DIMENSIONAL CONTROL IN

SHIPBUILDING: INTEGRATING
CAD MODELS WITH PORTABLE
METROLOGY
THE GRM TECHNIQUE

By Jos Eduardo Deboni (Hexagon Solutions)

and Zach Rogers (New River Kinematics)
September 26, 2014

THE GRM TECHNIQUE

Contents
ABSTRACT ...................................................................................................................................... 3
INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................................. 3
THE GRM TECHNIQUE ................................................................................................................... 4
Goal ....................................................................................................................................... 4
Relationship ........................................................................................................................... 5
Measurements ....................................................................................................................... 6
Analysis ................................................................................................................................. 7
EXAMPLES OF APPLICATION ....................................................................................................... 7
CASE 1 - Deformation of an Offshore Structure ..................................................................... 7
CASE 2 - Block Assembly Assessment................................................................................ 10
CONCLUSIONS ............................................................................................................................. 15
REFERENCES ............................................................................................................................... 16

September 26, 2014

THE GRM TECHNIQUE

ABSTRACT
Dimensional Control is strategic in the current competitive shipbuilding industry. The use of precision laser
measurement equipment, in a complex structure, is not enough to attain the engineering and manufacturing
dimensional needs. This paper proposes a technique, called Goal-Relationship-Measurement, to align the
Dimensional Control information required to the measurement data. Integrating the geometric information in the
CAD models, one can select relevant geometric relationships among the elements and the measurements. The
analysis of these relationships will finally lead to the dimensional control goals. Two cases of shipbuilding related
problems are presented to exemplify the value of this technique

INTRODUCTION
Dimensional Control is a strategic process in the current competitive shipbuilding industry. It has the ability to reduce
scrap, avoid rework and build dimensionally accurate ships. It can leverage gains, help review the fabrication process
by giving a unique feedback view of the actual product to the engineering and manufacturing teams. Dimensional
Control must also be able to quickly and accurately measure and assess the parts and blocks, without compromising
other activities in the shipyard. More than only maintaining the dimensions within tolerance, the goal of the Dimension
Control team is to help engineering and the fabrication process to achieve a quality product.
Among the various techniques available for the automation of the Dimensional Control activities it can be mentioned
the increasing use of visualization and laser survey techniques. The improvements of laser measurement technology
offer high accuracy and speed. A modern Total Station can measure directly on steel in a 2000 m range with an
accuracy of 2 mm. (Leica, 2013).
Rutkowski (2010) discuss the problems of dimensional control of large steel structures during the building process.
Although the work is targeted to low technological support enterprises, that do not possess optical measuring
instruments, it describes the difficulties to make use of the coordinates measurements taken without a known
reference system.
Koeck (2012) presented a case of the ship block inspection with Total Stations and software that can analysis the
group of measurements and compare them to the expected values.
Johnson et al (2004) reported the integration of a digital photogrammetry based process to monitor the dimensional
quality of fabricated steel plates and components. The visual technique offers the advantage of gathering a large
number of points and by importing the design model into the measurement software to facilitate and automate the
actual measurement.
Previous work (Maropoulos et al, 2008) has laid out a generic framework for measurement planning. Muelaner et al
(2010) overview the challenges for selecting a measurement process and the adequate equipment when planning
the metrology process for a large product. These studies recommend taking into consideration the measurability of
the product in the early phases of the design, and concentrate on the obtaining of the measure, rather than its use.
The existing work shows that dimensional control typically starts by obtaining a set of coordinate of points in the
reference system of the equipment. With the help of metrology software, that implements the trigonometry and
reference system transformation, linear and angular dimensions from these points are calculated. These results can
be compared to the nominal designed values. If they are within a conventional tolerance, the parts area accepted.
This approach is insufficient to deal with the complexity of a ship. A complex system consists of many parts, lots of
redundancy and many relationships and interactions among these parts (Caprace; Rigo, 2012). In some cases a
tolerance miss is acceptable, when it does not interfere with the functionality of the part, or fit into the assembly,
while in other cases, even if the part is within tolerance it will not fit or function correctly. The dimensional control of

