SHIP PRODUCTION COMMITTEE May 1999

FACILITIES AND ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS NSRP 0535

SURFACE PREPARATION AND COATINGS N6-97-1
DESIGN/PRODUCTION INTEGRATION
HUMAN RESOURCE INNOVATION
MARINE INDUSTRY STANDARDS
WELDING
INDUSTRIAL ENGINEERING
EDUCATION AND TRAINING

THE NATIONAL
SHIPBUILDING
RESEARCH
PROGRAM

Establish Recommended
American Shipbuilding
Quality Standards - Final Report

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY

CARDEROCK DIVISION,
NAVAL SURFACE WARFARE CENTER

in cooperation with
Newport News Shipbuilding
 Form Approved
Report Documentation Page OMB No. 0704-0188

Public reporting burden for the collection of information is estimated to average 1 hour per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and
maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information,
including suggestions for reducing this burden, to Washington Headquarters Services, Directorate for Information Operations and Reports, 1215 Jefferson Davis Highway, Suite 1204, Arlington
VA 22202-4302. Respondents should be aware that notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person shall be subject to a penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information if it
does not display a currently valid OMB control number.

1. REPORT DATE 2. REPORT TYPE 3. DATES COVERED

MAY 1999 N/A -
4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE 5a. CONTRACT NUMBER
The National Shipbuilding Research Program, Establish Recommended 5b. GRANT NUMBER
American Shipbuilding Quality Standards - Final Report
5c. PROGRAM ELEMENT NUMBER

6. AUTHOR(S) 5d. PROJECT NUMBER

5e. TASK NUMBER

5f. WORK UNIT NUMBER

7. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) 8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION

REPORT NUMBER
Naval Surface Warfare Center CD Code 2230-Design Integration Tower
Bldg 192, Room 128 9500 MacArthur Blvd Bethesda, MD 20817-5700
9. SPONSORING/MONITORING AGENCY NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) 10. SPONSOR/MONITOR’S ACRONYM(S)

11. SPONSOR/MONITOR’S REPORT

NUMBER(S)

12. DISTRIBUTION/AVAILABILITY STATEMENT

Approved for public release, distribution unlimited
13. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES

14. ABSTRACT

15. SUBJECT TERMS

16. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF: 17. LIMITATION OF 18. NUMBER 19a. NAME OF
ABSTRACT OF PAGES RESPONSIBLE PERSON
a. REPORT b. ABSTRACT c. THIS PAGE
SAR 16
unclassified unclassified unclassified

Standard Form 298 (Rev. 8-98)

Prescribed by ANSI Std Z39-18
 DISCLAIMER

These reports were prepared as an account of government-sponsored work. Neither the

United States, nor the United States Navy, nor any person acting on behalf of the United
States Navy (A) makes any warranty or representation, expressed or implied, with respect
to the accuracy, completeness or usefulness of the information contained in this report/
manual, or that the use of any information, apparatus, method, or process disclosed in this
report may not infringe privately owned rights; or (B) assumes any liabilities with respect to
the use of or for damages resulting from the use of any information, apparatus, method, or
process disclosed in the report. As used in the above, “Persons acting on behalf of the
United States Navy” includes any employee, contractor, or subcontractor to the contractor
of the United States Navy to the extent that such employee, contractor, or subcontractor to
the contractor prepares, handles, or distributes, or provides access to any information
pursuant to his employment or contract or subcontract to the contractor with the United
States Navy. ANY POSSIBLE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND/OR
FITNESS FOR PURPOSE ARE SPECIFICALLY DISCLAIMED.
 National Shipbuilding Research Project
6-97-1

