MARINE PROPULSION TECHNOLOGY — RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
ERAM
A Revolutionary, International Approach To Engine Room Design
This is the first article in a four-part series describing a project executed by the U.S. Navy in partnership with domestic and inter-
national designers from shipyards, shipowner!operators and marine equipment vendors. The project involved an Engine Room
Arrangement Model (ERAM) study. One medium-speed diesel (MSD) and three low-speed diesel (SSD) engine rooms were designed in
the course of two years. Each MR/EN article will focus on one of the four engine room design products; the evolution of applying the
IPPD methodology process; and the lessons learned from each stage of the project. Noteworthy product improvements realized dur-
ing each stage will be highlighted.
With the end of the Cold War, the
U.S. Navy was directed to pursue
militarily useful and commercially
viable ships for sealift.
In November 1993, the
Shipbuilding Technology
Department of the David Taylor
Model Basin (DTMB) was tasked
by the Mid-Term Strategic Sealift
Technology Development Program
(MTSSTDP) with conducting
research to improve the efficiency
of ships by focusing on the engine
room — which accounts for 40 to
45 percent of the initial acquisition
cost.
The Producibility Task goals
were to develop product (ship)
designs that could be built with a
construction schedule reduction of
40 percent (down to 18 months)
and acquisition cost reduction of
15 percent (down to $25 million for
the engine room). To meet these
aggressive goals, the ERAM pro-
ject was initiated.
ERAM: Efficiency & Cost
Effectiveness By Design
The initial efforts involved the
baselining of world class (-30,000
shp) ships as well as their con-
struction yard processes. Also, a
shipbuilding industry/MTSSTDP
workshop was conducted where
the overall goals of the project
were defined using Quality
Function Deployment (QFD).
These goals were compiled in the
ERAM Requirements Document,
which would be the guidance docu-
ment for the project.
A design site was set up at
DTMB for 20 engineers and
designers, using Intergraph work-
stations for the 3-D product model-
ing effort. In addition, a library of
vendor-furnished information was
assembled, based on lists of likely
equipment types utilized in typical
30,000 shp plants. A steering com-
mittee was formed, comprised of
representatives from U.S. ship-
yards, Navy sponsors, a design
agent, ship owner/operators and a
university. The Steering
Committee theorized that since
the U.S. shipyards had not built
commercially competitive ships in
more than a decade, an Integrated
Product Team (IPT) should be
assembled consisting of both for-
eign and domestic designers from
shipyards, ship operators and
marine equipment vendors.
When the ERAM Team was
assembled at the DTMB design
site in June 1995, all core and
resource members were trained in,
customized and executed
Concurrent Engineering (CE) tech-
niques including: Integrated
Product & Process Development
(IPPD); QFD; Strategic Design
Method (SDM); as well as teaming
basics.
NON
GRAPHICAL
ATTRIBUTES
PRODUCT DATA MANAGER
I
l/ROUTE
BVAC CABLE WAYS)
NAVSEA CAD 2
3D PRODUCT MODEL
Figure 1
SSD#1 CAD Product Model Process
NEUTRAL
FORMAT
DATABASE
' Shipbuilder
. Shipbuilder
• Shipbuilder
Figure 2
A typical ERAM Level 2 unit.
70 Maritime Reporter/Engineering News
Digital Wave Publishing