Basis of Presentation and Significant Accounting Policies (Policies)	9 Months Ended
Sep. 30, 2017
Accounting Policies [Abstract]
New Accounting Pronouncements	Recently Adopted Accounting Standards In March 2017, the Financial Accounting Standards Board (“FASB”) issued Accounting Standards Update (“ASU”) 2017-07, Improving the Presentation of Net Periodic Pension Cost and Net Periodic Postretirement Benefit Cost, which amends the requirements related to the income statement presentation of the components of net periodic benefit cost for a company’s sponsored defined benefit pension and other postretirement plans. Under this ASU, companies are required to disaggregate the current service cost component from the other components of net benefit cost and present it with other current compensation costs for related employees in the income statement and present the other components elsewhere in the income statement and outside of income from operations if such a subtotal is presented. This ASU also requires companies to disclose the income statement lines that contain the other components if they are not presented on appropriately described separate lines. In addition, only the service cost component of periodic net benefit cost is eligible for capitalization. The Company elected to early adopt this standard in the quarter ended March 31, 2017 as presenting the service cost within income from operations is more indicative of our current pension cost. The Company adopted this standard retrospectively and thus $0.8 million and $2.4 million were reclassified from Selling, general and administrative expenses to Other (income) expense - net for the three and nine months ended September 30, 2016, respectively, to conform to current period presentation. The Company elected to apply the practical expedient that permits the use of previously disclosed service cost and other costs from the prior year’s pension and other postretirement benefit plan footnote in the comparative periods as appropriate estimates when retrospectively changing the presentation of these costs in the income statement. The Company included the required disclosures and the changes resulting from the adoption of this standard in Note 16. In January 2017, the FASB issued ASU 2017-04, Simplifying the Test for Goodwill Impairment, which eliminates Step 2 from the goodwill impairment test. Under this ASU, if the carrying amount of a reporting unit exceeds its fair value, an impairment loss will be recognized in an amount equal to the excess, limited to the total amount of goodwill allocated to the reporting unit. This ASU also eliminated the requirements for any reporting unit with a zero or negative carrying amount to perform a qualitative assessment and, if it fails that qualitative test, to perform Step 2 of the goodwill impairment test. In addition, companies will be required to disclose the amount of goodwill allocated to each reporting unit with a zero or negative carrying amount of net assets. The Company early adopted this standard on January 1, 2017. The adoption of this standard did not have a material impact on our consolidated financial statements. In July 2015, the FASB issued ASU 2015-11, Simplifying the Measurement of Inventory. Under this guidance, entities utilizing the FIFO or average cost method should measure inventory at the lower of cost or net realizable value, where net realizable value is defined as the estimated selling price in the ordinary course of business, less reasonably predictable costs of completion, disposal and transportation. The Company adopted this guidance on January 1, 2017. The adoption of this standard did not have a material impact on our consolidated financial statements. Recently Issued Accounting Standards In January 2017, the FASB issued ASU 2017-01, Clarifying the Definition of a Business, which clarifies the definition of a business and assists entities with evaluating whether transactions should be accounted for as acquisitions or disposals of assets or businesses. Under this guidance, when substantially all of the fair value of gross assets acquired is concentrated in a single asset or group of similar assets, the assets acquired would not represent a business. In addition, in order to be considered a business, an acquisition would have to include at a minimum an input and a substantive process that together significantly contribute to the ability to create an output. The amended guidance also narrows the definition of outputs by more closely aligning it with how outputs are described in FASB guidance for revenue recognition. This guidance is effective for interim and annual periods for the Company on January 1, 2018, with early adoption permitted. The Company does not believe the guidance will have a material impact on its consolidated financial statements. In February 2016, the FASB issued ASU 2016-02, Leases, which sets out the principles for the recognition, measurement, presentation and disclosure of leases for both parties to a contract (i.e. lessees and lessors). The standard introduces a new lessee model that will require most leases to be recorded on the balance sheet and eliminates the required use of bright line tests in current U.S. GAAP for determining lease classification. The new standard requires lessors to account for leases using an approach that is substantially equivalent to existing guidance for sales-type leases, direct financing leases and operating leases. This standard is effective for fiscal years beginning after December 15, 2018 and interim periods within those fiscal years. Companies are permitted to adopt the standard early and a modified retrospective application is required. The Company is currently evaluating the impact of adopting the new guidance on its consolidated financial statements. In May 2014, the FASB issued ASU 2014-09, Revenue from Contracts with Customers, which will replace numerous requirements in U.S. GAAP, including industry-specific requirements, and provide companies with a new five-step model for recognizing revenue from contracts with customers. Under ASU 2014-09, an entity should recognize revenue to depict the transfer of promised goods or services to customers in an amount that reflects the consideration to which the entity expects to be entitled in exchange for those goods or services. This ASU also requires disclosures sufficient to enable users to understand the nature, amount, timing, and uncertainty of revenue and cash flows arising from contracts with customers, including qualitative and quantitative disclosures about contracts with customers, significant judgments and changes in judgments, and assets recognized from the costs to obtain or fulfill a contract. This standard is effective for fiscal years beginning after December 15, 2017, using either of the following transition methods: (i) a full retrospective approach reflecting the application of the standard in each prior reporting period with the option to elect certain practical expedients, or (ii) a retrospective approach with the cumulative effect of initially adopting ASU 2014-09 recognized at the date of adoption. The FASB has also issued the following standards which clarify ASU 2014-09 and have the same effective date as the original standard: ASU 2016-08, Revenue from Contracts with Customers: Principal versus Agent Considerations (Reporting Revenue Gross versus Net); ASU 2016-10, Revenue from Contracts with Customers: Identifying Performance Obligations and Licensing; ASU 2016-12, Revenue from Contracts with Customers: Narrow-Scope Improvements and Practical Expedients; and ASU 2016-20, Technical Corrections and Improvements to Topic 606, Revenue from Contracts with Customers. In 2016, we established an implementation team and analyzed the impact of the standard by surveying business units and reviewing contracts to identify potential differences that may result from applying the requirements of the new standard. We have substantially completed our contract reviews. These contract reviews generally supported the recognition of revenue at a point in time, which is consistent with the current revenue recognition model used by most of our business units. As a result, we expect revenue recognition to remain substantially unchanged under the new standard. For our business units that currently recognize revenue under a percentage of completion model, we also expect revenue recognition to remain substantially unchanged as the contract reviews supported the recognition of revenue over time. The implementation team has reported these findings and the progress of the project to the Audit Committee. The Company has also made progress on evaluating new disclosure requirements as well as the impact on controls and is implementing the appropriate changes to its processes, systems and controls to comply with the new guidance. The Company is still evaluating the impact of the new guidance on its consolidated financial statements but expects to adopt the standard in 2018 using the modified retrospective method.