September 26, 2014

THE GRM TECHNIQUE

a complex system must take into consideration its characteristics. It is hard to express multi-part, interrelated system,
like a ship, in a series of simple set of linear dimensions, and its tolerances.
The interconnection of the various components and sub-assemblies in a ship offers a special challenge to
dimensional control, as the result of small imperfections on the sub-assemblies may lead to unpredictable results in
the final assembly. The dimensional control must consider not only the linear or angular dimensions but also some
features like: misalignments of structural components, gap or excess material in interfacing edges and the
intrinsically complex shape of the ship hull or the, desired planarity of the deck or the correct angle of a column. This
paper proposes to focus not in a tolerance deviation, but in an engineering, or manufacturing goal of the part; and
then defining the acceptable dimensional values and deviations.
This paper proposes a technique, we will call Goal-Relationship-Measurement (GRM), which can treat the complexity
of the dimensional control of a ship, by the effective integration of the 3D CAD model of the parts, to the measurement
activity and the dimensional control process. The 3D CAD model will help the process by defining, in the initial phase,
a set of geometric relationship of the measures to the objectives for the dimensional control. These objectives,
usually relative to the assembly and operation process, are the goals required by engineering and manufacturing,
for a dimensionally sound product. When the relationships are finally translated into measures, the goals are
quantified and controlled. This GRM approach is similar to the Goal Question Metric (GQM) approach that was
originally proposed to deal with the complexity of the measuring of software development process and software
systems (Basili, 1992).
The proposed approach is detailed and applied to some examples of the shipbuilding related problems. From the
examples the conclusions and some limitations of the technique are derived.

THE GRM TECHNIQUE

The Goal-Relationship-Measurements approach is based upon the assumption that the measurements must attend
to a specific engineering concern. It is important that the resources spent on the measurement effort are driven by a
higher objective, established by the Goal. The relationships are usually associations among geometric components
of the model that are in a direct correlation with the Goal. The measurement is a way to quantify the relationships, it
specifies the points where the actual instrument must get the coordinates.
It is important to know, at least in general terms, what are the informational needs of the organization, and specify
them in terms of goals. These needs will be converted into quantified information, to be analysed whether or not the
goals are achieved (Basili, 1992).

Goal
The Goal defines a concern of the engineering or manufacturing that must be controlled by the dimensional control.
It reflects the various points of view, relative to the variety of aspects of the product operation and fabrication. The
Goal may also be a process concern that must be traced along the manufacturing progression. They can be relevant
dimensions or dimensional quality considerations like variations, means, maximum or minimum quantities. It can be
related with a relevant quality issue, like the planarity of the deck or the alignment of some hull elements. It can be
related to some assembly requirements or even some simple dimensional verification.
The Goal must be relevant, must reflect a priority that will drive the inspection process. It can be associated with the
final product, a component and even a process characteristic.

In an optimal scenario, the Goal should be defined in the Design phase, when the major aspects of the design are
being decided, with new Goals being added with the evolving of the product, and at the planning phase of
manufacturing is also an important moment of defining and reviewing dimensional control goals.

September 26, 2014

THE GRM TECHNIQUE

Relationship
The Relationships are geometric properties that can be verified and are in direct or indirect association with the Goal.
Usually one goal needs more than one relationship to be verified. The CAD model, and its geometric elements can
be used to define the relationships.
Relationships are the most important part when planning a Dimensional Control inspection, because they bridge the
goals to the actual measurements. It is interesting that as we are dealing with a complex system, we can create a
large number of redundant relationships. This will increase the quality, as well as the complexity, of our analysis.
Ideally the definition of relationships is part of the planning phase of the inspection.
The simplest relation can be of two points and its linear distance. (Point to point relationship). But they can evolve to
point to object relationship and to an object to object relationship. The idea is that based on the Goal we select
elements (objects) in the model that once some of its geometric properties are verified, the Goal is achieved. Simpler
Goals may require one or two relationships, but complex Goals will demand a larger number of relationships to be
observed
To define the geometric relationships that could answer to our goal, we may need the help of a CAD model, and its
geometric entities. These entities are rigid objects that are geometric related to one-another and, these are the
relations we must look for to answer each goal.
For Goal of the planarity of the deck we can relate a group of points in the deck to the actual designed deck, and
compare the angle of the plane they form with the deck angle.
For the assembly of two blocks in the ship, we can relate opposite objects that represent the structural elements and
check their alignment, their relative position, we also can check if the two interfaces, formed by the complete set of
objects, are forming a parallel plans, and if they are perpendicular to the opposite structures.
Classification of relationships can be based on the type of the objects that are being related. In this case we may
have:

Relationships among measurements,

Relationships between measurements and CAD objects,
Relationships among CAD objects.

