WP 4 Innovative dismantling strategies and procedures

1
WP 4Innovative dismantling strategies and
procedures

• Dr.Selim Alkaner, Prof.Purnendu K. Das, David
  Smith, Prabha Dilok
• Department of Naval Architecture and Marine
  Engineering,
• Universities of Glasgow and Strathclyde,
• Glasgow, Scotland
• SHIPDISMANTL - 4th Technical Meeting,
• 13 - 12 September 2006, Glasgow, U.K.

2

• Overview

3
Objectives of WP4

• Optimal design of a prototype SD facility
• Optimisations according to the D4.1 of a given
  yard related to F-SD, and P-SD

4
Overview of WP4

• Start date M06 (Sep05) actual Feb06
• End date M24 (Feb05)
• Reporting
• D4.1 (due M18/Sep06, UGS)
• D4.2 (due M24/Feb07, UGS)
• D4.2 (due M24/Feb07, UGS)
• Partners (m-m)
• UGS (15)
• LEYAL (6)
• NASOL (5.5)
• UoP (5)
• IITB (5)
• MM (2.5)
• KCC (1)

5
(No Transcript)
6

• PM-Performance Summary

7
Working Plan Original v. Updated
end Sep06
Updated Original
8
Progress Update
Feb07
End Aug05
End Feb06
Sep06
9
WP4 Schedule, Deliverables Milestones
D4.1 Generic guidelines for optimal ship breaking
facilities (m18)
10 days LATE!!
M4.1 Selection and optimization of Leyal docking
system
M4.2 Generic guidelines for optimal structure of
dismantling facilities
D4.2 Optimal design and re-organisation of Leyal
dismantling facilities (m24)
D4.3 Optimal design and re-organisation of
NAFTOSOL dismantling facilities
M4.3 Reports on amendment of current facilities
10

• Status

11
3rd TM-Patras EU Officer comments

• Day 1 Dr. Michael Kyriakopoulos
• What are the real objectives of the Project?
• Industry partners to upgrade their current
  technologies ??!
• Tool development ??!
• Development of DSS ??!
• Input to policy makers (IMO etc) ??!
• Update current documents ??!
• Quantify!!!
• Decide, what do you expect from the project!
• Change one piece at a time!
• Define priorities!
• Give solutions to number of problems ? Make life
  easier for workers!
• Results of the Project should help others!
• Send me one page summary of decisions.
• I need to know where we are going!
• I cant see where youre going!!
• Dont be stiff enough to Work Packages. You can
  change (Make your own changes)
• EU Parliament IMO people have to pay
  dismantling. We have to do this with minimum
  investment (e.g. beaching)
• Focus on more environmentally friendly solutions
  with less energy use!

12
Summary of Activities

• Following the Patras meeting, a WP4WP5 joint
  technical meeting has been held in Pireaus
  (LEYAL)
• During the two day meetings
• outline of the UoP-UGS simulation modelling
  issues has been prepared (LEYALUoPUGS)
• Initial layout variants developed with
  (UGSLEYAL)
• P-SD facilities visited (UGSNASOL)

13
Action Items - WP4WP5 Pireaus Meeting(06-07
April 2006)
14
Task 4.1 Generic Guidelines for optimal SD
facilities

• Deliverable 4.1, due 18M, UGS
• ST4.1.1 Docking facilities
• ST4.1.2 Equipment recovery
• ST4.1.3 Pre-cleaning
• ST4.1.4 SD process zones
• ST4.1.5 Storage and support facilities
• ST4.1.6 Design by simulation (Costenergy)

15
Facility/Plant Design Environment
Market Environment
Business Planning Environment
Needs
PLANT
Investment
Production Environment
Material Production Methods
16
Work Performed 1/3

• Facility development guidelines
• Main technology alternatives are identified from
  SoA (UGS)
• Potential routes for SD identified (coating v.
  decoating) (UGS)
• Main technology scenarios identified BAET, BPET,
  BECE, BCE (UGS)
• Components of scenarios verified by SD experts
  (LEYAL)
• Objectives hierarchy prepared (UGS)
• Objectives hierarchy amended and
  commented/verified by partners (NASOL, LEYAL,MM)
• Layout design criteria/parameters prepared
• Layout scorecard idea has been drafted
• Shipbuilding Best Practices reviewed for
  applicability to SD (also related to WP6)

17
Systematic Planning of Industrial Facilities

• 1) Location
• identifying the area (either within an existing
  building or a new one) which is to house the
  facilities to be laid out.
• 2) General overall layout
• determining the general arrangement of the blocks
  of area allocated to each activity.
• 3) Detailed layout
• fixing the positions of each piece of equipment
  etc., within the blocks of area of each activity.
• 4) Installation
• executing the plans, moving old equipment,
  installing in new locations, bringing new
  equipment into positions.
• (R. Muther, 1973)

18
Evaluation of Resource Requirements

• Production equipment
• Transportation
• Storage and stockyard
• Assembly and buffer space

19
Evaluation of Alternatives

• Definition of economic and preference
  criteria
• Critical assessment of alternatives
• Final evaluation

20
Work Performed 2/3

• Development of Alternative Facilities
• The actual work primarily focuses on docking
  and process zones (Primary and secondary zones)
• Scope of layout design decided upon
  (DockingZ1Z2decoating) (LEYAL Proposal)
• Layout variants created based on LEYALs feedback
  (BL8)
• Candidate layout variants decided on (UGS, LEYAL)
  (BL3)
• mechanical cutting technology alternative
  modelled (UGS) and verified by manufacturer

