Ship Design Method PDF

AUSTRALIAN BRANCHES OF RINA AND IMAREST IN SYDNEY
SHIP DESIGN METHODS
Thomas Lamb
734 764 4509
AUGUST 4, 2004
8/4/04 1
SHIP DESIGN METHODS
CONTENTS
• Introduction
• What is Design?
• Theory versus Practice
• Difference between Design and Engineering
• What do we mean by Design Process?
• Generic Design Approaches.
• Ship Design Approaches.
• Impact of Computers on Design.
• Systems Engineering.
• Difference between naval ship and commercial ship design.
• Tools to assist ship design
• Ship Design References
8/4/04 2
SHIP DESIGN METHODS
1
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The presenter acknowledges that many of the figures that he

used are taken from some of the references listed at the end.
An asterisk is used to identify such references.
However, the presenter takes full responsibility for the

document and the statements therein.
8/4/04 3
SHIP DESIGN METHODS
INTRODUCTION
• Most practicing ship designers probably do not think too much
about why they prepare ship designs the way they do.
• They probably learned it by following a mentor early in their
careers.
• Academics that teach ship design need to document the
different approaches and even give their students an opinion on
which is better.
• Fortunately, there has been considerable research into design in
all disciplines over the past few decades and they can be
examined and tested in the context of ship design.
• The presentation will try to frame some of them again in the
context of ship design by specifically addressing the topics
listed in the contents.
8/4/04 4
SHIP DESIGN METHODS
2
WHAT IS DESIGN?
• Today there is still a general lack of understanding of the
essence of design.
• Design is the arrangement of elements that go into human
productions.
• Design is not a body of knowledge. It is the activity that
integrates the existing bodies of knowledge, to achieve a given
outcome.
• Design is a highly manipulative activity in which the designer
has to continuously and simultaneously pay attention to, and
balance, several factors that influence the design outcome.
• To design is to invent.
• To design is to make decisions.
8/4/04 5
SHIP DESIGN METHODS
WHAT IS DESIGN? (Continued)
• Because of the incompleteness of knowledge at the different

design stages when decisions are being made, it is traditional to
reexamine them at subsequent points in time when more
knowledge is developed.
• This process of reexamination is the traditional iterative nature

of design and is recognized as an integral part of the process.
• However, there are ways to design that eliminate the need for
iteration and thus save design time and effort.
8/4/04 6
SHIP DESIGN METHODS
3
THEORY VERSUS PRACTICE

“A debate currently rages in the engineering design community
as to whether design should be taught primarily by
establishing a foundation of theory or by engaging students in
loosely supervised practice. For the broader activity of
product design and development, we reject both approaches
when taken to their extremes. Theory without practice is
ineffective because there are many nuances, exceptions and
subtleties to be learned in practical settings and because some
necessary tasks simply lack any theoretical underpinnings.
Practice without guidance can too easily result in frustration
and fails to exploit the knowledge that successful product
development professionals and researchers have accumulated
over time.”
8/4/04 7
SHIP DESIGN METHODS
THEORY VERSUS PRACTICE (Continued)

Today there are still strong defenders of both extremes.
• However, it is likely that over time the theory approach will
prevail.
• This will be aided by the needs of computer applications in
design, in that computers are still dumb machines, and
require process classification and principles in order for
them to be programmed.
• One reason that the theory of design has developed so
slowly (it was first proposed in the late 1950s) is that most
engineers do not receive formal education in design.
8/4/04 8
SHIP DESIGN METHODS
4
THEORY VERSUS PRACTICE (Continued)

• That this is so is validated from the fact that the NAS
Engineering Education Report (NAS, 1995) states many
times that design theory and practice are lacking from
current curriculums and need to be an integral part of all
future engineering undergraduate education.
• Another reason is the very wide range of products and
services provided by engineers prevents the agreement of a
universal theory of design and will probably never happen.
• Rather each branch of engineering will develop its own
specific theory of design.
• We are close today on reaching a theory of ship design that
will be acceptable to most ship designers.
8/4/04 9
SHIP DESIGN METHODS
DIFFERENCE BETWEEN DESIGN AND ENGINEERING

Engineering is a very misused word.
• It can be used to describe, a profession, the process of
developing a design into working instructions, and a type of
manufacturing
• We will be considering the second case only.
• One of the earliest definitions of Engineering, from the Charter
of the Institution of Civil Engineers is “ the art of directing the
great sources of power in nature for the use and convenience of
man.”
• In Architecture, architects design the building but engineers do
the analysis and construction details.
• Another idea was offered by Dr. S. Erichsen and is
“Designers create and Engineers analyze.”
8/4/04 10
SHIP DESIGN METHODS
5
DIFFERENCE BETWEEN DESIGN AND ENGINEERING

(Continued)
• Some people see Design as a part of Engineering.
• In this sense they see some engineers design and some analyze
the design of others.
• I prefer to separate them because they use different approaches

and have different goals.
• So for the remainder of this presentation:

Design decides all technical matters
Engineering develops and documents the design to enable
its manufacture.
8/4/04 11
SHIP DESIGN METHODS
WHAT DO WE MEAN BY DESIGN PROCESS?