Relationships can be created exclusively among measurements, when comparing the position of elements in a part
to position of other elements in the part. The CAD can be used to define the elements, but it is not required during
the analysis. If the measurement instrument is fixed, its reference system is enough, because all measurements are
in the same system. For example, a simple point-to-point relationship is enough when you are interested in a distance
of two well-known points. It is necessary to define, very precisely, the points in the structure, by the use of punch
marks or reflector marks.
We still have a relationship among measurements when we analyse the measurements in order to create an object.
The relationship in this case is that a set of measurements are related to a line, plane, cylinder, sphere or other
regular shape. The analysis can be a property of this shape, like a radius, an angle or the distance to any other
points, or other objects constructed from the measurement points. The reference system can still be fixed with the
measurement instrument, without the use of a CAD model.

Relationships can be made between CAD elements and measurement to when the information needs to consider
the CAD as a reference to the measurement. In this case the best is to fit the reference system from the
measurements to the CAD model, and make all analysis in this new known system. The general idea with this kind

September 26, 2014

THE GRM TECHNIQUE

of relationship is to verify if the measurements fit the corresponding CAD element, supposing the measurements are
taken from the actual part of this element.
An example of a relationship from a group of measurements and a CAD object, is when is required to analyse a
special surface, like the hull surface.
It is very important when creating a relationship between a CAD and measurement that the CAD really represents
the actual part, or the deviations in the part, from some constructive requirement is represented in the CAD. If the
part is at an initial stage and has some scrap, this information should be considered in the model or in the analysis
of the relationship. Shrinkage, painting, scaffolding and other temporary elements in the part should be considered
in this kind of relationship.
Finally, we can create relationships using CAD objects, these are especially useful for an assembly of parts, when
the relative position of designed parts are according to the measurements and inspect the measurements of the
CAD parts. In this case, for example, the measurements of the parts may be taken separately but with the same
reference system, and then the parts are transformed to the measurement reference system, so their relative position
is obtained, if this is the interest.
This relationship also needs some additional considerations. For example if the parts move like a solid, if there are
some additional restrictions to the movement, like to allow or not eventual clashes of the surfaces, etc. This can be
more helpful to assembly of complex structures based on individual measurements.

Measurements
The final phase of this technique is measurements that deals with the actual interface with the instruments and
getting the coordinates of the points defined in the Relationship phase. The measurements are taken in order to fulfill
a Relationship, and at last a desired Goal. No measurement is taken without a reason, no effort is wasted or time
spent useless in the field. Some redundancy is expected in order to increase accuracy.
There are many work related to Dimension Control of Structures that focus on the measurement aspect of the
process. (Maropoulos et al, 2008) (Muelaner et al (2010). This paper will not discuss the details of obtaining the
measurements, positioning and moving equipment. It is expected that the selected portable metrology software is
capable of handling that.
GRM crates a hierarchical structure, where the Goals (G1, G2 Gi) defines the start, like shown in Fig.1. Each goal
is then refined into several Relationships (R1, R2 Rj), and them into many other Measurements (M1, M2 Mk).
It must be noted that a Relationship can attend to more than one Goal, as well as one Measurement can participate
in more than one Relationship. But there are no Measurement being taken without a Relationship and a Goal in
mind.

Fig. 1 GRM Hierarchy

September 26, 2014

THE GRM TECHNIQUE

Analysis
The final stage of the Dimensional Control with the GRM technique is the analysis. Once all measurements are
obtained, each relationship can be verified and then the Goals. This process can require weighting is some of the
relationships are verified and some are not, or if there is a deviation in the process. The tolerances can be now
applied to the relationships, and not to the measurements, with a better understanding of the relationship of this
allowance with the goal.
There GRM technique does not replace experience and the engineering knowledge of the product and the problem.
The main objective of the technique is to help the experts to handle the overwhelming complexity of the problems.

