检索结果-内蒙古大学图书馆

Coordinated control and its implementation

Process Safety Progress 1982年第2期1卷 85-90页

作者： C. S. Lin T. H. Tsai J. W. Lane Tenneco Inc. Houston Texas 77001 Cheng S. Lin:was born in Taiwan and received a BS in Mechanical Engineering at Cheng Kung University. He came to the Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute in 1959 where he received a MME in Mechanical Engineering in 1962 and a PhD in Mechanical Engineering in 1966 He spent three years at West Virginia Pulp and Paper Co. in Process Control Research three years at TRW Inc. Systems Group on the Apollo program and nine years at Bonner and Moore Assoc. installing process control systems worldwide. He joined the Operations Technologies Department of Tenneco Inc. as a Consulting Engineer in June 1980. He is a US citizen and a member of IEEE. Thomas H. Tsai:is a Managing Engineer of the Operations Technologies Department of Tenneco Inc. He is a Registered Professional Engineer in the State of Calif. and is a Member of AIChE and a Senior Member of ISA. He received a BS degree in Chemical Engineering at Tunghan University of Taiwan and attended graduate school at Oklahoma State University. James W. Lane:received a BE and MS in Chemical Engineering from the University of Southern California. He is a Registered Professional Engineer in the States of Tex and Calif. and is a Member of the AIChE Senior Member of the IEEE and Senior Member of the SME. For the last seven years he has been Director of the Operations Technologies Department of Tenneco Inc. a cooperate engineering group providing expertise in advanced control technology for process control energy management and environmental monitoring systems.

来源：评论

学校读者我要写书评

暂无评论

THE DESIGN OF VARIABLE PAYLOAD SHIPS

引用

NAVAL ENGINEERS JOURNAL 1982年第2期94卷 147-178页

作者： BROOME, GW NELSON, DW TOOTLE, WD Granville W. Broome Jr.:received his BS degree in Civil Engineering from the North Carolina State University in 1967 and MS degree in Naval Architecture from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in 1970. He started his career at the former Naval Ship Engineering Center working on preliminary structural designs for FFG-7 CVAN-71 and PHM. Subsequently he participated in design integration of FFG-7 DG (AEGIS) CSGN and CG-47 Class ships. Later he served as the Lead Naval Architect for feasibility studies of LSD-41 T-AGOS and T-AO and feasibility studies as well as concept design of ARS-50. Mr. Broome is currently the Head of the Surface Combatant Section (SEA 33112) in the Advanced Design Division of the Naval Sea Systems Command. He is also serving as the Assistant Program Manager for Ship Design Concepts on the Ship Systems Engineering Standards (SSES) Program. In this capacity he is responsible for feasibility studies of the Variable Payload Ships. Mr. Broome is a member of ASNE and ASE. David W. Nelson:graduated from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill with a BA degree in History prior to joining the Navy in 1963. He served inUSS Conyngham (DDG-17)and at the Naval Communication Station Greece. Upon release from active duty he entered North Carolina State University where he earned a BS degree in Civil Engineering. He joined the Naval Ship Engineering Center Hyattsville Maryland in 1973. He was the General Arrangements Task Leader for the DD-993 Contract Design the CG-26 Modernization and the DDG-2 Class Conversion. He is currently the Manager for Destroyer Design in the Ship Arrangements (SEA 3211) Group of the Naval Sea Systems Command where his primary responsibility is the general arrangements of DDG-51. He is also the Assistant Program Manager for Ship Design on the Ship Systems Engineering Standards Program. Mr. Nelson is a member of ASNE ASE and SNAME. William D. Tootle:received his BSEE degree from the North Carolina A&T State University in 1960. Between 1960 and 1964 h

This paper presents the issues involved and the approach taken in the design of Variable Payload Ships. The objectives in Variable Payload Ship design are: first, to permit concurrent design and development of the ship and its initial combat system; and second, to simplify the testing, installation, and upgrading of the combat system over a ship's life cycle. In order to accomplish these objectives, Ship systems engineering Standards and Design Criteria are being developed for the VPS platform and payload. Based on the Mid-Size Combatant design conducted so far, indications are that the abovementioned objectives can be met — giving the Navy maximum flexibility to choose the latest and most appropriate combat suite for each of its surface combatants during both initial acquisition and entire life cycle.