• By Process we refer to a series of actions or operations
conducing to an end.
• In reference to design process it is interchangeable with
Methodology.
• Both process and methodology thus are procedures for
completing activities.
• The procedures are structured, that is a step by step description
and a framework or template for the key information and
decision making.
• Some people think such structuring constrains innovation and
creativity. In actual fact it saves time which in turn can be
used to develop innovative and creative solutions.
8/4/04 12
SHIP DESIGN METHODS
6
WHAT DO WE MEAN BY DESIGN PROCESS? (Continued)
• Documented design processes provide the following advantages:

- The process is made explicit. It is known to everyone,
allowing an understanding of the design rationale and
reducing the possibility of proceeding with unsupported
decisions.
- Ensures that important design issues are considered.
- Structured processes are largely self-documenting; in the
process of executing the process a record of the decisions
is created, for future reference and for educating new
designers.
- Standardization within companies and even industries.
8/4/04 13
SHIP DESIGN METHODS
• All design has a process, either by desire or by accident.

• A good process, if followed, will produce an effective design for
the minimum of effort and in the shortest time.
• Practitioners of ship design have developed design processes over
many years.
• The process can be a learning tool thus saving new designers
time.
• When performed on the computer, this process is blurred by
speed, but the process is still there, imbedded in the program.
8/4/04 14
SHIP DESIGN METHODS
7
• Documented design processes usually have developed over time

by trial are error and the best (efficient in effort and duration) is
reached by evolution.
• Some developers of such processes for ship design have

presented their processes in technical books and papers.
• There are exceptions to the gradual evolution approach by

developers who applied Systems Engineering approaches to
develop requirements for and a solution for the ship design
process and they are include in the references.
8/4/04 15
SHIP DESIGN METHODS
GENERIC DESIGN APPROACHES
Cross’s Model
8/4/04 16
SHIP DESIGN METHODS
8
GENERIC DESIGN Pahl & Beitz Model

APPROACHES
(Continued)
Here the Process comprises of
a number of steps wherein the
main phases include clarifying
the task, conceptual design,
embodiment design and
detailed design. At every step
a decision must b made as to
whether the next step can be
taken or whether previous
steps need to be repeated.
8/4/04 17
SHIP DESIGN METHODS
GENERIC DESIGN March’s Model

APPROACHES
(Continued)
This model recognizes the
solution focused nature of
design thinking. The phase of
productive reasoning draws on
a preliminary statement of
requirements, and some
presuppositions about solution
types, in order to conceive a
potential design proposal.
From this proposal it is
possible to analyze
deductively the performance of
the candidate solution. Finally
the predicted performance
characteristics of the design it
is possible to evaluate
inductively further alternatives.
8/4/04 18
SHIP DESIGN METHODS
9
GENERIC DESIGN
APPROACHES
(Continued)
Pugh’s Total Design

Activity Model
8/4/04 19
SHIP DESIGN METHODS
GENERIC DESIGN APPROACHES (Continued)

SET-BASED DESIGN
Set-Based Design is a term describing a process in which

“designers…must draw inferences about sets of artifacts
(physical objects) under sets of operating conditions; they cannot
simply simulate or analyze single, completely specified designs.”
This contrasts iterative, or point-to-point, approaches which

synthesize a single solution and then evolve the design through a
series of analyses, evaluations and modifications.
8/4/04 20
SHIP DESIGN METHODS
10
GENERIC DESIGN
MISSION/OWNER'S
APPROACHES REQUIREMEMNTS
(Continued)
ALTERNATIVE 1 ALTERNATIVE 2 ALTERNATIVE 3 ALTERNATIVE 4
SET BASED
DESIGN BOUNDED BOUNDED BOUNDED BOUNDED
DESIGN DESIGN DESIGN DESIGN
(Continued)
ALT 1 BEST ALT 2 BEST ALT 3 BEST ALT 4 BEST

SOLUTION SOLUTION SOLUTION SOLUTION
BEST SOLUTION FROM

ALL THE ALTERNATIVES
8/4/04 21
SHIP DESIGN METHODS
GENERIC DESIGN APPROACHES (Continued)

SET-BASED DESIGN (Continued)
• Posing alternative design solutions as sets, as opposed to point
solutions.
• Deferred commitment in general, with or without explicit
specification of sets defining the design space, the timing of
which requires knowledge of the supplier lead times associated
with the decision deferred.
• Design structure matrix for use when a specific design
direction has been established or alternatives are being explored.
• Design redundancy when task sequence cannot be structured to
avoid iterative loops and team problem solving is not feasible.
8/4/04 22
SHIP DESIGN METHODS
11
SHIP DESIGN APPROACHES

• For over three decades the Design Spiral has been used by
many designers to describe and develop a process. It is
inherently iterative in concept with the goal to zero in on a
single solution as quickly as possible.
• I prefer, and have used all my design life the Design Bounding
approach.
• In the last decade the Set Based Design approach, accredited to

