5 13 Training centre
14 Managers and administrative offices
2 15 Transportation station, parking
17 Health and medical service
1 6 Pathways
11
9
9
10
10
10
10
Figure 7 - Production layout: 1st configuration alternative

DESIGN OF A SHIPYARD FACILITY LAYOUT FOR SHIP REPAIR

5.1 - Features and Data Determination
5.1.1 - Shiprepair Activity Features
Unlike shipbuilding, repair works are of the job shop form, thus less repeatable from one
case to another and predictions and planning reveal very arduous. It emerges that the only
repair jobs that may be assumed approximately predictable and thus manageable are those
relating to docking activities. The emphasis would then be put on the dry-docking facilities
while providing only basic workshops resources that are commonly required in shiprepair.
5.1.2 - Capacity Planning in Ship Repair

There is no standard methodology or procedure for determining the capacities of a repair
yard in the design stage. A practice that is common within the sector consists of developing
capacities for defined configurations only, which pertain to the targeted market segment.
However given the unsteadiness of the fluctuating demand, most of the repair yards would
implement only a fraction of the theoretically required repair capacities (Drewry, 2001).
5.1.3 – Repair Workload of the Case Study

The repair workload that will be adopted for the case study will consist of types of ships, and
frequencies of attendance that relate to an Algerian shipyard which had been considered in
the framework of an MSc Thesis carried out at the School of Marine technology
of the University of Newcastle in 1989 (Zenasni, 1989). The concerned shipyard basically
undertakes:
- small shipbuilding both naval and merchant
- naval shiprepair for the Algerian navy
- merchant shiprepair up to certain sizes and tonnages.
5.1.4 - Docking and Berthing Capacities Analysis of the Case Study

Given the variety of the calling population of ships, assumptions have to be made about the
dry-docking and berthing capacities. The aim is to obtain the best combination of facilities of
different sizes in order to achieve an optimum and effective flexibility of the resources.
Naval vessels were first subdivided into three and then four categories fitting within two
configurations of dry-docking facilities, viz.: 40 m, 70 m, 110 m and 30 m, 60 m, 90 m, 110 m
respectively.
Merchant fleet data were compiled too, taking into account both minimum and maximum
frequencies of attendance to the shiprepair yard. Four categories of dry-docking facilities
were assumed with lengths respectively of 100 m, 150 m, 200 m, and 300 m.
Many combinations were tried until a maximum utilisation of each single facility was
achieved. Results for dry-docking and berthing requirements were achieved for average
utilisation of the docking facilities and maximum utilisation of the berthing facilities and
reported in tables 4, 5 and 6. Shadowed squares indicate shifting of units of a given category
towards docking facilities of a higher category.
5.1.5 – Repair Layout Main Components

Some basic facilities equipped with typical machinery and tools that are commonly
implemented in shiprepair yards were selected, viz.:
1. Docking facilities to be defined 8. Lifting and handling installation.
later, whether they would consist of 9. Deballasting and sludge treatment
a synchrolift, graving docks or plant.
floating docks 10. Management and administrative
2. Berths offices
3. A metal shop: Hull works, pipe 11. Technical services
works, galvanizing works 12. A health and medical service
4. An electrical shop 13. A training centre
5. A carpenter shop 14. catering services
6. A paint shop 15. A transportation station
7. Afloat repair shop 16. A parking
5.2 Shiprepair Facility Layout Design

5.2.1 - Flows Analysis of a Repair Facility
Repair works are essentially labour intensive which occur mostly onboard ships. Thus the
volumes of materials that are transferred and their related occurrences cannot be reliably
defined in advance.
5.2.2 – Repair Activity Relationship (REL) Diagram

Based on the preceding flows analyses the Activity Relationship (REL) Chart of a repair
facility was compiled. Subsequently the rated relationships were diagrammed according to
the same techniques and making use of the same principles that were thoroughly described
during the analysis of the shipbuilding case.
5.2.3 - Space Requirements of a Repair Facility

Given the preceding considerations relating to the uncertainties pertaining to repair works
demand, any attempt to approximate targeted productivities and manhours may reveal
intractable and the subsequent results unreliable. The determination of the spaces of the
various workshops and supporting services was then based on a comparative analysis with
similar facilities from different repair yards across the world as reported in appendix 5.
5.2.4 - Repair Space Relationships Diagram

The surfaces of the various facilities were drawn to the scale 1/500x104 and fitted into the
Activity REL Diagram of a repair facility yielding the corresponding Space Relationship
Diagram as reproduced in figure 8.
5.2.5 - Repair Layout Design