AMERICAN SHIPBUILDING QUALITY

STANDARDS

FINAL REPORT

Prepared by:
Lowell E. Smith
Alan N. Titcomb

4101 Washington Avenue

Newport News, Virginia 23607

May 28, 1999

BACKGROUND _________________________________________________________ 3
PROJECT OBJECTIVE ___________________________________________________ 3
TECHNICAL APPROACH_________________________________________________ 3
ACCOMPLISHMENT ____________________________________________________ 4
Task 1.0: Determine International Shipbuilding Standards ___________________________ 4
Task 2.0: Determine American Shipbuilding Quality Standards _______________________ 4
Task 3.0: Develop Draft American Shipbuilding Quality Standards ____________________ 6
Task 4.0: Publish Recommended American Shipbuilding Quality Standards _____________ 8
BACKGROUND
Quality standards at competitive commercial shipbuilders in Europe and the Far East
play a significant role in establishing customer expectations of ship construction quality and
controlling cost. Most commercial ship buyers expect ship construction to meet standards as
set forth in the Japanese Shipbuilding Quality Standards (JSQS) or equivalent. The JSQS
sets dimensional tolerances and quality limits on key attributes for hull fabrication and
construction, and outfitting manufacture and installation. The U.S. shipbuilding industry does
not currently have a shipbuilding quality standard comparable to the JSQS. Consequently,
the U.S. builder either develops a standard for a specific contract at the time of negotiation,
or agrees to comply with the JSQS as directed by the potential buyer. The U.S. shipbuilding
industry concurs that it would benefit from having an American Shipbuilding Quality Standard
(ASQS).

PROJECT OBJECTIVE
Develop a Recommended American Shipbuilding Quality Standard for hull, outfitting
and coatings. The standards would be comparable to current international standards of
shipbuilding quality, would be a consensus, and would have acceptance of the U.S.
shipbuilding industry.

TECHNICAL APPROACH
The Recommended American Shipbuilding Quality Standards would consist of three
volumes: Hull, Outfitting, and Coatings.
The Hull volume would be patterned after the JSQS Hull Part dated 1991. It would
consist of general steel fabrication, alignment, finishing, and defect acceptability guidance
that describes workmanship standards used in the world market and expected by ship
owners. This volume would reflect all past pertinent work conducted by NSRP, panels SP-4
and SP-6 in particular, and the Ship Structures Committee.
The Outfitting volume would be patterned after the JSQS Outfitting Part dated 1994
and would contain general dimensional and fit-up tolerances, ranges, and limitations that
describe acceptable worldwide practice and U.S. shipyard capabilities in these areas.
The Coatings volume would describe general coating practice and provide
recommended guidelines for inspection, measurement, and defect acceptance. Development
of this volume would review work done by NSRP Panel SP-3, the American Bureau of
Shipping, the Steel Structures Painting Panel, and National Association of Corrosion
Engineers.

Specifically, the project would:

1. Obtain copies of the JSQS and Shipbuilding Paint Application and Inspection Standards.
2. Transfer the obtained documents into electronic (computer-based) format.
3. Identify current U.S. quality standards covering items similar to those covered by the
JSQS.
4. Using JSQS as an index, list quality criteria from national standards currently used to
guide U.S. shipbuilders.
5. Develop a draft guideline containing a summary of all quality guidelines as compared to
JSQS.
6. Solicit U.S. shipyards for participation in this project at their own cost.
7. Task selected U.S. shipyards to review the draft guidelines. The shipyards would: a)
evaluate the guidelines against current practices, b) recommend changes to the draft
guidelines with supporting rationale, c) identify additional areas that could be covered by
the guidelines, and d) identify areas where future NSRP projects could be used to bring
U.S. shipbuilding quality up to JSQS standards.

ACCOMPLISHMENT

Task 1.0: Determine International Shipbuilding Standards

The first phase of the project involved searching for existing shipbuilding quality
standards. The project team researched libraries, the Internet, and contacted domestic and
international shipbuilders. Queries were also made to classification societies and other
regulatory bodies.
Three standards from international commercial shipbuilders were obtained during a
trip to the Far East for an unrelated project. Two more international standards were obtained
through working affiliations between Newport News Shipbuilding and foreign shipyards.
About half of the other European shipyards contacted by phone, email, and letter responded,
but no additional standards were obtained from these contacts.
Twenty-one standards specific to Structure and Hull, one specific to Outfitting only,
five specific to Coatings, and five combining more than one area were obtained; in all, a total
of thirty-two source documents. In addition, five reference documents were found that
provided information useful to establishing shipbuilding standards. A list of the standards and
reference documents are in Appendix A.