Toyota, has been offered as the best approach.
8/4/04 23
SHIP DESIGN METHODS
SHIP DESIGN APPROACHES (Continued)
DESIGN SPIRAL
8/4/04 24
SHIP DESIGN METHODS
12
Andrew’s 3D Spiral
8/4/04 25
SHIP DESIGN METHODS
SHIP DESIGN
APPROACHES (Continued)
Andrew’s Iterative Ship

Design Process
8/4/04 26
SHIP DESIGN METHODS
13
Ship Design Dependencies
8/4/04 27
SHIP DESIGN METHODS
SHIP DESIGN
APPROACHES (Continued)
UCL Concept Design

Logic
8/4/04 28
SHIP DESIGN METHODS
14
IDEF for Preliminary Design
8/4/04 29
SHIP DESIGN METHODS
SHIP DESIGN
APPROACHES
(Continued)
Ship Synthesis
Model
8/4/04 30
SHIP DESIGN METHODS
15
SHIP DESIGN
APPROACHES
(Continued)
Naval Ship
Initial Sizing
Process
8/4/04 31
SHIP DESIGN METHODS
SHIP DESIGN
APPROACHES
(Continued)
Commercial Ship
Contract Design
Process
8/4/04 32
SHIP DESIGN METHODS
16
SHIP DESIGN
APPROACHES
(Continued)
The Total
Product-oriented
Design and
Engineering
Process
8/4/04 33
SHIP DESIGN METHODS

DESIGN BOUNDING
INPUT DERIVED FROM OWNERS REQUIREMENTS:
•SPEED
•RANGE
•CARGO DEADWEIGHT
•CARGO CAPACITY
L L
D D D D D D
B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B
K K K K K K K K K K K K K K K K K K K K K K K K K K K K K K K K K K K K K K K K K K K K K K K K K K K
CB CB CB CB CB CB CB CB CB CB CB CB CB CB CB CB CB CB CB CB CB CB CB CB CB CB CB CB CB CB CB CB CB CB CB CB CB CB CB CB CB CB CB CB CB CB CB CB CB CB CB
PS PS PS PS PS PS PS PS PS PS PS PS PS PS PS PS PS PS PS PS PS PS PS PS PS PS PS PS PS PS PS PS PS PS PS PS PS PS PS PS PS PS PS PS PS PS PS PS PS PS PS
W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W
V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V
S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S
OS
8/4/04 34
SHIP DESIGN METHODS
17
SHIP DESIGN
APPROACHES
(Continued)
DESIGN
BOUNDING
SKETCH
8/4/04 35
SHIP DESIGN METHODS
TRADITIONAL ITERATIVE DESIGN APPROACH

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 4
TIME 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
ITERATION 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
MISSION REQUIREMENTS
PROPORTIONS AMD
PRELIMINARY POWERING
LINES AND BODY PLAN
HYDROSTATICS AND
BUOYANCY
FLOODABLE LENGTH
ARRANGEMENTS
STRUCTURE
POWERING
LIGHTSHIP WEIGHT
ESTIMATE
CAPACITIES
TRIM AND STABILITY
DAMAGED STABILITY
COST SETIMATE
8/4/04 36
SHIP DESIGN METHODS
18
BOUNDED DESIGN
DESIGN 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
PROPORTIONS AMD PRELIMINARY POWERING
LINES AND BODY PLAN
HYDROSTATICS AND BUOYANCY
FLOODABLE LENGTH
ARRANGEMENTS
STRUCTURE
POWERING
LIGHTSHIP WEIGHT ESTIMATE
CAPACITIES
TRIM AND STABILITY
DAMAGED STABILITY
COST SETIMATE
Notes:
1. Final 3 designs ALL meet the technical requirements
2. Select design from three contenders based on some merit factor
3. On average takes half the time – even less
4. Results in better design
8/4/04 37
SHIP DESIGN METHODS
Design process can be highly automated at Too complex for fully automated
this level of detail (concept exploration & earlier) process – human ingenuity vital
INPUTS FUNCTIONAL CONCEPT CONCEPT

• Mission Needs ANALYSIS EXPLORATION VALIDATION
Statement • Functional • Multiple ship • Point design(s)
• Performance decomposition of solutions
• Detailed trade
Specs requirements
• Impact Studies studies
• CONOPS • Operational impact
• ROM Cost • Risk management
of performance
• ORD estimates plan
• Combat Systems
• “Desirements” • COEA/AoA • Cost Estimates
payload
TOOLS TOOLS TOOLS TOOLS

None Required • CRADLE • CEM (Frigate and • ASSET
Carrier Only)
• TRIBON/FlagShip
• CATIA/MasterSeries
8/4/04 38
Courtesy of NG Newport News Shipbuilding SHIP DESIGN METHODS
19
IMPACT OF COMPUTERS ON DESIGN