关键词：

来源：评论

学校读者我要写书评

暂无评论

LUNCHEON ADDRESS - UNITED-STATES NAVY PRESENT AND FUTURE - AN engineering PERSPECTIVE

引用

NAVAL ENGINEERS JOURNAL 1982年第3期94卷 47-50页

作者： FOWLER, EB COMMANDER NAVAL SEA SYSTEMS COMMAND Vice Admiral Earl B. Fowler Jr. USN:was born in Jacksonville Fla. on 29 September 1925. After attending Landon High School in Jacksonville he enlisted in the Navy's V-12 Program on 18 May 1943 and entered the Georgia School of Technology from which he graduated in February 1946 receiving his Bachelor of Mechanical Engineering degree and his commission as Ensign in the U.S. Naval Reserve. Following graduation he was ordered to duties inUSS Columbia (CL-56)andUSS Ranger (CV-4)until November 1946 when he was assigned to the Pre-commissioning Detail and later served in theUSS Wright (CVL-49). In July 1947 he entered Massachusetts Institute of Technology graduating therefrom in January 1949 and receiving his B.S. degree in Electrical Engineering. He next served in theUSS Leary (DDR-879)for two years and the Naval Shipyard Charleston from 1951 until 1953 when he became Force Electronics Officer Staff of Commander Mine Force U.S. Atlantic Fleet also at Charleston until 1956. Subsequently he served at the Navy Radiological Defense Laboratory (1956–57) at Hunter's Point Naval Shipyard (1957–60) with the Military Assistance Advisory Group Republic of China as Material and Engineering Advisor (1960–62) on the Staff of Commander Service Force U.S. Pacific Fleet (1962–65) and as Head Ship Engineering Division Pacific Missile Range Pt. Mugu Calif. where he worked on the design of ships for the APOLLO Program and National Range Support (1965–67). Admiral Fowler came to the Naval Material Command in July 1967 as Project Manager Instrumentation Ships Project Office (PM-5) and served in that capacity until February 1968 when the project was transferred as a Ship Acquisition Project to the Naval Ship Systems Command and he became the Project Manager for the Oceanographic Mine Patrol and Special Purpose Ship Acquisition Project. He then attended the Harvard University Advanced Management Program in 1971 subsequently reporting to the Naval Electronic Systems Command in Janu

来源：评论

学校读者我要写书评

暂无评论

THE CONSTRUCTION OF VARIABLE PAYLOAD SHIPS

引用

NAVAL ENGINEERS JOURNAL 1982年第2期94卷 179-199页

作者： THOMPSON, DH THORELL, LM Daniel H. Thompson Jr.:is a native of Louisville Kentucky. He graduated from Webb Institute of Naval Architecture in 1957. He was an Engineering Duty Officer in theUNITED STATES NAVYprimarily in the Far East responsible for ship repair and overhaul. He joined Sparkman & Stephens Inc. New York City as Assistant to the Chief Engineer in 1963 and worked on commercial military and private contracts. He has worked for Bath Iron Works since 1967. Between 1967 and 1971 he served first as Project Engineer on the DLG-16 Class Ship Modernization Program which involved eight ships and later as the Assistant to the Production Manager when he assumed the responsibilities for production management administration and sea trial coordination. He organized and directed cost reduction programs and led the development of a comprehensive management administration information system. Between 1971 and 1972 Mr. Thompson served as the Facilities Project Manager responsible for the execution of a nine million dollar shipyard facilities improvement program. In 1972 Mr. Thompson was appointed as the Producibility Assurance Manager for the FFG-7 Program. In this capacity he reviewed the detail design work and coordinated the early activities of the subcontractor responsible for detail design. He was also responsible for the development of the FFG-7 Class Producibility Assurance Manual which provided guidance to the detail designers on production/design integration. During the DG-47 (now CG-47) studies at BIW Mr. Thompson served as the Deputy Program Manager for DG-47 Technical Characterization in 1977. At present Mr. Thompson is working as a Project Engineer in the Technical Department. He is responsible for coordinating the engineering work on new DDGX and Variable Payload Ship projects. On special assignment he is also supporting the Cost Reduction Program at BIW as Chairman of the Technical Committee. Mr. Thompson is a member of SNAME and ASNE and is a licensed professional engineer in New York and Maine. Len Thorell:is a