Task 2.0: Determine American Shipbuilding Quality Standards

The Japanese Shipbuilding Quality Standard, with consideration to other existing
standards, was used as the baseline for establishing the ASQS. The JSQS along with
standards obtained from international shipbuilders were compiled in side-by-side matrix
format to provide a convenient means for comparing standards by common attribute. No
proprietary information was included in the ASQS or associated reporting.
The project team analyzed how the various shipbuilders treated each ship
construction attribute, and derived the “Recommended American Shipbuilding Quality
Standard” for each attribute. The analysis also considered whether or not to include a
specific attribute in the ASQS. The matrix of “Recommended American Shipbuilding Quality
Standards” was distributed to selected U.S. shipbuilders for review and comment and to gain
concurrence and endorsement of the ASQS from the U.S. shipbuilding industry at large.
The final ASQS will be submitted to ASTM for inclusion in the ASTM library of
standards.
The Recommended American Shipbuilding Quality Standard matrix was compiled for
distribution in CADAM drawing format, a computer aided design software tool. The CADAM
drawing format was selected over other documentation alternatives based on ease of
compilation, readability, ease of distribution, and compatibility with U.S. shipbuilder end user
capabilities. The alternative data compilation formats considered were Microsoft Excel
(spreadsheet), Microsoft Access (database), and Microsoft Word (document). The pros and
cons of each format were determined to be as follows:
Table 1 – Comparison of Data Compilation Formats
Format Pros Cons Comment
Excel § Spreadsheet provides § Comparison of five Although Excel
for easy organization of standards makes width of provides sorting
data in side by side spreadsheet unwieldy for capability, the nature of
format. visual comparison of the multi-tiered
§ Data can be sorted after data. (nested) data makes
all entries are made. § End user must be skilled sorting in Excel not
§ Spreadsheet cells can to sort complex, multi- practical.
accommodate text, layered data.
sketches and graphics. § Not all U.S. shipyard At least one U.S.
reviewers have ready shipbuilder was
access to a personal expected to lack any
computer and latest capability whatsoever
version of Excel. with Excel. This would
§ ASTM will not use this require a “special”
electronic format so it document of
adds no value to the final distribution to this one
product. end user, adding time
§ Hard copy output is and cost to the project.
difficult; requires printing
on 8 ½ x 11 inch paper
cut and taped into large
document. Conversion to
larger size paper is
technically difficult.

Access § Can display contents in § Input of data is complex See above.

several formats (e.g. and source of potential
table, report, error due to multi-tiered
spreadsheet, form nature of data.
record). § Data creators and end
§ Data easily sorted and users do not possess the
extracted for use. advanced skills needed to
§ Can accommodate text, extract and view the data.
sketches, and graphics. § Hard copy output is
difficult; requires printing
on 8 ½ x 11-inch paper
cut and taped into large
document. Conversion to
large size paper is
technically difficult.
§ ASTM will not use this
electronic format so it
adds no value to the final
product.
Table 1 Comparison of Data Compilation Formats (cont'd)
Word § Table feature displays § Large amount of data
data in format similar to does not readily fit on
existing data. standard print size paper.
§ Tables are easily § Also, size of document
formatted for multi-tiered and table required is
data. unwieldy and causes
§ Data creators and end software application to
users have requisite “act up” frequently.
skills to extract and view § Hard copy output is
the data. difficult and viewing in
§ Word is readily available electronic format is
to most end users impractical.
§ Not all reviewers have
ready access to a
personal computer and
the latest version of
Word.

CADAM § Easiest to configure for § Data cannot be readily Data maintenance

data input and display. sorted after input. subsequent to
§ Easily extracted and compilation is outside
printed on standard size the scope of this
drawing paper for project, therefore,
distribution and visual electronic format and
comparison of side by sort capabilities are not
side standards. needed. Final data will
§ Does not require any be forwarded to ASTM
special skill, software, in hard copy format on
personal computer or standard 8 ½ x 11-inch
other hardware for end format similar to the
users to review and JSQS document.
comment.
§ Enables conversion from
large matrix working
document containing all
existing standards to the
final ASQS document.