Recently Adopted Accounting Standards

In March 2017, the Financial Accounting Standards Board (“FASB”) issued Accounting Standards Update (“ASU”) 2017-07, Improving the Presentation of Net Periodic Pension Cost and Net Periodic Postretirement Benefit Cost, which amends the requirements related to the income statement presentation of the components of net periodic benefit cost for a company’s sponsored defined benefit pension and other postretirement plans. Under this ASU, companies are required to disaggregate the current service cost component from the other components of net benefit cost and present it with other current compensation costs for related employees in the income statement and present the other components elsewhere in the income statement and outside of income from operations if such a subtotal is presented. This ASU also requires companies to disclose the income statement lines that contain the other components if they are not presented on appropriately described separate lines. In addition, only the service cost component of periodic net benefit cost is eligible for capitalization. The Company elected to early adopt this standard in the quarter ended March 31, 2017 as presenting the service cost within income from operations is more indicative of our current pension cost. The Company adopted this standard retrospectively and thus $0.8 million and $2.4 million were reclassified from Selling, general and administrative expenses to Other (income) expense - net for the three and nine months ended September 30, 2016, respectively, to conform to current period presentation. The Company elected to apply the practical expedient that permits the use of previously disclosed service cost and other costs from the prior year’s pension and other postretirement benefit plan footnote in the comparative periods as appropriate estimates when retrospectively changing the presentation of these costs in the income statement. The Company included the required disclosures and the changes resulting from the adoption of this standard in Note 16.

In January 2017, the FASB issued ASU 2017-04, Simplifying the Test for Goodwill Impairment, which eliminates Step 2 from the goodwill impairment test. Under this ASU, if the carrying amount of a reporting unit exceeds its fair value, an impairment loss will be recognized in an amount equal to the excess, limited to the total amount of goodwill allocated to the reporting unit. This ASU also eliminated the requirements for any reporting unit with a zero or negative carrying amount to perform a qualitative assessment and, if it fails that qualitative test, to perform Step 2 of the goodwill impairment test. In addition, companies will be required to disclose the amount of goodwill allocated to each reporting unit with a zero or negative carrying amount of net assets. The Company early adopted this standard on January 1, 2017. The adoption of this standard did not have a material impact on our consolidated financial statements.