The decoupling of combat systems from the platform makes it possible for shipyards and combat system suppliers to work in parallel without schedule or technological conflict. Great benefit is derived from building one, standard platform able to accommodate a variety of combat systems. The capability to build and test the payload modules independently, in a well equipped shore-based facility, means higher production efficiency and improved quality control. The standardization of payload-platform interfaces means that the detail design and construction of foundations and distributive systems need not be delayed if some of the combat system components are being upgraded at the time when the ship is in construction. Additionally, shipyards recognize the value of the variable payload ship concept for major combat systems and weapons upgrades. Analysis shows that combat system changes will not lie on the critical path from a scheduling point of view if the payload items are modularized and conform to the Ship systems engineering Standards. The shipyards intend to participate actively in the conservation of tenth-scale models and full-scale mock-ups. These mock-ups should prove valuable in the definition of interface requirements which must be incorporated in the Ship System engineering Standards. The module installation procedures and clearance requirements for both weapons modules and pelletized electronics can be checked in this effective way. Variable payload ship platform construction poses no technical problems as far as new facility requirements are concerned. Shipyards interested in assembling, testing, and installing payload modules would, however, have to use appropriate buildings, equipment, and cranes. These capital requirements are significant but reasonable for those yards that are likely to be interested in building frigates, destroyers, or cruisers. Furthermore, these yards generally plan for production improvements through better facilities, many of which

关键词：

来源：评论

学校读者我要写书评

暂无评论

THE FFG 7 CLASS DESIGN IMPACT BY INSURV TRIALS

引用

NAVAL ENGINEERS JOURNAL 1982年第2期94卷 87-100页

作者： WOODRUFF, RB The authorgraduated from the U.S. Naval Academy with distinction in 1964. He served initially in theUSS Davis (DD-937)as Main Propulsion Assistant attended the Naval Destroyer School and then was a member of the Pre-Commissioning Crew and Engineer Officer in theUSS Julius A. Furer (DEG-6).Selected as an Engineering Duty Officer (ED) in 1968 he had a tour in the Maintenance Department Staff of Commander Cruisr-Destroyer Force U.S. Atlantic Fleet at Newport R.I. after which he attended Massachusetts Institute of Technology for graduate studies which culminated in his receiving his M.S. degree in Mechanical Engineering and his degree of Ocean Engineer in 1972. Following graduation he was assigned to the Boston Naval Shipyard followed by two years in theUSS Puget Sound (AD-38)as Repair Officer after which he was ordered to the Norfolk Naval Shipyard as the Production Engineering Officer. Currently he is on duty in the Naval Sea Systems Command (PMS 399) where he is the Trials Officer and Hull Technical Director for theOliver Hazard Perry (FFG-7)Class Acquisition Program. Cdr. Woodruff is a qualified Surface Warfare Officer and among his military decorations holds the Naval Achievement Medal and the Vietnamese Meritorious Unit Citation Gallantry Cross. In addition to ASNE which he joined in 1967 he is a member of the U.S. Naval Institute. Two previous papers on Naval Shipyard Production presented at ASNE Day 1978 and 1979 were published in the Naval Engineers Journal Vol. 90 No. 2 (April 1978) and Vol. 91 No. 2 (April 1979). A paper on the Management of Surface Ship Maintenance was published in theNaval Engineers JournalDecember 1980.