Task 3.0: Develop Draft American Shipbuilding Quality Standards

Copies of specific sections of the JSQS and the other international shipbuilding
quality standards were assigned to engineers with expertise in each area, (e.g., piping, steel
fabrication, coatings). The assigned engineer annotated each section of the various
standards to provide instructions to the CADAM draftspersons.
Using CADAM, the project team drew the matrix of existing standards on standard “C”
size drawing paper for distribution to U.S. shipbuilders. The format was arranged with each
attribute from the JSQS (sketch and description) in the first column on the left side. The
second column was used for the Recommended American Shipbuilding Quality Standard
“pass/fail” criteria. The first and second columns, when combined, form an 8 ½ x 11-inch
booklet format similar to those of the two JSQS volumes. The third column contained the
original “pass/fail” criteria for the attribute from the JSQS. Beginning with the fourth column
and continuing to the right in adjacent columns, each additional existing international
standard was compiled for each corresponding attribute.
 The Recommended ASQS draft was organized as shown in Figure 1.

Matrix Drawing Format

IRON WORK
Division
Section
A.S.Q.S. J.S.Q.S. A B C D

Item Figure Tolerance Tolerance

Attribute

JSQS JSQS Existing Standards from

Other International Shipbuilders

Recommended ASQS

Figure 1

After the completed drawing with all attributes was distributed, reviewed and an
acceptable ASQS was agreed upon by U.S. shipbuilders, columns one and two were cut
from the matrix to become the ASQS. This was printed as an 8 ½ x 11-inch booklet as the
final project deliverable and forwarded to NSRP.
The ASQS is organized into three volumes corresponding to three technical areas of
ship construction: Hull, Outfitting, and Coatings. The three ASQS volumes are Attachments
1, 2 and 3 respectively. The content of each volume corresponds closely to the content of the
JSQS with the exception of the Coatings volume. The JSQS did not address Coatings
specifically. NNS project personnel compiled the Coatings volume using information from a
wide variety of resource documents and company expertise. It was the intent of this project
that the ASQS meet, but not exceed the JSQS level of quality. The ASQS does not contain
nor duplicate standards that exist in whole, or in part, in any other U.S. standard. The ASQS
is limited to dimensional tolerances, fit and finish inspection pass/fail criteria. It does not
include quality “processes” or “philosophies.” The ASQS applies to the following general
attributes:

• Ship Structure such as:

♦ Panels
♦ Hull blocks
♦ Shapes and plates
♦ Fabricated assemblies
 ♦ Finished fittings and castings such as:
§ Bull Nose
§ Chocks and bitts
§ Anchor
§ Hull penetrations and shaft housings
♦ Joints between any of the above list
• Hull Outfitting such as:
♦ Pipe stock
♦ Pipe assemblies
♦ Pipe and electrical hangers
♦ Ventilation piping, ducting, and fittings
• Ship protective and decorative coatings to include:
♦ Surface maintenance and preparations prior to coating application
♦ Application parameters (temperature, time, atmospheric conditions, and cure time)
♦ Final appearance and film thickness

The ASQS does not deal with functional, engineering or design issues relating to
ships or ship systems.
The JSQS was used as a baseline. The project was based on the assumption that
the JSQS would be adopted for the ASQS unless there was sufficient opposing rationale.
Shipbuilders, first at Newport News Shipbuilding, then at other U.S. yards, were asked to
review the JSQS criteria for each attribute and either accept it for the ASQS, or provide an
alternative criteria with supporting rationale. Standards from four other international
shipbuilders were placed in adjacent columns. This was done to allow the shipbuilders to see
a full comparison of what other shipyards were using and how they compared to the JSQS.
The other shipbuilders did not address all of the attributes contained in the JSQS. In these
instances, “not addressed” was entered in the corresponding field.
The draft ASQS was completed the first week of March 1999. It consisted of three
volumes: Hull, Outfitting, and Coatings. Copies of the three volumes were hand-delivered to
representatives of four major U.S. shipbuilders (other than Newport News Shipbuilding)
during the Maritech ASE “Shipyard Production Process Technologies” Panel meeting held
March 10-11, 1999, in Biloxi, Mississippi. Each shipbuilder representative accepted a copy of
the Standard and committed their shipyard to review and return the draft volumes to the
project leader by April 16, 1999.
None of the four shipbuilders actually reviewed the draft ASQS as intended, primarily
due to lack of funding. In the absence of comments on the draft, the project leader published
and submitted the Recommended ASQS to NSRP as compiled and reviewed by Newport
News Shipbuilding without additional alteration.