Some people claim that computers eliminated the need for a
design process.
• In actual fact, where there was no process documentation, it
was necessary that processes be developed as a way to define
the flow of information.
• While a user of a design synthesis program may not see or
understand the process used by the program, it is there.
• Because of the speed of computations the computer can
perform in a millisecond what took days and even weeks
manually.
• This does not eliminate the need for a process that is efficient
in operation.
8/4/04 39
SHIP DESIGN METHODS
SYSTEMS ENGINEERING
• In recent years some proponents of Systems Engineering have
proposed its use almost as if it was a design approach. While Total
Design has always considered both the design of individual systems
and the integration of the systems, systems engineering does not
include the design, only the organization and management of the
design.
• Systems Engineering (SE) developed because of two reasons. The
first is that engineers in the U.S. had become so specialized (F.
Taylor approach - Scientific Management) and that someone needed
to take the responsibility for the total system (Completed Product).
In the case of ships the naval architect always had this responsibility
and still maintains it in most shipbuilding countries. However, in
the U.S., the naval architects allowed this responsibility to be taken
away from them. The second reason is that some systems have
become so complex that a better way to design and manage the
design has become essential.
8/4/04 40
SHIP DESIGN METHODS
20
SYSTEMS ENGINEERING (Continued)

• SE is a process not an engineering discipline.
• Design is a decision making process and the selection of

design parameters represents decisions. Therefore, SE is a
design management process.
• It should be obvious that as SE is a structured approach, its

successful implementation is even more dependent, than less
structured approaches, that a structured approach to its
management is available and used.
8/4/04 41
SHIP DESIGN METHODS

• SE has received its impetus from the defense industries in a
number of countries. The U.S. Navy has focused on it as a
primary need for future design teams. So much so that it is a
specific Program at the Naval Postgraduate School in Monterey
California and a new program is being offered at UNO.
• SE is a recently labeled approach to the design, analysis and
management of complex products. However, it is not new.
Most writers on the subject trace its origins back to World War
II, but in actual fact it goes way back before then. Most of the
publications on the subject have been developed very recently,
but some of the earlier books go back to 1959 and 1967.
• A draft MIL-STD (499) was prepared in 1974 and it formed the
foundation for EIA 632 Standard, Process for Engineering a
System (1994).
8/4/04 42
SHIP DESIGN METHODS
21
• Some proponents of SE see it as a panacea for handling
complex products. However, for a long time the marine
industry has produced some of the most complex and
largest products in the world. Dr. John van Griethuysen
has stated that:
In many ways systems engineering is no more than a
generalized model of, and framework for thinking about,
the engineering process, which needs tailoring to be
applicable to a particular product and project. It is
therefore self-evident that marine products have always
been designed and produced using a form of "systems
engineering" even if those particular words were rarely
used. It is also true that much of naval architecture and
marine engineering concerned with design and
management is undoubtedly an example of systems
engineering.
8/4/04 43
SHIP DESIGN METHODS
8/4/04 44
SHIP DESIGN METHODS
22
8/4/04 45
SHIP DESIGN METHODS

• Current trends indicate that in general, the complexity of systems is
increasing with the introduction of new technologies. In todays
environment, there is an ever increasing need to develop and produce
systems that meet the customer’s requirements, are robust in nature,
reliable and of high quality, supportable and cost effective.
• SE is an orderly way of bringing systems into being and achieving
this.
• SE is the effective application and engineering efforts to transform an
operational need into a defined system configuration through the top
down iterative process of requirements analysis, functional analysis
and allocation, synthesis, design optimization, test and evaluation and
validation.
• SE is intended to ensure the development of affordable systems that
completely meet the customer’s requirements.
8/4/04 46
SHIP DESIGN METHODS
23
• SE is good engineering with certain designated areas of
emphasis – top down approach – life cycle orientation – better
initial design requirement definition – team approach
• A ship is composed of many systems often with conflicting
requirements. Some people look at it as a system of systems.
• SE focuses on managing the design of systems and on systems
analysis.
• Managing the design of systems covers the process of
developing systems into new products
• Systems analysis covers the improvement of existing systems.
8/4/04 47
SHIP DESIGN METHODS

8/4/04 48
SHIP DESIGN METHODS
24
8/4/04 49
SHIP DESIGN METHODS

8/4/04 50
SHIP DESIGN METHODS
25
8/4/04 51
SHIP DESIGN METHODS
8/4/04 52
SHIP DESIGN METHODS
26
DIFFERENCE BETWEEN NAVAL SHIP AND COMMERCIAL,

AND U.S. AND REST OF WORLD SHIP DESIGN
• Number of designers and man-hours significantly different – at
least by a factor of 10.
• Commercial and naval ships have significantly different scopes at
early stages such as Concept and Preliminary. A naval ship
Concept Design is more like a commercial Preliminary Design.
• Commercial shipowners do not pay for pre-award design effort
(except where, for some reason, they go to a Design Agent).
• The U.S. ship designers, generally, prepare many more documents
for Contract Design than most other shipbuilding countries.
• Normal U.S. Contract Design for commercial ship would consist of
up to 40 drawings and 800 page specification. Rest of the world
would have 3 to 6 drawings and 10 to 100 page specification.
• This is a hang over from the MarAd days when they were the
contractors and administrators of the U.S. commercial shipbuilding
program as well as the focus on naval ship design.
8/4/04 53
SHIP DESIGN METHODS
TOOLS TO ASSIST SHIP DESIGN
• Early computer based tools were for calculations, such as

hydrostatics and stability.
• Today we have design synthesis (ASSET and Michigan SDS),
analysis (FEM, CFD, Safehull, Mystro), Surface Modeling
(Rhinoceros), CAD (AutoCad, Fast ship, MacSurf, TRIBON)
and CAE (CALMA).
• Many design tools have a link to design management and
production tools.
• Problem is how to teach latest design tools to students (not
enough time or interest by faculty).
• Student Friendly Software Project will have a beneficial
impact on this problem.
8/4/04 54
SHIP DESIGN METHODS
27
TOOLS TO ASSIST SHIP DESIGN (Continued)