EXAMPLES OF APPLICATION
This session exemplifies the application of GRM technique to some real cases in the shipbuilding industry. To
implement the relationships and the metrology analysis this paper adopted the Spatial Analyzer metrology software
as its main analysis tool (NRK, 2014). This software, and the integration of CAD with 3-Dimensional measurement
is also present in other industries like the automotive and aerospace (Boeing, 2001). These industries are also more
familiar with the initiatives to incorporate dimensional tolerances schemes into the design and the model.

CASE 1 - Deformation of an Offshore Structure

The first case studied is a large tubular structure (Fig.2) that is used in shipyards for offshore platform construction,
as a temporary support structure. This particular structure has been just decommissioned, and the engineering team
wants a dimensional evaluation of the residual deformation, as it was submitted to a great stress during the last
construction.

Fig. 2. Large Tubular Offshore Structure

For this case, as an example, this paper will consider only one goal:

September 26, 2014

THE GRM TECHNIQUE

G1: to evaluate the remaining deformation of the structure.

This goal concerns with the displacement of the beans from its nominal position that will be defined by the original
CAD model witch designed the structure originally. The CAD model (Fig. 3) is imported to the metrology software.

Fig. 3. The 3D CAD model

The structure is originally formed by rigid tubular objects that are related to each other. In order to verify if the
structure is deformed, we will consider the deformation of each individual element. The first relationship we create
(R1) is to construct a cylinder with the measurements of one element. The second relationship (R2) is to relate these
measurements to the corresponding cylindrical element, and analyse is deformations relatively to its original position
in the structure.

R1 The group of measurements taken in an element, are related to a cylinder;

R2 The group of measurements taken in an element.

These two relationships can be applied to all elements in the structure. To give an even more comprehensive answer,
we could list other relationships, like the angles among the cylinders, some dimensions and alignments. For the sake
of simplicity only one element is shown here.

September 26, 2014

THE GRM TECHNIQUE

Fig. 4 Sampled points related to the one cylinder

To verify both relationships we must measure points along the elements, as shown in Fig.4, for one of the elements.
Note the points do form an arc of a circle. We can consider each single measure point as s Measurement (M1Mn)
or each group of points as M1 and M2.
With these measurements we can implement R1 and re-create the actual element, as it was measured, interpolating
the data from the arcs and creating the darker element in Fig.5. When comparing the re-created cylinder with the
original element, as relationship R2 requests, we can see the deviations from the original position. This procedure
can be reproduced in all beans and a more comprehensive view of the structure is obtained.
The metrology software shows, with amplified arrows, the relative displacements, and it gives a quantified measure
of the observed deviations. These results will allow engineers to consider the present integrity of the structure, as
requested by the proposed Goal (G1).
This case showed a simple Dimensional Control problem and how GRM can guide then analyst from the request to
the measurement selection and execution.

September 26, 2014

THE GRM TECHNIQUE

Fig.5. Comparison of the Element Model and the Measured

CASE 2 - Block Assembly Assessment

The second case study of the GRM approach is the assessment of the assembly of two blocks in the building of a
FPSO (Floating Production, Storage and Offloading) ship for the Offshore Oil Industry. The blocks are shown in Fig.
6 and Fig. 7, and will be welded together with the rest of the hull in the dry dock. Block #1 is being finished and
painted, while block #2 is already in place for assembly. Among the many possible goals that a complex construction
such as this has, we will concentrate on three goals set, initially, by the manufacturing team: a main goal (G1) and
two secondary goals (G2 and G3), which are complementary to the main one.

G1. Assure that block #1 and block #2 will fit together during assembly,

G2. Verify that the main dimensions of block #1 are within a global building tolerance, and

G3. Verify that the main dimensions of block #2 are within a global building tolerance.