This paper describes the impact made on the OLIVER HAZARD PERRY (FFG 7) Class design after numerous trials by the President, Board of Inspection and Survey and his Staff. In the early 1970s, faced with a Fleet of World War II Destroyers, the Navy embarked on a program to build large numbers of Frigates to perform an Ocean Escort role. This ship had three major design constraints placed on it by Chief of Naval Operations (CNO): fixed meaning, fixed displacement, and fixed cost or “designed to cost.” The purpose of this paper is to pass on some “lessons learned.” The acid test of any ship design is how well it does with the Fleet in regard to performance and reliability. How well has the “design-constrained” FFG-7 fared with 20 plus ship trials under its belt? Very well in some areas; not so well in others. Examples of the good aspects of this ship design (LM 2500 and main propulsion train, Standard Option Equipment, et cetera) as well as those which must be considered poor will be addressed. Some examples of the latter are the “breezeway” cargo doors, ship's service diesel generators, MK 92 Combat systems, decontamination stations, and topside corrosion control. In many cases INSURV caused design changes to be made that were sorely needed; in other cases, changes were made (or not made) over issues that had little or no impact on making this ship more ready for war. A brief examination of the Naval Sea systems Command (NAVSEA) surface ship design policies is made from the point of view of the Trials Officer (the Author) who rode most of the trials with PRESINSURV. Some of the issues addressed: •Improved NAVSEA corporate memory between ship designs. •Longer Acceptance Trial for Lead Ship. •Early deployment of Lead Ship without TECHREPS. •Improved NAVSEA/INSURV/CNO communication on Trial/Technical Issues and insertion of INSURV early into the design process. •Need for NAVSEA to stand up and say “no” to costly design changes that do little to make for a better warship.

关键词：

来源：评论

学校读者我要写书评

暂无评论

THE IMPACT OF DESIGN PRACTICES ON SHIP SIZE AND COST

引用

NAVAL ENGINEERS JOURNAL 1982年第2期94卷 68-86页

作者： KEHOE, JW BROWER, KS MEIER, HA Capt. James W. Kehoe Jr. USN(Ret.):who is recently retired from 36 years of naval service is well known for his recent work in conducting comparative engineering analyses of U.S. and foreign warship design practices at the Naval Sea Systems Command Washington D.C. He is currently a partner in Spectrum Associates Inc. Falls Church Virginia where he is engaged in ship design and weapon system engineering analysis. Commissioned in 1952 his sea duty aboard three destroyers and three aircraft carriers included command of theUSS John R. Pierce (DD-753)and engineer officer of theUSS Wasp (CVS-18).Ashore he has had duty in nuclear weapons the POLARIS missile program and instructing in project management. He holds a BS in mathematics from Stonehill College Massachusetts (1952) and an MA in education from San Diego State College (1959). A frequent contributor to theNaval Engineers Journaland theU.S. Naval Institute Proceedingshe has published a number of articles on U.S. Soviet and other foreign warship design practices and on U.S. and Soviet aircraft tank missile and electronic design practices. Kenneth S. Brower:is a partner in Spectrum Associates Inc. Falls Church Virginia which he founded in June 1978. He graduated from the University of Michigan in 1965 with a Bachelor's Degree in Naval Architecture. Mr. Brower has contributed to the design and construction of numerous merchant ships and warships the latter of which include the CG-47 project Arapaho the FDL and DX projects the new NATO frigate for the ‘90s DDGX and FFX projects as well as several frigates developed for Foreign Military Sales. Since 1972 he has actively supported the Naval Sea Systems Command's Comparative Naval Architecture Program. During this period Mr. Brower has contributed to or been the author of numerous widely distributed technical reports on international ship design practices. Recently Mr. Brower has contributed as an analyst editor and author of an extensive assessment of the engineering design practices o