Design of Experiments (DOE) – Considering right things
Robust Design (Taguchi) – Repeatability and consistency
Design for X where X can be:
Operation
Manufacture
Production
Disposal
Etc.
Needed to offset specialization that has become
entrenched over decades. Also based on understanding
that there are many users of the design information.
Quality Function Deployment (QFD) – Better design decisions
Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) – Pair wise Comparison
8/4/04 55
SHIP DESIGN METHODS
TOOLS TO ASSIST SHIP DESIGN (Continued)

NEEDED TOOLS
You would think after all the years we would have great ship
design tools. However, we are mostly dissatisfied with what we
have and are seeking better. The U.S. Navy has identified many
inadequacies.
•ONR project to integrate stand alone tools with a multivariate
Optimization Tool shows that there is a need – we do not have
the tools we need yet.
•Need a good naval ship mission analyses/effectiveness tool.
•Need a better cost estimating tool.
•Need a life-cycle design tool.
8/4/04 56
SHIP DESIGN METHODS
28
SHIP DESIGN REFERENCES
BOOKS
• “THE THEORY AND TECHNIQUE OF SHIP DESIGN,” G. C. Manning, John Wiley &
Sons, 1956
• “SYSTEMS ENGINEERING,” H. H. Goode, and R.E. Machol, McGraw Hill, New York,
1959 *
• “BIBLIOGAPHY OF SYSTEM ENGINEERING METHODS,” H. Chestnut, John Wiley &
Sons, 1967
• “ELEMENTS OF SHIP DESIGN,” R. Munro-Smith, Marine Media Management, Ltd., 1975
• “MANAGEMENT OF MARINE DESIGN,” S. Erichsen, Butterworths,1989
• “DESIGN INNOVATION IN SHIPPING,” Prof. Dr. Ir. N. Wijnolst, Delft Univerity Press,
1995
• “UNDERSTANDING ENGINEERING DESIGN,” R. Birmingham, G. Cleand, R. Driver and
D. Martin, Prentice Hall, 1995 *
• “PRACTICAL SHIP DESIGN,” D. G. M. Watson, Elsevier, 1998
• “SHIP DESIGN FOR EFFICIENCY AND ECONONY,” H. Schneekluth & V. Bertram,
Butterworth/Heinemann, 1998
• “SYSTEMS ENGINEERING – COPING WITH COMPLEXITY,” S. Arnold, P. Brook, K.
Jackson, and R. Stevens, Prentice Hall Europe, 1998
• “IMPROVING SHIP OPERATIONAL DESIGN,” The Nautical Institue, 1998
• “SHIP DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION,” Ed. T. Lamb, SNAME, 2003 & 2004
8/4/04 57
SHIP DESIGN METHODS
SHIP DESIGN REFERENCES (Continued)

BOOKS (Continued)
• A GUIDE FOR THE ANALYSIS OF SHIP STRUCTURES,” U.S. Department of Commerce,
Office of Technical Services, 1960
• “A GUIDE TO SOUND SHIP STRUCTURES,” A. M. D’Archangelo, Cornell Maritime
Press, 1964
• “DESIGN OF SHIPS’ STRUCTURES,” D. W. Chalmers, HMSO London, 1993
• “PRACTICAL DESIGN OF HULL STRUCTURES, M. Mano, Y. Okumoto, and Y. Takeda,
Senpaku Gijutsu Kyoskai, 2000
• “MERCHANT SHIP STRUCTURE,” Dr. D. A. Taylor, Institute of Marine Engineers, 2000
• “SHIP CONSTRUCTION,” D. J. Eyre, Butterworth/Hienemann, 2001
8/4/04 58
SHIP DESIGN METHODS
29

GENERAL
• “The Development of a Design Guidance System for Early Stages of Design,” B. Bras, W. F. Smith, and F.
Mistree, Chapter in CFD and CAD in Ship Design, Elsevier Science Publishers B.V. 1990
• “Speeding Up the Predesign Process,” T. Koch, ICCAS 1994
• “Development of the Adaptable User-Oriented Conceptual Ship Design System,” D. Lee, K-H. Lee, K-Y.
Lee, S-S. Lee and S-H Han, ICCAS 1994
• “Improved Design Productivity with a Product Model for Initial Ship Design,” J von Haartman and C.
Schauman, ICCAS 1994
• “On the Development of a Computerized Basic Ship Design System,” K-Y. Lee, S-W. Suh and D-W. Shin,
ICCAS 1994
• “A Structured Predesign Approach Derived through Systematical Analysis to Improve the Ships Initial
Design,” N.E. A. Hassan and K-D. Thoben, ICCAS 1994
• “Creation of a ‘Shared’ Design Environment, Using 3-D Product Modelling and Visualization
Technologies,” J. Grant, R Cullen and R Imber, ICCAS 1997
• “New Progress in Design Technology,” G. Caprino and G. DiFilippo, RINA and WEMT Conference on
European Shipbuilders in the 21st Century, London December 6-7, 2000
• “A Tool to Decompose Ship Design,” D. Ring and R. A. Shenoi, SNAME Ship Production Symposium,
2000
• “The Application of a Decomposition and Reuse Approach in Marine Design,” K.G. Tan and P. Sen,
PRADS 2001
8/4/04 59
SHIP DESIGN METHODS