Task 4.0: Publish Recommended American Shipbuilding Quality Standards

Columns one and two were extracted from the matrix to form the three 8-1/2 x 11”
booklets. They are Attachments 1, 2, and 3 to this report.

Task 5.0: NSRP Project Completion Report

The Project Completion Report containing the ASQS was forwarded to NSRP on May
28, 1999.
Project Final Deliverables

1. Recommended American Shipbuilding Quality Standards (Task 3.2)

2. Project Final Report (Task 5.1)
3. Final Quarterly Progress Report
National Shipbuilding Research Project

6-97-1

APPENDIX A

List of Standards In Hand

 List of Standards In Hand
NSRP Project 6-97-1

Structural and Hull Outfitting

Title and Date Issuing Agency Received From

SHIPBUILDING AND REPAIR QUALITY STANDARD, IACS (International Organization of Classification Robert Letourneau (NNS)
Recommendation No. 47 (1996) Societies)
SHIPBUILDING AND REPAIR QUALITY STANDARD ABS (American Bureau of Shipping)
FOR HULL STRUCTURES DURING CONSTRUCTION,
July 1998
SHIP PLATE DEFORMATION CRITERIA (Comparison SSC (Ship Structures Committee) Report 364 SSC Report CD Set
of Japanese and German Practices) (excerpt)
B.I.W. INSPECTION GUIDELINES (before 1978) Bath Iron Works (SSC Report 273) Appendix 9.2.1.1, Issued
1978
RO/RO DIMENSIONAL CONTROL GUIDELINES Bath Iron Works (SSC Report 273) Appendix 9.2.1.1, Issued
(before 1978) 1978
MANUFACTURING STANDARD PROCESS NO. 909- Ingalls Shipbuilding (SSC Report 273) Appendix 9.2.2, Issued 1978
002 (before 1978)
SPECIAL TOLERANCES FOR DRILL RIG (before 1978) Levingston Shipbuilding (SSC Report 273) Appendix 9.2.3, Issued 1978
DIMENSIONAL TOLERANCES FOR LNG TANKERS Newport News Shipbuilding (SSC Report 273) Appendix 9.2.4, Issued 1978
(before 1978)
STRUCTURAL TOLERANCES-Quality Control SEATRAIN SHIPBUILDING (SSC Report 273) Appendix 9.2.5, Issued 1978
Instruction – Fairness (before 1978)
SHIPBUILDING PRODUCTION STANDARD (HULL SUN SHIPBUILDING & DRY DOCK (SSC Report 273) Appendix 9.2.6, Issued 1978
DIVISION) 1976
UNFAIRNESS TOLERANCES, NAVSHIPS U.S. Navy (SSC Report 273) Appendix 9.2.7, Issued 1978
0900-000-1001, June 1969
Weld Specifications, date unknown Excerpt from SSC Report 323 SSC Report CD set
Guide for Ship Structural Inspection, 1985 SSC Report 332 SSC Report CD set
Standard Guide for Steel Hull Construction Tolerances ASTM (American Society for Testing and Materials) Lee Anderson, NNS
[metric] Steve Buttice, NNS
ASTM F 1053/F 1053M-94
Japanese Shipbuilding Quality Standard (Hull Part) 1995 Research Committee on Steel Shipbuilding, Society of Lee Anderson, NNS
Naval Architects of Japan
JAPAN OFFSHORE STRUCTURES QUALITY Research Committee on Steel Shipbuilding, Society of Lee Anderson, NNS
STANDARD (J.O.Q.S.) 1986 Naval Architects of Japan

1
 List of Standards In Hand
NSRP Project 6-97-1

Structural and Hull Outfitting (cont'd)