来源：评论

学校读者我要写书评

暂无评论

PRE-ACQUISITION PLANNING

引用

NAVAL ENGINEERS JOURNAL 1982年第6期94卷 31-38页

作者： OHARA, F SCHMIDT, AW Frank O'Hara:earned a B.A. in Philosophy from Chapman College in Orange California a M.S. in International Affairs from the George Washington University in Washington D.C. and attended the Naval War College. He is presently employed as a Senior Staff Advisor to Native American Consultants Inc. in Washington D.C. He served as a Marine Corps Aviator from 1942–1966 was awarded three Distinguished Flying Crosses and eight Air Medals during World War II and the Korean War and retired as a LCol. He is a member of the Marine Corps Aviation Association the Marine Corps Association and the American Society of Naval Engineers. Since retiring from the Marine Corps he has been engaged in Naval Analysis and Engineering as part of a contractor team and as an independent consultant. In 1978 he co-authored a Technical Paper “From Operational Needs to Notional Ships — A New Look.” The paper was presented at the Association of Scientists and Engineers Technical Symposium. Arthur W. Schmidt:received his B.S. in 1948 from Webb Institute of Naval Architecture his M.S. in Mathematics from Adelphi College in 1958 and an M.P.A. from the American University in 1970. Mr. Schmidt retired from Naval Sea Systems Command in 1980. While there he worked for twelve years in preliminary design and for twenty years in R&D management. After leaving NAVSEA Mr. Schmidt went to work for Gibbs & Cox Inc. where he is still employed today working on survivability CONFORM and ship cost models Mr. Schmidt has presented three papers at ASE technical symposia and has contributed a chapter to a book on technological forecasting. He is a past program chairman of the District of Columbia Society of Professional Engineers and a member of the Society of Naval Architects and Marine Engineers the American Society of Naval Engineers the American Society of Engineering and Armed Services Technical Information Agency.

It is the aim of the authors to propose improved ship and ship subsystem acquisition by the adoption of a simple routine management system which has for its focus, the initial planning phase. The proposed management system follows the guidance of the Office of management and Budget Circular A-109 and the Chief of Naval Operations. A clear articulation of operational needs aids the task of prioritizing resource allocations and also promotes earlier integration of ship and subsystem design and development schedules. More precise resource allocation and earlier integration should decrease acquisition time and increase ship subsystem capabilities. The worth of the proposed concept has been demonstrated by a pilot program and can readily be implemented within the constraints of the current Planning, programming, and Budget System.

关键词：

来源：评论

学校读者我要写书评

暂无评论

COMBAT systems-engineering AND THE TOP LEVEL REQUIREMENT

引用

NAVAL ENGINEERS JOURNAL 1981年第2期93卷 97-100页

作者： TRUXALL, CW is a Senior Program Engineer with Systems Consultants Inc. Washington D.C. serving as Project Manager for the DD 963 Combat System Engineering Program. Prior to his retirement from the U.S. Navy in 1978 he served in the AEGIS Project Office Naval Sea Systems Command as ASW Systems Manager and Combat Systems/Ship Design Coordinator. His previous assignments involved service in ten ships including engineering duty in Carriers and Submarines and two Destroyer commands. He is a 1957 graduate of the U.S. Naval Academy holds Master's degrees in Business Administration and Systems Management and attended the Program Managers Course at the Defense System Management College Fort Belvoir Va. He is a member of the American Defense Preparedness Association and has been a member of ASNE since 1958 having previously served on the ASNE Audit Committee and presently as the Chairman of the ASNE Membership Committee.