Similarly to the shipbuilding yard case, the Space REL Diagram yields the actual layout when
the various facilities are appropriately arranged and joined together. Many configurations
were proposed in order to highlight the wide range of possibilities that are offered to planner.
Figure 9 reproduces one alternative as an example. Further to the synchrolift, two docking
facilities of 150 m and 200 m respectively are required. These could consist either of graving
docks, floating docks or a combination of the two types. The final choice would be dictated by
diverse factors such as: development prospects of the company, investment costs, land
availability on the site, timing of realisation, etc…
For the case study, two graving docks were assumed. Should two floating docks be
considered, the only difference would reside in a different land utilisation since the floating
docks would be secured in the water plane of the yard next to some berth.
Table 4 - Average utilisation of the docking installations of a repair facility - 1st case
Months 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Time basis=1 year

Required:
Naval vessels categories
2 facilities of L=40 m
40
3 facilities of L=70 m ==> may service for 4 months naval vessels of L=40 m
2 facilities of L=110 m ==> may service for 5 months merchant ships of L=100 m
1 facility L=150 m ==> may service for 1 months merchant ships of L=100 m
(m)
1 facility L=200m ==> may service for 6 months merchant ships of L=150 m
70

Utilisation of facilities L=40 m and L= 70 m ~83%
Utilisation of facilities L=110 m L= 150 m and L=200 m ~92%
110 1 month allowance for routine maintenance operations
Possibilities:
100
1 Synchrolift of 3000 tonnes up to 5000 tonnes with 5 bays
Merchant ships

categories (m)
(2x110x20 + 3x70x20 )
150 2 slipways of 40x10 m and D=200 tonnes

2 docking facilities of 150x30 m and D=6500 tonnes up to 10000 tonnes
1 docking facility of 200x30 m and D=12000 tonnes up to 15000 tonnes
200
Table 5
Average utilisation of the docking installations of a repair facility – 2nd case
Months 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Time basis=1 year

Required:
30 1 facility of L=30 m
3 facilities of L=60 m ==> may service for 3 months naval vessels of

L=30 m which may be grouped in pairs and
utilise the 60 m facility for less than 3 months
2 facilities of L=110 m ==> may service for 5 months naval vessels of
(m)
L=90 m and for 6 months merchant ships of

L=100 m
1 facility of L=200 m ==> may service for 6 months merchant ships of
L=150 m

110
Average utilisation of all facilities 11/12 months ~ 92 %
1 month allowance for routine maintenance operations

Merchant ships
100 Possibilities:
categories
1 Synchrolift of 3000 tonnes up to 5000 tonnes with 5 bays

(m)
(2x110 + 1x90 + 3x60)

150 1 slipway of 30 x 10 m and D=100 tonnes
200
Table 6
Maximum utilisation of the berthing installations of a repair facility
Months 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 There are no particular restrictions concerning the
required berthing capacities.
30 Lay-up requires berth accommodation hence it is
included in the berthing requirements.
Berths may be fully and continuously occupied.

Naval vessels have been subdivided into four
categories for the flexibility of the utilisation of the
60
berths.
Merchant ships of L>250 m have been included
(m)
assuming that repair works afloat may be carried.

Required berths length:
90 2x30 + 5x60 + 3x90 + 2x110 + 150 + 300 = 1300 m

subdivided for example into : 4x150 m and 2x200 m
and 300 m
110
Note:
When ships are secured to berths of a higher category
100 they require less berth-months because they may be
Merchant ships
paired: 4 berth-months of L=150 m equate 2 berth-

categories

150 month of L=300 m

(m)
200
300
1 1
Legend 14
1 Docking facilities
2 Berths
3 Steel shop
4 Machine shop
5 Electrical shop
6 Carpenter shop 17
7 Paint shop
8 Afloat repair shop 1
9 Warehouse 17 9
10 Lifting installations
11 Treatment plant
12 Administrative offices 1
13 Technical services
14 Health-medical service
15 Training centre
17 Transportation station 5
and parking
3
10
4
11
6
7
8
1
2
Figure 8 – Repair layout: Space Relationship Diagram

Design of a mixed shipyard facility layout for ship production and repair
Bearing in mind the various considerations that were invoked for the selection of the facilities
that ought to be retained for shipbuilding and shiprepair respectively, the aim is to define
which might be shared between the two activities and which should be segregated.
Consequently, the following selection was established:
- should be segregated and solely dedicated to shipbuilding:

1 a steel stockyard 4 a units and blocks storage area
2 a steelwork hall 5 an erection area
3 an outfitting centre
- should be segregated and only dedicated to shiprepair:

6 a docking area 9 a carpenter shop
7 a machine shop 10 an afloat repair shop
8 an electrical shop 11 a treatment plant
- facilities that might be shared with predominance of one type of activity:

12 pipe shop (shipbuilding) 14 berths (shiprepair)
13 a steel shop (shiprepair)
- facilities that are equally shared between the two activities:

15 a paint shop 20 health and medical service
16 a warehouse 21 training centre
17 lifting installations 22 transportation station and
18 administrative offices parking.
19 technical services 23 catering services
All the data and assumptions of the previous two cases were adopted. The completion of the
whole process yielded many configurations. One configuration alternative is reproduced in
figure 10.
Legend
1 Docking facilities
2 Berths
3 Steel shop
4 Machine shop
5 Electrical shop
6 Carpenter shop Berth 6 Berth 7
1 1
7 Paint shop B th 1
8 Afloat repair shop Berth 4 Berth 5
9 Warehouse 17
10 Lifting installations
11 Treatment plant
13 Technical services
14 Health-medical service
15 Training centre
16 Catering services 6
17 Transportation station 15
Berth 3
and parking
1 8
Berth 2
14 B th 1
Dock 2
3 Dock 1
Bay 3 Bay 7
11 7
Bay 6
Bay 2
Transfer platform
Bay 5
Berth 1 Bay 1
Bay 4
Lifting platform
Figure 9 - Repair layout: a configuration alternative (making use of piers)

14
17
5 17
5 17
5 14
Berth 6 Berth 7
Berth 4 Berth 5
4 4 4
1 2 3
Berth 3
16 15
13
22
12
Berth 2
21
B th 1
18 23 Dock 2
19 20
Dock 1
9 8 7 10 11 Bay 3 Bay 7
Bay 6
Bay 2 Transfer platform
Bay 5
Berth 1 Bay 1
Bay 4
Lifting platform
Figure 10 – An example of layout configuration of a mixed shipyard facility

Conclusion
The present study aimed to investigate whether a small shipyard intended to produce ships
of between 1000 and 5000 DWT could supplement this activity with a substantial repair
workload without disrupting its work organisation?
Production processes are rather different than repair and maintenance works. Their needs
are different and often irreconcilable.
From the investigation it emerged that the implementation of Group Technology concepts
profoundly modified the work organisation within shipyards as it shaped their respective
layouts. Its generalisation was motivated by the need to reduce production costs whilst
maximising the resources utilisation.
For the purpose of the study, three cases were considered in sequence: a production layout,
a repair layout and a mixed layout designed to handle both building and repair activities. In
either case, the systematic layout planning method proposed by Muther was applied. It
consists of a procedure that thoroughly contemplates all the production processes of the
enterprise starting from the material procurement and taking into account the actual
prevailing environment.
The technique reveals robust and efficient since it can address situations where the available
data are neither sufficiently detailed nor exhaustive as it may be the case at an early stage of
a project. In this way, though flows are important they do not impact alone the layout pattern.
Therefore other supporting services that do not deal with volumes of flows might be taken
into consideration such as the purchasing or the production engineering department for
instance.
The two first cases were separately developed upon basic assumptions regarding the
product mix, the repair workload and the respective work organisations. A thorough analysis
of the practices implemented in shipyards of similar sizes and features was achieved.
Subsequently the study of a mixed layout was developed by merging the results of the
previous two cases, analysing which resources ought to be segregated, or partially or totally
shared based on their respective impact on the work processes.
Various configurations alternatives were then generated in order to illustrate the wide range
of possibilities that are offered to the planner. The selected layouts exhibit forms and
arrangements that are characteristic of the correspondent types of activity.
The main limitations to this work reside in the various assumptions essentially relating to the
productivity targets and the flows of elements that were required in order to achieve the
diverse analyses. Nonetheless the emphasis was on the application of a methodology of
layout design based on the procedure outlined by Muther which reveals a perfectly efficient
layout planning method adapted for the very early stage of a new project when quantitative
data are only broadly defined.
References
1. Apple, J. M. (1991). Plant layout and material handling. Malabar, Fla., Krieger.
2. Baba, Koichi, (2000). Production technology survey of selected Asian shipyards.
NSRP, Maritech Engineering Japan, November 1, 2001, from website
www.nsrp.org/documents/asian_benchmarking.pdf
3. Bruce, G. J. and Garrard, I. (1999). The business of shipbuilding. Honk Kong, Llp.
4. Bruce, G., Clark, J., (1992). Productivity measures as a tool for performance
improvement. The Royal Institution of Naval Architects, Spring Meetings, 27 April
1992, paper No 2.
5. Chirillo, D. L., (1979). Outfit planning. NSRP, US Department of Commerce.
6. Drewry, (2001). Global Shiprepair Market Outlook to 2005. Shipping Consultants
Publications, June 2001, from website www.drewry.co.uk/frame2.phtml?loc=
info/mr049.phtml on 30/06/2003
7. Francis, R. L., and White, J. A., (1974). Facility layout and location – An analytical
approach. Prentice-Hall Inc., Englewoods Cliffs, New Jersey.
8. Garcia L., F. V., Torroja, J. (1994). The role of CAD/CAE/CAM in engineering for
production. Proceedings of the 8th ICCAS International Conference on Computer
Applications in Shipbuilding, Sept. 5-9, 1994, Bremen, Germany, Berry Rasmusson
Reklam AB.
9. Koenig, P. C., (2002). Technical and economic breakdown of value added in
shipbuilding. Journal of Ship Production, Vol. 18, No. 1, February 2002, pp. 13-18.
10. Lamb, T., and Hellesoy, A., (2002). A shipbuilding productivity predictor. Journal of
Ship Production, Vol. 18, No. 2, May 2002, pp. 79-85.
11. Muther, R. (1973). Systematic layout planning. Cahners books.
12. Storch, R. L., Hammon, C. P., et al. (1988). Ship production. Centreville, Md., Cornell
Maritime Press.
13. Wilson, V., Wennberg, P., DeGraw, K., and Fleischer, M., (2001). An improved “Make
versus Buy” strategy for future material acquisition. Journal of Ship Production, Vol.
17, No. 2, May 2001, pp. 87-91.
14. Zenasni, M. (1989). Domestic ship repair yard and improvement strategy. MSc
Thesis, Department of Marine Technology, University of Newcastle upon Tyne, Sep
1989
Appendices
Appendix 1
The following figures illustrate how far-eastern shipyards which pioneered in
implementing Group Technology considerably improved their performances.
Figure 1 – Performance comparison of some shipbuilding leading nations (NSRP,