September 26, 2014

10

THE GRM TECHNIQUE

Fig. 6 Block #1 is upsidedown, and it still being worked by the crew

As block #1 is being finished, it can be re-worked to the final dimensions in order to fit perfectly to block #2. Goal G1
wants also to show what kind of re-work is needed, if needed, to block #1.
These concerns of manufacturing are aligned with their responsibility on the quality of the parts, evaluated by
controlling tolerances during manufaturing, and also conscious that the big challenge is to putting the two large
blocks together on the ship. As a general rule, this shipyard considers acceptable a tolerance of 10 mm from the
nominal values of a final block dimensions. As this is also the maximum gap that is allowed in a welding operation,
this will be the maximum allowed gap of parts that are to be assembled. We will be assessing the final parts, before
beveling (chamfering) plate edges for welding.
It is easy to observe that even if some point tolerances are met, the blocks may not me aligned, and will not fit.
Otherwize, sometimes some tolerances are not met, but the assembly is still possible. Tipicaly, it is when one blocks
lack of material is compensated by the others excess.
Establishing the goals should be the first step in the measurement process. This will help to select the correct
measurements elements and to avoid wasting time and effort in the field. In order to define what to measure, the
goals must be interpreted as geometric relationships.

September 26, 2014

11

THE GRM TECHNIQUE

Fig. 7. Block # 2 in the final stages, ready to be assembled

Goals G2 and G3 are easy to relate, as we are considering the relationships of some selected nominal dimensions
of the block with its actual measured value. For the sake of simplicity, in this paper we will only consider the assembly
of face F1 of block #1 to B2 of block #2, and some main dimensions of F1, L1 of block #1 and L2 and B2 of block #
2, as shown in schematics of figure 8, and the table 1.

Fig. 8. Schematics of the blocks and assembly and face naming.

September 26, 2014

12

THE GRM TECHNIQUE

Table 1. Relationships list and related goals and measurements

Goals

Relatio
n-ship

Measure
-ments

Constraint Type

Relationship
Description

G2

R1

F1

Measurements to CAD Objects

Face F1 measurements matches the CAD

model

G2

R2

L1

Measurements to CAD Objects

Face L1 measurements matches the CAD

model

G3

R3

B2

Measurements to CAD Objects

Face B2 measurements matches the CAD

model

G3

R4

L2

Measurements to CAD Objects

Face L2 measurements matches the CAD

model

G3

R8

B2

Measurements to CAD Objects

Face B2 measurements matches the CAD

model

G1

R5

F1, L1

Least Squares Best Fit to Geometrical Feature

(GF), relationships among CAD objects

F1 and L1 are Perpendicu-lar

G1

R6

L1, L2

Least Squares Best Fit to Geometrical Feature

(GF), relationships among CAD objects

L1 and L2 are Continuous

G1

R7

F2, B1

Weighted, relationships among

measurements

Face F2 matches B1

The relationships and measurements of the two blocks can increase in details and complexity if necessary, to
consider particularities of the structure like beans, columns, plates and reinforcements. For simplicity, this study
considers the measurements of the points of the interface plane of the block. This plane is welded to the
corresponding plane of the other block thought its elements.
The measurements of the two blocks where taken separately according to the relationships that were established,
and the gap is estimated, trying to identify the viability of the assembly.
Table 1 lists the goals, its relationships, and the corresponding measurements. To explain the type of measurements
and relationships we are using, a column with the description is added as well as the type of geometric constraint
type that this relationship implies.
Analysing table 1 it is easy to see there is a progression among the goals, as we note that the goals G2 and G3
contribute to reach goal G1.

September 26, 2014

13

THE GRM TECHNIQUE

The classification of the relationship can be associated with the constraint type. While some relationships, like R1,
R2, R3, R4, and R8 are simple comparisons of nominal values with the measurements, others may require more
complex ones to reach a conclusion.

Fig. 9 Measurements of the block #1, faces F1 and L1

Figure 9 shows the points measured in block #1, by positioning the measured instrument, a laser total station in two
points. Auxiliary fixed points in the block where used to transform the measurements into a single reference system
for comparison. The same approach was done in the block #2.