SYSTEMS ENGINEERING
• "Unraveling the Systems Engineering Lexicon," J. C. Lake, Proceedings of the
International Council on Systems Engineering, 1996
• Proceedings of the International Council on Systems Engineering, April 5-8.
2000, Reston. VA.
• "Marine Design - Can Systems Engineering Cope," W. J. van Griethuysen,
Proceedings of the 7th International Marine Design Conference, May 21 - 24,
2000, Kyongju, Korea *
• "Systems Engineering in Naval Ship Design," C. N. Calvano, O. Jons, and R. G.
Keane, Naval Engineers Journal, July 2000
• "Application of Systems Engineering and Risk-based Technology in Ship Safety
Criteria Determinations," Z. Karaszewski, U. S. Coast Guard, Arlington, VA
• "Making Design Everybody's Job: The Warship Design Process," B. F. Tibbitts,
and R. G. Keane, Naval Engineers Journal, May 1995
• "Total System Ship Design in a Super-system Framework," W. A. Hockberger,
Naval Engineers Journal, May 1996 *
• "Building Ships as a System: An Approach to Total Ship Integration," B. G.
Duren, and J. R. Pollard, Naval Engineers Journal, September 1997 *
8/4/04 60
SHIP DESIGN METHODS
30

DESIGN OPTIMIZATION AND SHIP DESIGN SYNTHESIS
• “An Investigation into the Influence of Preference Modelling in Ship Design with Multiple
Objectives,” P. Sen and J. B. Yang, Proceeding of the 6th International Symposium on Practical
design of Ships and Mobile Units, The Hague, the Netherlands, September 1998
• “Analysis of Ship Design under Uncertainty in the Multiple Criteria Decision Making
Framework,” T. Ray, R. P. Gokran, and O.P. Sha, Proceeding of the 6th International Symposium
on Practical design of Ships and Mobile Units, The Hague, the Netherlands, September 1998
• “Survey of Ship Design Methods and Illustration of Multiattribute Decision Making System for
Concept Ship Design,” G. Trincas, ?????
• “Ship Synthesis Model Morphology,” D. E. Calkins, SNAME Spring Meeting/STAR, June 8-10,
1988
• “A Hybrid Agent Approach for Set-Based Conceptual Ship Design,” M. G. Parsons, D. J. Singer
and J. A. Sauter, ICCAS, 1999
• “The Application of Multi-Objective Robust Design Methods in Ship Design,” R. I. Whitfield, B.
Hills and G. Coates, ICCAS 1999
• “Preliminary Design Computer Synthesis Modeling and Cost Estimating,” T. R. Schiller, J.
Daidola, J. Kloetzli and J. Pfister, ICCAS 1999
8/4/04 61
SHIP DESIGN METHODS

NAVAL SHIP DESIGN
• “Management of Ship Design at the Naval Ship Engineering center,” K. B. Spaulding, Jr. and
A. F. Johnson, ASNE NEJ, February 1976
• “Naval Ship Design – Evolution or Revolution,” B.F. Tibbitts, R. G. Keane and R.J. Riggins,
ASNE NEJ, May 1988
• “The Management of Warship Design,” D. Andrews, RINA Transactions, 1992 *
• “Naval Ship Combatant Ship Designers Aid,” E. P. Andert, Jr., ASNE NEJ, May 1993
• “Warship Design on the Desktop Computer,” M. Barrett, J. Duncan and P. Rutland, ICCAS
1994
• “Simulation-Based design of Ship design and Acquisition,” G. Jones and T. Hankinson,
ICCAS 1994
• “Making Design Everybody’s Job,” B. F. Tibbitts and R.G. Keane, ASNE NEJ, May 1995
• “Naval Ship Design Philosophy Implementation,” C. A. Whitcomb, ASNE NEJ, January 1998
• “A new Approach to an Integrated CAD Method for Surface Ship Design,” K. T. Tan and T.
P. Bligh, ASNE NEJ, January 1998
• “Reinventing Naval Ship Design,” M. Bebar and R Finney, ASNE NEJ, May 1999
• “Dynamics of Naval Ship Design: A Systems Approach,” T. Laverghetta and A. Brown,
ASNE NEJ, May 1999
8/4/04 62
SHIP DESIGN METHODS
31

