Mark Palmer Meeting host - NIST
Tony Fry T 23 Cochairperson - UK MoD/ WSA
Jim
Mays T 23 Cochairperson
- NAVSEA NSWC CD (Introduction and day 2)
Andrew Bush Haliburton/NSWCCD
Burt Gischner General Dynamics/Electric Boat
Takashi Inouye Ship STEP Committee of JMSA
Bahadir Inozu University of New Orleans
Hiroyuki Kakuno Benic Solution Corp
John Kendall Eurostep Limited
Pete Lazo Product Data Services Corp.
Tim Turner LSC Group
Rob Schuler NAVSEA NSWC CD
Tatsuro Shirai Asahi Engineering
Ron Wood Northrop Grumman Ship Systems/Ingalls
Ben Kassel NAVSEA NSWC CD (Day 2 only)
Gerry Radack CTC (Day 1 am by telephone)
JM
specified that there is a problem with AP226 in terms of future commitment and
support, as well as some major technical problems a major one being the ability
to identify the functional requirements of the mechanical systems (e.g Drive
train). See Annex I for a description of AP 226 with the key functional items
that we want to discuss in relation to AP 227 in red. The meeting proceeded to address the agenda items. See Annex N.
TJT
indicated that the meeting objectives should remember that we are looking for
an exchange standard and not a shared data implementation model.
JM
stated that if we are going to have to use AP227 T23 can not change the scope
or strucuture of the current document, we have to provide the resources for any
additions/extensions, and we cannot impact the schedule for AP227.
MP: We have the DIS ready to go out so that
cannot be changed. This workshop may have
recommendations on future development.
An informative supplementary document for the use of RDL specifically
for the use of mechanical systems.
AP227 want to work with T23 to make AP227 useful without impacting the
schedule. They have test cases which MP
and GR have looked at to start the process.
AB:
POSC/CAESAR want to create a great many specific items (of e.g. a pipe),
whereas ‘rest of world’ want to add characteristics to a general pipe. i.e. size is a characteristic.
These
2 views are being merged, so the RDL approach is in flux. T23 needs to decide on what it will use and
a roadmap for proceeding. This will be discussed more in the RDL technical
session.
There was some discussion on the
scope of the equipment which is in scope of the ship mechanical STEP
capability. Where are the boundaries
with O&F for example? This needs to
be decided by T23. Action on T23.
TF: we should leave the through
life support aspects (reliability, maintainability) to PLCS (AP239). However, reprovisioning of spare parts is
out of scope of PCS (Invoicing, delivery, order etc.). This will be at CD in October.
BG: Agree that we should leave this
to PLCS.
This leaves design, procure,
install: AP227
Maintenance, failure modes: AP239
BI: Failure modes are identified
at the construction stage; does PLCS take this into account? TF: yes it does. TJT: Slide on what PLCS uses RDL for: support engineering,
inventory control, change control, product maintenance.
JK: Will the use of 239 to
identify failure modes at the construction phase (which is using AP227) be
possible when both are using a common RDL? AB: Yes it will, but will have to be
identified by this group exactly what a failure mode is in the RDL.
MP: There is no testing in the scope. Action: TJT to add testing to scope of AP226R.
1.
Exchange of
mechanical product data to support quotation based procurement
2.
Exchange of
mechanical product data to support CAD/ERP integration and catalogue based
procurement
3.
Exchange of
mechanical product data to support simulation
4.
Exchange of
mechanical product data to support classification society type approval
5.
Exchange of
mechanical product data to support configuration of planned maintenance systems
6.
Machinery
operational and maintenance data to support survey and maintenance.
Japan had a project but there are
no plans for a follow on.
IB thought about completing
AP226, but the scope was too large for the funding that they had. However they were interested in finishing
the maintenance parts. They like the
breakdown structure and want to preserve it. Will it be preserved?
Annex L of the AP226 document
should act as the requirements for ship mechanical data exchange. These
requirements should be used to extend the existing RDL and the usage guide.
TJT: The exchange of AP2237 should allow the referencing of both RDL
and PLIB information. MP: There is no
support for PLIB implementation.
GR: To allow meaningful exchange there needs to be a fixed core of
library information. This is in terms
of systems, components and properties.
This is documented in the AP document.
He emphasised that what we really
need is test data. TJT, we have some
from the TWR.
TJT take the lead for the
baseline document for the scenarios and product data. Action
What we need to do is look at:
·
Improvements
of AP227
·
Extensions
to the RDL
·
Usage guide
·
Maintenance
authority for the RDL
BI: Take a look at producing the
RDL, usage guide and what needs to be done to achieve it. Action
Current AP226 has dictionaries
which are structured into 4 groups:
-
Mechanical
products
-
Materials
-
Tasks
-
Product
anomalies
These last 2 should be covered by
PLCS, but there are some specific Ship requirements in these and it should be
ensured that these are covered by PLCS.
Action
Functional views of systems in
AP227 are ‘lines’ e.g. HVAC line, pipe
line. GR, this should be extended to a
general ‘line’ so that we can include e.g. power line.
In AP227 there is the capability
to define characteristics of the plant item, however this information can also
be put into the libraries. There needs
to be agreement on how much of the library information is duplicated in the
characteristics in the AP227 data.
AB: There does not seem to be the
capability to define function without actually referencing a plant item. E.g. the capability to define a pipe line to
carry X l/s. TF: This may well be
within the scope of AP233 where requirements capture is defined.