Fig. 10 Checking for Perpendicularity (Relationship R5)

September 26, 2014

14

THE GRM TECHNIQUE

A more difficult challenge is when there is the need to check continuity and perpendicularity as in relationships R6
and R5 respectively. In this case the measured points in faces L1 and L2 for R6, and F1 and L1 in R5 are
approximated to an hypothetical plane and the angle between the two planes are unified for planarity (angle = 0.0)
or perpendicularity (angle = 90 degrees). The approximation is achieved by a least squares best fit to the planes, as
shown in figure 10, for relationship R5.
The final goal, G1, is achieved by combining the measurements and relationships of block #1 and block #2, and
adding the additional relationship, R7, between the mating faces of the blocks. For this relationship, it is critical that
the constraints include the requirement of non-overlapping measurements, or non-interfering material. It is only after
all measurements with the corresponding relationships are combined, that the assembly fit can be properly analysed.
In the event that the blocks cannot meet the requirements of the pre-defined tolerances, rework would be required
until an in tolerance mating condition can be achieved. The GRM technique allows for identification of the need for
rework prior to the mating attempt, and therefore, enables a significant cost savings even when rework is necessary.
Figure 11 graphically resumes this result, exhibiting that the maximum measured gap is 9.7 mm, and still within
tolerance.

Fig. 11 Assembly simulation with gap analysis (Goal 1)

CONCLUSIONS
The Goal-Relationship-Measurements (GRM) technique for the planning of the Dimensional Control of complex
structures was introduced. It proposes the use of geometric relationships between the CAD model elements and
the measurements of the real parts, to deploy the goals of Dimensional Control for the problem. This hierarchy
helps the communication among designers, manufacturers and the dimensional control analysts. The analyst can

September 26, 2014

15

THE GRM TECHNIQUE

interpret the needs of engineering or manufacturing and translate them into the measurement process in the field.
The 3D CAD model elements are used in the building of these relationships, and also as a reference for the
measured values.
Two case studies illustrate the application of the technique with good results. This approach is not limited to
shipbuilding, but it is much more relevant for complex systems like ships and large complex structures.
The increase availability and cost reduction of measuring equipment can lead to a high number of measurements
and data without a significance or need. By tying a measurement to a desired inspection goal, the task in the field
is optimized, reducing the time and effort.
The proposed method also shows the tendency of an early design of the dimensional control process, by starting
during design the definition of goals and geometric relationships to be inspected. The possibility of planning of the
analysis avoid missing measures, as well as it prevents that an excessive and redundant data to be collected in
the field.
A systematic and structured method of Dimensional Control, such as GRM, enables the automation of the
inspection process. Automated dimensional control, a natural next step in this field, improves even more the quality
of products and the competitiveness in the industry while reducing time and costs.

REFERENCES
Basili, Victor R. 1992. Software Modeling and Measurement: The Goal/Question/Metric Paradigm. Techreport
UMIACS TR-92-96, University of Maryland at College Park, College Park, MD, USA.
http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=137076.
Boeing Commercial Airplanes. 2001. Coordinate Measurement System Committee Albuquerque, New Mexico
August 13-17 2001.
Caprace, J.-D., and P. Rigo. 2012. A Real-Time Assessment of the Ship Design Complexity. Computer-Aided
Design 44 (3): 203 208. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cad.2010.12.005 .
Johnson, GW, SE Laskey, S Robson, and MR Shortis. 2004. Dimensional & Accuracy Control Automation in
Shipbuilding Fabrication: An Integration of Advanced Image Interpretation, Analysis, and Visualization
Techniques. In Proceedings of Analysis and Visualization Techniques, 20th Congress ISPRS, Istanbul,
Turkey
Maropoulos, P. G., Y. Guo, J. Jamshidi, and B. Cai. 2008. Large Volume Metrology Process Models: A
Framework for Integrating Measurement with Assembly Planning. {CIRP} Annals - Manufacturing
Technology 57 (1): 477 480. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cirp.2008.03.017
Muelaner, Jody E, Bin Cai, and Paul G Maropoulos. 2010. Large-Volume Metrology Instrument Selection and
Measurability Analysis. Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part B: Journal of
Engineering Manufacture 224 (6): 85368.
NRK New River Kinematics. 2010. Spatial Analyzer, Portable metrology software SA 2014.02.02.
http://www.kinematics.com/
Van Solingen, Rini, Vic Basili, Gianluigi Caldiera, and H Dieter Rombach. 2002. Goal Question Metric (gqm)
Approach. Encyclopedia of Software Engineering.

September 26, 2014

16