COMMERCIAL SHIP DESIGN PRACTICE
• “A Ship Design Procedure,” T. Lamb, SNAME MT, October 1969 *
• “Some Ship Design Methods,” D. G. M. Watson and A. W. Gilfillan, RINA Transactions,
1976
HULL FORM
• “An Advanced Methodology for Preliminary Hull Form Development,” W-C. Lin, W. G.
Day, J J. Hough, R. G. Keane, D. A. Walden and I-Y. Koh, ASNE NEJ, July 1984
• “Form Parameter Approach to the design of fair Hull Shapes,” S. Harris and H. Nowaki,
ICCAS 1999
• “Parametric Geometry and Optimization of Hull Forms,” M. I. G. Bloor and M. J. Wilson,
ICCAS 1999
STRUCTURAL ARRANGEMENT DESIGN

• “Arrangement and Structural Component Design,” B. Boon, Chapter 17, Volume II, SHIP
DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION
8/4/04 63
SHIP DESIGN METHODS

EXPERT SYSTEMS
• “Visualization of the Reasoning Process of a Knowledge-Based design Support System for
the Structural Design of Ships,” S-H Han, K-H Lee, D. Lee, E-K Kim and K. Lee, ICCAS
1994
• “An Artifical Neural Network Model for Preliminary Ship Design,” O. P. Sha, T. Ray and R.
P. Gokran, ICCAS 1994
• “Generation of design candidates and design Assistance by Using Case-Based Reasoning at
Preliminary Design Stage,” K. H. Lee and D. K. Lee, ICCAS 1997
• “Towards Practical Knowledge-Based Design Modelling,” M. van Hees, Proceeding of the
6th International Symposium on Practical design of Ships and Mobile Units, The Hague, the
Netherlands, September 1998
VIRTUAL REALITY
• “Virtual Environments in the Development of Ships,” O. P. Jons, ICCAS 1994
• “Virtual Reality and Ship Design,” F. Alonso, P. Burnet, and L. Garcia, ICCAS 1997
• “The UK Virtual Ship – The Way Forward,” T. Anderson, ASNE NEJ, January 2000
• “Virtual Reality Techniques for Ship and Submarine Design,” J. Martin, ICCAS 1997
• “The Use of Simulation in the Design and Procurement of Naval Systems,” G. Henry and J.
Langley, ICCAS 1997
8/4/04 64
SHIP DESIGN METHODS
32

GENERAL ARRANGEMENT DESIGN
• “Management Approach to Functional Arrangement Design,” D. J. Barry, SNAME
Transactions, 1960
• “The Evolution of Shipboard Acommodations and Habilability Standards Aboard U.S.
Merchant Ships,” C. B. Cherrix and E. L. Coffman, SNAME Marine Technology, July 1976
• “New Concepts in the design of Ship Board Accommodations and Working Spaces,” J. G. D.
Cain and M. R. Hatfield, RINA Transactions, 121, 1979
• The Process of Naval Ship General Arrangement Design and Analysis,” J. P. Hope
Association of Scientists and Engineers of the Naval Sea Systems Command, 17th Annual
technical Symposium, Washington DC, 1980
• “Habitability in Surface Warships.” H. D. Ware, RINA Transactions, 1986
• “New Initiatives in Ship General Arrangements,” D. R. Cebulski, SNAME Spring/STAR
Symposium, 1987
• “General Arrangement Drawing Format,” SNAME Technical and Research Bulletin 7-2,
June 1988
• “General Arrangement Drawing Details,” SNAME Technical and Research Bulletin 7-3, June
1988
• “General Arrangement Design Criteria and Constraints,” SNAME Technical and Research
Bulletin 7-4, June 1990
•
8/4/04 65
SHIP DESIGN METHODS

GENERAL ARRANGEMENT DESIGN (Continued)
• “The Accommodation System at HDW,” D. Wurr and R. Schuh, ICCAS 1994“A New
Approach to layout design of Ships and Offshore Systems,” N. Smith, W. Hills and J. Kewin,
ICCAS 1997
• “Ship Habitability (Preparing for the 21st Century),” E. P. Meere and L. R. Grieco, ASNE
NEJ, 108, 1997
• “Development of 21st century U. S. Navy Berthing in the Era of Acquisition Reform,” J. C.
Filling, S. Ivenson and E. P. Meere, ASNE NEJ, 110, 1998
• “Research on 3D-Layout Design of Ship Compartment Based on CBR,” J-H Lee, Y-F Zhu,
W-Y Ying, J Lu, PRADS 2001
ENGINEERING AND DETAIL DESIGN

• “Development of a Ship Detail Design Expert System,” R. L. Storch, J. H. Park and D.
Edwards, SNAME Ship Production Symposium, 2001
• “Linking Design and Production by Production Monitoring,” T. Koch, IC
• “Engineering for Ship Production,” T. Lamb, NSRP Report *
8/4/04 66
SHIP DESIGN METHODS
33