The Top Level Requirement (TLR) is a document that is required by the Chief of Naval Operations to be developed for new ship designs. This document describes in some detail the requirements levied on the ship designers for characteristics of the ship and its combat system. The Combat System engineering program has been developed in the Naval Sea systems Command (NAVSEA) to provide a disciplined approach to the engineering of upgrades and modernizations to current surface ship complex combat systems. One of the axioms of this systemized approach is that “top down” engineering must take place. That is, the rationale for the upgrade for the new elements being included in the system, and for the way the integration of those elements takes place, must be based upon a set of operational requirements. In order to systems engineer the developments of modernizations properly, the Author proposes that TLRs be developed for each combatant ship class without a TLR that is a candidate for a major modernization or upgrade. The primary focus would be on the combat system requirements, but also there is concern for the other ship operational characteristics as well. The TLR should be contained in a document of about twenty-five pages. As with the current TLRs, a Working Group of representatives from the Office of the Chief of Naval Operations (OPNAV), Naval Material Command (NAVMAT)/Naval Sea systems Command (NAVSEA), and other activities would be the developers of the new TLR. Because of the numbers of individuals with some responsibility in current Fleet ships, closer coordination between NAVMAT/NAVSEA and OPNAV is required. The process which this paper describes may well support significant cost savings in future-year combat system upgrades, and the Combat System engineering Community will have a basis for combat system design.

关键词：

来源：评论

学校读者我要写书评

暂无评论

DESIGN BUDGETING - A BOLD NEW SHIP ACQUISITION STRATEGY ... NOW A PROVEN CONCEPT

引用

NAVAL ENGINEERS JOURNAL 1981年第2期93卷 67-74页

作者： JARVIS, PS KAZAL, JD CAMPBELL, DB HAFF, MW Mr. Paul S. Jarvis:graduated from Virginia Polytechnic Institute from which he received his B.S. degree in Mechanical Engineering in 1962 and later he received his M.S. degree in Administration from The George Washington University in 1967. He has been in the AEGIS Shipbuilding Program since July 1971 and has served as Ship Systems Engineering Manager for CG 47 since 1977. Mr. Jarvis is a member of Tau Beta Pi and Pi Tau Sigma Engineering Fraternities and the Phi Kappa Phi National Scholastic Society. Mr. J. David Kazal:graduated from Colorado A&M from which he received his B.S. degree in Mechanical Engineering in 1951. Currently he is employed by the Ingalls Shipbuilding Division Litton Systems as a Project Engineer on the CG 47 Class Ship Program. During World War II he served in the U.S. Navy in Submarines. Mr. Kazal is a member of the American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME). Mr. Donald B. Campbell Jr.: received his B.S. degree in Electrical Engineering from North Carolina State University in 1961. He has over twenty-three years of professional experience in Ship Electronics System Engineering and was formerly a member of the Electrical Design Division at Newport News Shipbuilding. Additionally he was involved in quantification and evaluation of contractor shipbuilding claims against the U.S. Navy while he was employed by Booz-Allen Applied Research. Currently he is a Senior Member of the Engineering Staff at RCA providing program and engineering coordination for the AEGIS Program. Mr. Maurice W. Haff:received his B.S. degree in Electrical Engineering from Oklahoma State University in 1970. His advanced degrees which he received from The George Washington University are an M.S. degree in Management Engineering (1975) and an M.B.A. degree in International Business (1980). He has eleven years of engineering and management experience gained in a wide range of Navy Programs. While he was involved with “Design Budgeting” for the CG 47 from the beginning of the program as a Project Engineer Mr.

Traditional ship acquisition practices no longer support the requirements of today's shipbuilding programs. These practices require development of major combat and ship systems to be essentially complete prior to issuance by the government of the Request For Proposal (RFP) for ship detail design and construction. With the need for timely delivery of warships equipped with the most modern weapon systems possible, and maximum remaining years of functional effectiveness after delivery becoming increasingly important, new acquisition strategies are essential. “Design Budgeting,” an innovative new Navy acquisition and design strategy, is now a proven concept. Developed and implemented by the AEGIS Shipbuilding Project, it has been explored in depth with the Shipbuilding Industry as an alternative acquisition process that enables Combat System development and ship acquisition to proceed concurrently. Applied for the first time in the acquisition of Ticonderoga (CG-47), its use permitted development of major portions of the AEGIS Combat System (later to be Government Furnished Equipment to the shipbuilder) to continue well into ship detail design and construction without impact on overall schedules. Hundreds of changes to the ship engineering baseline which resulted from continued development and test of Combat System, were incorporated into the shipbuilding contract with no cost increase or delay and disruption of the shipbuilding schedule. Proven, adaptable, and available now, “Design Budgeting” is an acquisition and design strategy than can satisfy the requirements of current and future shipbuilding programs.

