they’ve helped to accomplish. They are. “The accomplish-
ments here are very specifi c, perhaps not readily apparent
to someone who doesn’t fully understand the work fl ow or
process of shipbuilding,” said David, adding, “It boils down
to ShipConstructor outputting the geometric data – the
CAD model data that is created with our product, along
with the welding information that is also created in our
product. You’re looking at the assembly that has to be man-
ufactured and you’re looking at all the 3D model parts that
you’ve created in your CAD system. Along with just seeing
the geometry that is there, we are also able to identify within
‘Shipcon’ where the welds would have to take place, as well
as the type of welds that they should be. That information
is brought into the path planner on the wolf side to plan all
of the welds that the robot will perform. What’s signifi cant
here is that any variability on the production side can be re-
pathed very quickly on the robot side and with little manual
intervention and in a minimal amount of time. The path
planning software is that robust. The information is mar-
ried into one package, exported into the robot.”
Bollinger is the only shipyard testing – and using – this
technology today. Bollinger bought the robots, got the over-
head gantries into place and rigged all of the equipment. And
says SSI’s David, the success of the project at Bollinger has
raised enough eyebrows at other shipyards that the NSRP
project’s next phase will involve more than just one robot.Payback
According to Bollinger’s Fanguy, the project team gener-
ated ROM (rough order of magnitude) costs of the system
concepts and worked with Bollinger to develop ROI and pay-
back estimates using Bollinger’s plans for implementation to
apply timing to estimated savings and utilizations. An adop-
tion curve was applied to refl ect the rate at which CAR-W
systems could realistically ramp-up to expected production
capacity. This adoption curve was meant to capture the tim-
ing for organizational alignment, information fl ow infrastruc-
ture, personnel training, etc. The adoption curve used shows
0% adoption for 2015 during development, 1% in 2016 with
prototype systems, 20% in 2017 for CAR-W production ap-
plications, and 80% and 100% in 2018 and 2019 respectively.
Fanguy explained the numbers further, telling Marine-
News, “From a high-level, a $4.5 million investment in
robotic automation per yard ($72 million industry-wide)
over a three to seven year period (based on the develop-
ment pace of Computer Aided Robotics algorithms for
high-impact weld types) could elevate the industry to a
point where 15% of the welding volume in an average
shipyard (estimated at 60 miles) could be completed with
robotics. This investment is projected to save the industry
in excess of $80 million annually at a return on investment
in excess of 100% once the robotic cell or gantry is operat-
ing at full capacity by the second year.”
To be fair, both return-on-investment and payback period
metrics are expected to fl uctuate by yard based on the pace at
which robotic systems are brought to full production capac-TECHNOLOGY
“One of the issues prior to this project when using robots for
manufacturing that had high variability was the amount of time that
it took to program the robot to do the weld. Our ability to quickly
generate that path – that information – is where the savings lie.
So those past problems aren’t as valid as they once were. A lot of
folks are going to reconsider this possibility now. Automated weld-
ing is nothing new. But, the barrier to entry has been signifi cantly
lowered with and due to this project.”- SSI’s R&D Manager Patrick David
26 MN February 2017