DESIGN FOR PRODUCTION
• “Engineering for Ship Production,” T. Lamb, NSRP Report, 1986 *
• “Design for Production Manual,” NSRP Report, 1985
• “Producibility in Ship Design,” G. Kraine, and S. Ingvason, JSP, November 1990
• “Design for Zone Outfitting,” NSRP Report 0179, September 1983
• “Evaluating the Producibility of Ship Design Alternatives,” J> R. Wilkins Jr., G. L. Kraine, and
D. H. Thompson, JSP, August 1993
• “The Naval Ship Design/Production Interface,” B. F. Tibbitts and P.A. Gale, JSP, August 1986
• “Group Technology in Shipbuilding,” T. Lamb, JSP, February 1988
• “Producibility in U.S. Navy Ship Design,” H. A. Hofman, R. S. Grant, and S. Fung, JSP, May
1990
• “Midship Section Deign Using a Bilevel Production Cost Optimization Scheme,” W. P. Krol Jr.,
JSP, February 1991
• “SEAWOLF Producibility II: Transition from Design to Production,” B. R. Bruckner and R. W.
Basseler
• “Design/Production Integration and the Industrial Structure,” F. A. P. Frisch, JSP, May 1994
• “Commonality-based Naval Ship Ship Design, Production, and Support,” M. L. Cecere III, J.
Abbott, M. L. Bosworth, and T. J. Valsi, JSP, February 1995
• “Design/Production Integration,” W. W. van Devender and A. S. Holland, JSP, May 1995
8/4/04 67
SHIP DESIGN METHODS
34

Ship Design Method PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Ship Design Method PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

AUSTRALIAN BRANCHES OF RINA AND IMAREST IN SYDNEY

SHIP DESIGN METHODS

AUSTRALIAN BRANCHES OF RINA AND IMAREST IN SYDNEY

The presenter acknowledges that many of the figures that he

An asterisk is used to identify such references.

However, the presenter takes full responsibility for the

AUSTRALIAN BRANCHES OF RINA AND IMAREST IN SYDNEY

AUSTRALIAN BRANCHES OF RINA AND IMAREST IN SYDNEY

WHAT IS DESIGN? (Continued)

• Because of the incompleteness of knowledge at the different

• This process of reexamination is the traditional iterative nature

THEORY VERSUS PRACTICE

AUSTRALIAN BRANCHES OF RINA AND IMAREST IN SYDNEY

THEORY VERSUS PRACTICE (Continued)

THEORY VERSUS PRACTICE (Continued)

AUSTRALIAN BRANCHES OF RINA AND IMAREST IN SYDNEY

DIFFERENCE BETWEEN DESIGN AND ENGINEERING

DIFFERENCE BETWEEN DESIGN AND ENGINEERING

• Some people see Design as a part of Engineering.

• I prefer to separate them because they use different approaches

• So for the remainder of this presentation:

AUSTRALIAN BRANCHES OF RINA AND IMAREST IN SYDNEY

WHAT DO WE MEAN BY DESIGN PROCESS?

WHAT DO WE MEAN BY DESIGN PROCESS? (Continued)

• Documented design processes provide the following advantages:

AUSTRALIAN BRANCHES OF RINA AND IMAREST IN SYDNEY

WHAT DO WE MEAN BY DESIGN PROCESS? (Continued)

• All design has a process, either by desire or by accident.

WHAT DO WE MEAN BY DESIGN PROCESS? (Continued)

• Documented design processes usually have developed over time

• Some developers of such processes for ship design have

• There are exceptions to the gradual evolution approach by

AUSTRALIAN BRANCHES OF RINA AND IMAREST IN SYDNEY

GENERIC DESIGN APPROACHES

GENERIC DESIGN Pahl & Beitz Model

AUSTRALIAN BRANCHES OF RINA AND IMAREST IN SYDNEY

GENERIC DESIGN March’s Model

Pugh’s Total Design

AUSTRALIAN BRANCHES OF RINA AND IMAREST IN SYDNEY

GENERIC DESIGN APPROACHES (Continued)

Set-Based Design is a term describing a process in which

This contrasts iterative, or point-to-point, approaches which

ALTERNATIVE 1 ALTERNATIVE 2 ALTERNATIVE 3 ALTERNATIVE 4

ALT 1 BEST ALT 2 BEST ALT 3 BEST ALT 4 BEST

BEST SOLUTION FROM

AUSTRALIAN BRANCHES OF RINA AND IMAREST IN SYDNEY

GENERIC DESIGN APPROACHES (Continued)

SHIP DESIGN APPROACHES

• In the last decade the Set Based Design approach, accredited to

AUSTRALIAN BRANCHES OF RINA AND IMAREST IN SYDNEY

SHIP DESIGN APPROACHES (Continued)

SHIP DESIGN APPROACHES (Continued)

AUSTRALIAN BRANCHES OF RINA AND IMAREST IN SYDNEY

Andrew’s Iterative Ship

SHIP DESIGN APPROACHES (Continued)

Ship Design Dependencies

AUSTRALIAN BRANCHES OF RINA AND IMAREST IN SYDNEY

UCL Concept Design

SHIP DESIGN APPROACHES (Continued)

IDEF for Preliminary Design

AUSTRALIAN BRANCHES OF RINA AND IMAREST IN SYDNEY

AUSTRALIAN BRANCHES OF RINA AND IMAREST IN SYDNEY