关键词：

来源：评论

学校读者我要写书评

暂无评论

MACHINERY ARRANGEMENT DESIGN - A PERSPECTIVE

引用

NAVAL ENGINEERS JOURNAL 1981年第3期93卷 133-141页

作者： RESNER, ME KLOMPARENS, SH LYNCH, JP Mr. Michael E. Resner:received an Engineering Degree from Texas A&M University in 1966 and has done graduate work in management at American University. He is Director Machinery Arrangements/Control Systems and Industrial Facilities Division (SEA 525) at the Naval Sea Systems Command. His previous positions have included Program Manager Solar Total Energy Program at the Department of Energy and Branch Chief Machinery Control Systems Branch at the Naval Ship Engineering Center. Mr. Stephen H. Klomparens:is a Naval Architect at Designers & Planners Inc. and is engaged in development of computer aids for ship design. He received his B.S.E. degree in Naval Architecture and Marine Engineering from the University of Michigan in 1973 and his M.S. degree in Computer Science from the Johns Hopkins University. Mr. Kolmparens began his professional career at Hydronautics Inc. in 1974 where he was involved in the use of marine laboratory facilities for test and development of conventional and advanced marine craft. Since 1977 he has been involved with naval and commercial ship design and with development of computer-aided ship design tools. Mr. John P. Lynch:is a Principal Marine Engineer with Hydronautics Inc. He was previously employed in the auxiliary machinery and computer-aided design divisions of the David W. Taylor Naval Ship R&D Center the machinery design division of the New York Naval Shipyard and the machinery arrangement code of the Bureau of Ships. His active naval service was as a ship superintendent in the production department of the Long Beach Naval Shipyard. Mr. Lynch received his B. S. degree in Marine Engineering from the New York State Maritime College and his M.S. degree in Mechanical Engineering from Columbia University. He is a licensed Professional Engineer in the State of New York and a member of ASNE.

The machinery arrangement design process has remained relatively unchanged over the years. Recently, external demands have been placed on both the product and the producers that call for changes to this process. This paper cites these external demands and traces the evolution of the process changes from the rule-of-thumb machinery box sizing routines up to the current automated procedures. The machinery arrangement design practice is presented, and existing analytic and graphics aids are discussed. The user requirements for improved design aids are presented, with implementation guidelines and hardware/software alternatives.

关键词：

来源：评论

学校读者我要写书评

暂无评论

建议与咨询留下您的常用邮箱和电话号码，以便我们向您反馈解决方案和替代方法

时间限定

文献类型

馆藏选择

核心期刊

语言

文献类型

帮助

文字说明：

检索规则说明：

检索范例：

分类表

所选分类

限定检索结果

文献类型

馆藏范围

日期分布

学科分类号

主题

机构

作者

语言

请选择保存的检索档案：

请选择收藏分类：

通借通还

建议与咨询 留下您的常用邮箱和电话号码，以便我们向您反馈解决方案和替代方法

时间限定

文献类型

馆藏选择

核心期刊

语言

文献类型

帮助

文字说明：

检索规则说明：

检索范例：

分类表

所选分类

限定检索结果

文献类型

馆藏范围

日期分布

学科分类号

主题

机构

作者

语言

请选择保存的检索档案： 新增检索档案 确定 取消

请选择收藏分类： 新增自定义分类 确定 取消

通借通还

建议与咨询留下您的常用邮箱和电话号码，以便我们向您反馈解决方案和替代方法

请选择保存的检索档案：

请选择收藏分类：