AB: these functions are defined in the RDL. GR We therefore only need an attribute to link the library to the
function in AP227. Action
ISO 14224 developed by the
petroleum and oil and gas for the collection of RAM Data.
See annex F for presentation
See annex L for the EXPRESS model
Both AP227 and RDL can represent connections, how is it
possible to determine which one is used.
This will have to be put in the usage guide. Action. This should also be expanded to all areas of
the scope.
See annex G for presentation.
See Annex K for the model.
At this level it does not matter what the library is (RDL,
PLIB etc) since it is only referenced as a string.
All external libraries have a unique identifier, the list of
which is maintained by the BSI (one exists for the AP226 library).
RS: AP227 can reference PLIB and/or RDL data, what we need
to determine is how that information is referenced i.e. what the string
structure is. Action.
TJT presented the Drive train example (see annex H for
presentation).
It was agreed to use this as the example data and:
TS We need a new subtype of plant item connector:
mechanical_connector
TJT new subtype of plant system: mechanical_system.
Also new subtype of plant item: mechanical_plant_item
Mechanical_connector_component
These are not considered technical changes to AP227 but
refinements of the existing structure.
In addition these do not involve changes to the scope of AP227.
We can submit these changes as comments to the DIS ballot of
AP227 ed 2.
AP227 DIS document should be published 1st week
of November which means ballot end 1st week March.
TJT be the SMS lead for AP227 at the ARM level, RS the lead
at the mapping and AIM level. Annex M
contains preliminary information.
Action
BG is the AP227 document editor and Mitch Gilbert is
responsible for ARM and clause 5.
The solution should be prepared in advance and presented to
the AP227 team and Mitch Gilbert in advance by Oct 18th. This will
be discussed at the AP227 test case meeting at NIST Oct 24th/25th.
MP indicated that any changes to the document for SMS will
have to be funded from within T23. This
will involve funding for PDIT. XoDs to investigate this. Action
Additionally there will need to be work put into the AP227
usage guide. MP said that it would be
best of there were a single usage guide not a separate one for ship
building. Currently Gerry Radack edits
the document, but there is no follow funding for him.
BI to produce an investigation document outlining the possible
solutions within the library mechanisms for preserving the current AP226
breakdown structure requirements. This
should be done in 3 months. Action.
Additionally test cases should be produced for the SMS with
AP227. TJT using the TWR test data.
Action.
BK has some funding to extend the extent of the modelling
for the TWR. Currently he will do
distributed systems and Frames 16-23 (machinery space). T23 should inform him
on priority for these extensions.
Action TJT.
Both these documents will be used as part of the usage
guide.
2 New conformance classes
- functional
- spatial
both will make use of Option P (Externally_sources_function,
properties)
JK produce a project plan and schedule for the work to be
done for the T23 extensions to AP227. 2
weeks. Action.
ARM enhancements: TJT, RS
AIM enhancements: RS, PL
Dictionary analysis: AB, BI (boundary view), RW (broader
view)
Conformance classes:
RS, Ted Briggs, TJT
Test cases: TJT, BI, BK
Usage guide: JK, TF, RW
Project Gantt: JK
ARM and AIM: 18 Oct
Test case meeting: 24 Oct
Joint AP227/T23 Meeting 5 Nov (Tues in Korea)
Conformance classes and test cases: 15 Nov
DIS Doc team review: 1-15 Oct
Send to SC4: 18 Oct
ISO DIS ballot: 18 Nov – 10 April 03
ISO Meeting/227 Ballot resolution meeting: 11 March 03
DIS Ballot comment workshop: 6-7 May 03 at NIST?
BK any data will be made available to everyone.
TJT will model the propulsions system for the TWR. T\JT also outlined a potential mechanical
test case with the manoeuvring associated with the rudder (the TWR does not
have bow thrusters) that is being referred to as the manoeuvring system. An interoperability test case would be
useful to link a mechanical system with a piping system.
-
Functional system and generic physical items such as:
o
Components within AP227
o
Connectivity within AP227
-
Realised as dictionary items (PLIB)
-
Realised as RDL items
See presentation from Tim in Annex J.
The mechanical_system, mechanical_component,
entities/attributes, mechanical_product dictionary information that would be
needed were discussed. Failure information
was discussed again, but it will be done in PLCS. Various details such as locked_orientation_connection,
flexible_connection, references to subtypes of mechanical components, and
load_transference were discussed.
JM asked the meeting whether there was anyone who thought
that the AP227 and library approach did not cover the requirements for Ship
machinery exchange and wanted to keep AP226.
The consensus of the group was that:
and therefore AP 226 should be cancelled.
T23 will be informed before the Korea SC4 meeting that a decision will be made on the cancellation of AP226 at the Korean meeting. If other T 23 members have the interest and resources to take over AP 226 it can be discussed over the mail list and in Seoul. If the T23 team agrees in Seoul to cancel AP 226 and cooperate with the AP 227 team to incorporate mechanical systems in their DIS document, then a resolution will be drafted in Korea by the joint chairs and submitted as a last day resolution to SC4.
Given the recommendation of the workshop participants
attendees agreed to pursue the AP 227 solution. The existing dictionaries from AP226 will be progressed through
ASTM by UNO. The dictionaries have
already been registered under ISO 6523 at the BSI. We need to find out what the procedure is for amending/cancelling
this registration. TJT Action.
The AP227 DIS ballot finishes in April 2003. The e-com funding for PDIT to do the
documentation finishes end of March 2003.
Therefore there is a need to find additional funding after that date to
support AP 227 documentation changes based on DIS comments.