21
Development of Layout Alternatives
Objective function (e.g. maximisation)
Optimum solution
Solution set
Feasible solution(s)
Non-acceptable solution(s)
22
Layout Variants Modelling Concept
23
Components of SD Model
SD Facility (Static-Workspace)
SD Object
SD Object
Workspace
SD Object (Dynamic)
Workspace (Dynamic)
24
Layout Variants
V0-Baseline
V3-Drydock
V1-Wet Basin
V2a-Pier
V4-Floating dock
V2b-Pier
V5-Slipway
V2c-Pier (Side)
V6-Shiplift
25
Objectives Hierarchy for SD Facility Development
26
Work Performed 3/3

• Risk-based facility development
• Risk assessment framework development started
• List of Risk assessment methods are prepared (MM)

27
Risk-Based Approach to Facility Design

• Motivation
• Balancing efforts to control
• the technical, environmental, and human factor
  risks in the facility design and development
  process subject to various known and unknown
  risks

28
Design Scenarios
Key Layout Design Parameters and Variables
(RISK) Type of docking system Dimensions of
docking system Type of cutting technology Etc.
Key Layout Design Parameters and Variables
(COST) Investment and set-up costs Operating
costs Cost of environmental impact Earning
potential (re-roll v. scrap) Etc.
Key Layout Design Parameters and Variables
(TECH) Productivity rates Number of
workers Storage capacity Type of
material- handling equipment Etc.
Layout Design Decision-Making
29
Risk Management
Risk is an uncertain event or condition that
could have a positive and negative impact on the
systems objectives
Risk Management
Risk Assessment
Risk Control
30
Risk Assessment Process
Hazard Identification
Risk Analysis
Risk Control Options
Cost-Benefit Assessment
Recommendations for Decision Making
31
Risk Assessment Process
Hazard Identification
Risk Analysis
Risk Control Options
Cost-Benefit Assessment
Recommendations for Decision Making
32
Work-in-progress

• ST 4.1.6 simulation modelling for facility design
• This is being done for
• Selected layout variants (BL3)
• Selected technology scenarios (x4)
• Output measures design parameters
• Input vessel Case ship 1

33
Layout Development - Preliminary
34
Cost
Beaching Natural Slip-way Pier Floating Dock Wet
Basin Dry Dock Slip-way Ship Lift
Abrasive dry blasting Hydro blast Line
strip Hydro blast Hull Dry ice Soda
blasting None
Oxy-acetylene Water jet Mechanical Laser
1
1
1
Docking Systems Cutting Technology De-coating
Technology
2A
2
2
7
2B
3
3
3
4
4
4
5
6
f
7
6
8
5
4
Direction of Competitive Advantage
3
2
1
f
9
1
2
7
8
6
3
4
5
Env. Impact
35
Technology-Mix for Shipdismantling
Route-1
Route-2
36
Technology Scenarios
Cost
Environmental Friendliness
37
Technology Scenarios Map
38
SD Process Reengineering Cost Drivers
Scenario A Mechanisation
39
Layout Scorecard

• The layout scorecard is a summary matrix of
  various criteria against a number of factors used
  during the facility development.
• The main criteria listed in the matrix are
• - product
• - facility (sea/land) interface
• - operations
• - major risk factors

40
Layout Scorecard
Design Parameters/Variables Operating
Conditions v. Objectives
SECONDARY ZONE PARAMETERS Type of surface Area of
Zone-2 (m2) Type of cutting technology Number of
workers
PRIMARY DISMANTLING ZONE PARAMETERS Type of
docking system Type of de-coating system Length
of seafront interface (m) Capacity of docking
system (t, m3) Number of workers
VESSEL PARAMETERS Type vessel Age of
vessel Length of vessel (m) Breadth of vessel
(m) Height of vessel (m) Wetted surface
(m2) Weight of vessel (LWT) Number of
decks HazMat inventory (risk levels)
SEA-SHORE INTERFACE PARAMETERS Type of
containment-risk control options Length of
sea-shore interface (m) Tidal status
41

• Supporting work
• and
• spin-off ideas

42
Unit Complexity Factors SB v. SD
SB SD
43
Integrated Approach to Facility Development

• Justification
• Multiple-criteria
• Multiple-attributes
• Subjective attributes
• Imprecise information
• Linguistic data
• Fuzzy opinions

44
Conceptual model of the proposed method
Technical Performance Analysis
Risk Analysis
Stage 1 - Determination of Feasible Designs
Health Safety Models
Pareto-Optimal Design Alternatives
Generation of Design Alternatives
Simulation of Design Alternatives
Environmental Models
Cost/Earning Models
Feasible Design Alternatives
Stage 2 - Decision Support System
FMAGDM ()
Ratings
Rating (Performance Scores)
Vessels DB
Expert Weights Attribute weights
Aggregation of Experts Opinions
Analysis of Weighting Data
Knowledge Base
Selection of Best Design Alternative
Group Consensus
Compromised Facility Design
() Fuzzy Multi-Attributive Group Decision Making
45

• Future Work

46
Work to be done

• Second stage of Task involves modification of
  Simulation models created in 4.1.6
• ST 4.2.4 simulation for F-SD
• ST 4.3.3 simulation for P-SD

47
Reporting period
48
Path to Process Success
Understand Define Measure Manage
49
Case Study Phase 1Development of Layout
Alternatives

• Preparation of facility components list
• Transition from block layouts to preliminary
  layouts
• Development of preliminary alternative layouts
  (for alternative docking vessel types)
• Development of 2D-CAD layouts for review and
  simulation input

50
Transport and Material Handling Technologies
R