2001)
Figure 2 – World market share of the Far East shipbuilders as a result of their
competitiveness
(Lloyd’s Register, 2003)
Appendix 2
Main characteristics of the ship models of the production mix
Name Kaisers No. 7 Regina Marie Christine

The Reefer The Chemical Significant small
Reference Register 2003 Register 2003 vessels of 1991
Clarkson, 2003 Clarkson, 2003 RINA, 1991
Forest
Reefer Fish Chemical and Oil
Type Products/Cargo
Carrier Carrier
Vessel
Status In service In service In service
Owner country Taiwan Belgium Netherlands
Flag Honduras Luxembourg n.a .
Year of build 1980 1987 1991
Kishimoto Zosen Schpsw. Lanser Niestern Sander
Builder
(Japan) (Netherlands) BV (Netherlands)
Length overall 83 m 109.9 m 87.96 m
Length between
77.02 m 106.7 m 84.93 m
perpendiculars
Beam 13.21 m 11.34 m 12.5 m
Draught 5.01 m 3.29 m 5.30 m
NT 1872 1731 1289
Dwt 2028 2500 3284
Classification
NKK BV LR
Society
Number of 1 hold comprised
3 12
holds/tanks of 9 bays
CGT values of the three ship models comprising the production mix
DWT CGT
N. Type GT CGT
(Tonnes) Coefficient
1 Reefer 2028 1872 2.05 3837.6
2 Chemical carrier 2500 1731 1.70 2942.7
3 Combined cargo 3284 2561 1.60 4097.6
Appendix 3 - ASME symbols and Muther's coding for the Activity REL diagram
Nbr
Symbol Activity/Facility Color Rating Value of Color
lines
Treatment,
Green
Sub-assembly, A 4 Red
Red
Assembly
Transport
Orange E 3 Orange
related
Storage,
Orange I 2 Green
Warehouses
Hold areas Orange O 1 Blue
Services and
supporting Blue U 0
activities
Office,
Grey X -1 Brown
Administration
Inspection,
Blue
Check areas
Appendix 4
Space requirements of a production facility
Floorspace
Facility Employees Density
(m2)
Steel stockyard (1000 tonnes) 2 tonnes/m2 2000
Steelwork hall 40 100 m2/worker 4000
Outfitting centre 30 60 m2/worker 1800
Pipe shop 20 60 m2/worker 1200
General purpose shop 10 60 m2/worker 600
Paint shop ( 2 cells of 20x20 m) 15 2x20x20 = 800
Warehouse 5 320 m2/worker 1600
Units and blocks storage areas 3x20x20 =
(for 3 grand blocks of 20x20 m) 1200
Erection areas (for 3 ships) 130x20/platform 3x2600
Lifting installations 6 4x130x10
Quays (to secure at least 2 2x130x20 =
ships of length up to 130 m) 2x2600
Production supporting services 27 15 m2/worker ~ 400
Training centre 12 30 m2/trainee ~ 400
Managers-Administrative 24 15 m2/worker ~ 400
offices
Transportation station: covered 5 ~1000
facility including workshop,
office, storage room and
shelter for handling equipment
Parking for 100 private cars 12x100+8x50 =
1600
Catering services 10 400
Health and medical service 3 100
35700
Total 207
(excluded the circulation pathways)
Appendix 5
Space requirements of a repair facility
N. Facility Floorspace (m2)
1 Docking facilities 29500
2 Berths 26000
3 Steel shop 5000
4 Machine shop 1000
5 Electrical shop 500
6 Carpenter shop 500
7 Paint shop 500
8 Afloat repair shop 500
9 Warehouse 1600
10 Lifting installations 23300
11 Treatment plant 500
13 Technical services 400
14 Health-medical service 100
15 Training centre 400
Transportation station 1000
16
Parking 1600
17 Catering services 400
Total 92300