In July 2015, the FASB issued ASU 2015-11, Simplifying the Measurement of Inventory. Under this guidance, entities utilizing the FIFO or average cost method should measure inventory at the lower of cost or net realizable value, where net realizable value is defined as the estimated selling price in the ordinary course of business, less reasonably predictable costs of completion, disposal and transportation. The Company adopted this guidance on January 1, 2017. The adoption of this standard did not have a material impact on our consolidated financial statements.

Recently Issued Accounting Standards

In January 2017, the FASB issued ASU 2017-01, Clarifying the Definition of a Business, which clarifies the definition of a business and assists entities with evaluating whether transactions should be accounted for as acquisitions or disposals of assets or businesses. Under this guidance, when substantially all of the fair value of gross assets acquired is concentrated in a single asset or group of similar assets, the assets acquired would not represent a business. In addition, in order to be considered a business, an acquisition would have to include at a minimum an input and a substantive process that together significantly contribute to the ability to create an output. The amended guidance also narrows the definition of outputs by more closely aligning it with how outputs are described in FASB guidance for revenue recognition. This guidance is effective for interim and annual periods for the Company on January 1, 2018, with early adoption permitted. The Company does not believe the guidance will have a material impact on its consolidated financial statements.

In February 2016, the FASB issued ASU 2016-02, Leases, which sets out the principles for the recognition, measurement, presentation and disclosure of leases for both parties to a contract (i.e. lessees and lessors). The standard introduces a new lessee model that will require most leases to be recorded on the balance sheet and eliminates the required use of bright line tests in current U.S. GAAP for determining lease classification. The new standard requires lessors to account for leases using an approach that is substantially equivalent to existing guidance for sales-type leases, direct financing leases and operating leases. This standard is effective for fiscal years beginning after December 15, 2018 and interim periods within those fiscal years. Companies are permitted to adopt the standard early and a modified retrospective application is required. The Company is currently evaluating the impact of adopting the new guidance on its consolidated financial statements.

In May 2014, the FASB issued ASU 2014-09, Revenue from Contracts with Customers, which will replace numerous requirements in U.S. GAAP, including industry-specific requirements, and provide companies with a new five-step model for recognizing revenue from contracts with customers. Under ASU 2014-09, an entity should recognize revenue to depict the transfer of promised goods or services to customers in an amount that reflects the consideration to which the entity expects to be entitled in exchange for those goods or services. This ASU also requires disclosures sufficient to enable users to understand the nature, amount, timing, and uncertainty of revenue and cash flows arising from contracts with customers, including qualitative and quantitative disclosures about contracts with customers, significant judgments and changes in judgments, and assets recognized from the costs to obtain or fulfill a contract. This standard is effective for fiscal years beginning after December 15, 2017, using either of the following transition methods: (i) a full retrospective approach reflecting the application of the standard in each prior reporting period with the option to elect certain practical expedients, or (ii) a retrospective approach with the cumulative effect of initially adopting ASU 2014-09 recognized at the date of adoption. The FASB has also issued the following standards which clarify ASU 2014-09 and have the same effective date as the original standard: ASU 2016-08, Revenue from Contracts with Customers: Principal versus Agent Considerations (Reporting Revenue Gross versus Net); ASU 2016-10, Revenue from Contracts with Customers: Identifying Performance Obligations and Licensing; ASU 2016-12, Revenue from Contracts with Customers: Narrow-Scope Improvements and Practical Expedients; and ASU 2016-20, Technical Corrections and Improvements to Topic 606, Revenue from Contracts with Customers.

In 2016, we established an implementation team and analyzed the impact of the standard by surveying business units and reviewing contracts to identify potential differences that may result from applying the requirements of the new standard. We have substantially completed our contract reviews. These contract reviews generally supported the recognition of revenue at a point in time, which is consistent with the current revenue recognition model used by most of our business units. As a result, we expect revenue recognition to remain substantially unchanged under the new standard. For our business units that currently recognize revenue under a percentage of completion model, we also expect revenue recognition to remain substantially unchanged as the contract reviews supported the recognition of revenue over time. The implementation team has reported these findings and the progress of the project to the Audit Committee. The Company has also made progress on evaluating new disclosure requirements as well as the impact on controls and is implementing the appropriate changes to its processes, systems and controls to comply with the new guidance. The Company is still evaluating the impact of the new guidance on its consolidated financial statements but expects to adopt the standard in 2018 using the modified retrospective method.