Quality Assurance and Quality Control Program Sumitomo Heavy Industries Lee Anderson, NNS
(undated) (proprietary)
Production Standard of the German Shipbuilding Verband der Deutschen Shiffbauinsdustrie, e. V. (SSC Appendix 9.2.3, Issued 1978
Industry, Nov. 1974 Report 273)
Accuracy in Hull Construction, VIS 530, 1976 Swedish Shipbuilding Standards Center (SSC Report Appendix 9.3.3, Issued 1978
273)
Alignment and Finishing, Background Document 8-3, SSC Report 273 Appendix 9.3.4, Issued 1978
Japanese Shipbuilding Quality Standards, 1975
Ship Plate Deformation Criteria Excerpt from SSC Report 364 SSC Report CD set

Outfitting
Title and Date Issuing Agency Received From

Japanese Shipbuilding Quality Standard No. 2 Subcommittee of Research Committee on Steel Lee Anderson, NNS
Outfitting Part, 1994 Shipbuilding, Society of Naval Architects of Japan

Coatings
Title and Date Issuing Agency Received From

Guidelines for Corrosion Protection of Ships, No. 94- Det Norske Veritas Classification AS Alan Titcomb, NNS
P005, April 1994
CORROSION CONTROL OF INTER-HULL SPACES, SSC Report 390 SSC Report CD set
January 1996
STANDARD COATING PRACTICE AND PAINTING Newport News Shipbuilding
PLAN, DOUBLE EAGLE PRODUCT CARRIER, 12/94
TANK COATING SPECIFICATIONS FOR PRODUCT The Shipbuilder’s Association of Japan Alan Titcomb, NNS
CARRIERS, April 1982
Guidance for Corrosion Protection System of Hull Nippon Kaiju Kyokai Class NK Alan Titcomb, NNS
Structures – For Water Ballast Tanks and Cargo Oil
Tanks, 1994

2
 List of Standards In Hand
NSRP Project 6-97-1

Combined
Title and Date Issuing Agency Received From

NEWPORT NEWS SHIPBUILDING COMMERCIAL Newport News Shipbuilding Lee Anderson, NNS
SHIP INSPECTION STANDARD AND SHIPBUILDING
PROCESSES, 10/4/95
SAMSUNG SHIPBUILDING QUALITY STANDARD, R5, SAMSUNG Quality Control Department, Koje Shipyard Lee Anderson, NNS
10/92
CSBC SPAIS SHIPBUILDING PROCESS AND China Shipbuilding Corporation, Kaohsiung Shipyard Lee Anderson, NNS
INSPECTION STANDARD, 10/79 Committee of Standards
HSQS, HYUNDAI SHIPBUILDING QUALITY Hyundai Heavy Industries Co. LTD., Shipbuilding Lee Anderson, NNS
STANDARD, 1995 Division, Doc. No. 2-C630-2-5501
IHI SPAIS, THE SHIPBUILDING PROCESS AND Ishikawajima-Harima Heavy Industries Co., LTD. Lee Anderson, NNS
INSPECTION STANDARD, 1992 (Proprietary)

OTHER REFERENCES
Title and Date Issuing Agency Received From

Corrosion Protection of Ships – How can the Level of Det Norske Veritas, by Kjell Olaisen Alan Titcomb, NNS
Corrosion be Reduced?, 1994
ABS and Coatings, March 1996 Corrosion 96 paper by Sudheer Chand, Chief Alan Titcomb, NNS
Engineer, Technology Development, ABS Houston
List: ABS Requirements Concerning Coatings and Unknown Alan Titcomb
Corrosion Protection, undated
Brochure: Ballast Tank Integrity and the New IMO Jan Aubert, Jotun Marine Coatings, Sandefjord, Jotun Alan Titcomb, NNS
Coating Rule, undated Valspar Marine Coatings
SURVEY OF STRUCTURAL TOLERANCES IN THE U.S. Ship Structure Committee Lee Anderson, NNS
UNITED STATES COMMERCIAL SHIPBUILDING
INDUSTRY, 1978, paper SSC Report 273

3
Additional copies of this report can be obtained from the
National Shipbuilding Research and Documentation Center:

http://www.nsnet.com/docctr/

Documentation Center
The University of Michigan
Transportation Research Institute
Marine Systems Division
2901 Baxter Road
Ann Arbor, MI 48109-2150

Phone: 734-763-2465
Fax: 734-763-4862
E-mail: Doc.Center@umich.edu