Art111 PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Art111 PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Design of a Small Shipyard Facility Layout Optimised for Production and

“FACILITY LAYOUT” is defined as the arrangement of facilities aimed to achieve the

- inefficient communication system

2.2 Review of Group Technology Principles

2.2.1 - Work Organisation

2.2.2 Product Work Breakdown Structure (PWBS)

Figure 2 - Integration of different work breakdown structures (Storch et al., 1988)

2.2.3 Outfitting Operations

2.3 Evolution of Shipyard Layouts

Figure 3 - 4th generation shipyard layout (Storch et al., 1988)

Figure 4 – Systematic Layout Procedure pattern according to Muther (Muther, 1973)

3.2 Materials Flows

3.3 Adopted Approach

DESIGN OF A SHIPYARD FACILITY LAYOUT FOR SHIP PRODUCTION

4.1.2 - Work Organisation

4.1.3 - Product Mix and Volumes of Production

Ship 1st year 2nd year 3rd year

Preparation and prefabrication

4.1.4 - Productivity Targets

4.1.5 - The Outsourcing Strategy

4.1.6 – Production Layout Main Components

1. A steel stockyard 12. One building accommodating the

4.2 Shipbuilding Facility Layout Design

4.2.2 – Production Activity Relationship (REL) Diagram

4.2.3 - Space Requirements of a Production Facility

4.2.4 - Production Layout Design

Table 3- Activity Relationship Chart of a production facility

Figure 5 - Production layout: Activity Relationships Diagram

Figure 6 – Production layout: Space Relationship

Figure 7 - Production layout: 1st configuration alternative

DESIGN OF A SHIPYARD FACILITY LAYOUT FOR SHIP REPAIR

5.1.2 - Capacity Planning in Ship Repair

5.1.3 – Repair Workload of the Case Study

5.1.4 - Docking and Berthing Capacities Analysis of the Case Study

5.1.5 – Repair Layout Main Components

5.2 Shiprepair Facility Layout Design

5.2.2 – Repair Activity Relationship (REL) Diagram

5.2.3 - Space Requirements of a Repair Facility

5.2.4 - Repair Space Relationships Diagram

5.2.5 - Repair Layout Design

Months 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Time basis=1 year

Months 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Time basis=1 year

3 facilities of L=60 m ==> may service for 3 months naval vessels of

L=90 m and for 6 months merchant ships of

1 Synchrolift of 3000 tonnes up to 5000 tonnes with 5 bays

(2x110 + 1x90 + 3x60)

            Berths may be fully and continuously occupied.

assuming that repair works afloat may be carried.

   paired: 4 berth-months of L=150 m equate 2 berth-

Figure 8 – Repair layout: Space Relationship Diagram

- should be segregated and solely dedicated to shipbuilding:

- should be segregated and only dedicated to shiprepair:

- facilities that might be shared with predominance of one type of activity:

- facilities that are equally shared between the two activities:

Figure 9 - Repair layout: a configuration alternative (making use of piers)

Figure 10 – An example of layout configuration of a mixed shipyard facility

Figure 1 – Performance comparison of some shipbuilding leading nations (NSRP,

Name Kaisers No. 7 Regina Marie Christine

Hold areas Orange O 1 Blue

You might also like

Berths may be fully and continuously occupied.

paired: 4 berth-months of L=150 m equate 2 berth-