ship design method

1

8/4/04SHIP DESIGN METHODS 1

SHIP DESIGN METHODS

Thomas Lamb734 764 4509

AUGUST 4, 2004

AUSTRALIAN BRANCHES OF RINA AND IMAREST IN SYDNEY


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


2


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.



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 inall 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.


3


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.



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.


4


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.”



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.


5


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.



DIFFERENCE BETWEEN DESIGN AND ENGINEERINGEngineering 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 dothe analysis and construction details.

• Another idea was offered by Dr. S. Erichsen and is“Designers create and Engineers analyze.”


6


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 mattersEngineering develops and documents the design to enable its manufacture.



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.


7


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.




• 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



• 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.




GENERIC DESIGN APPROACHES

Cross’s Model

9



GENERIC DESIGN 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.

Pahl & Beitz Model



GENERIC DESIGN 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.

March’s Model

10



GENERIC DESIGN APPROACHES (Continued)

Pugh’s Total Design Activity Model


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.


11



GENERIC DESIGN APPROACHES (Continued)

SET BASED DESIGN(Continued)

MISSION/OWNER'SREQUIREMEMNTS

ALTERNATIVE 1 ALTERNATIVE 2 ALTERNATIVE 3 ALTERNATIVE 4

BOUNDEDDESIGN

BOUNDEDDESIGN

BOUNDEDDESIGN

BOUNDEDDESIGN

ALT 1 BESTSOLUTION

ALT 2 BESTSOLUTION

ALT 3 BESTSOLUTION

ALT 4 BESTSOLUTION

BEST SOLUTION FROMALL THE ALTERNATIVES


• 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.


GENERIC DESIGN APPROACHES (Continued)SET-BASED DESIGN (Continued)

12


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 Boundingapproach.

• In the last decade the Set Based Design approach, accredited to Toyota, has been offered as the best approach.



SHIP DESIGN APPROACHES (Continued)

DESIGN SPIRAL


13




Andrew’s 3D Spiral




Andrew’s Iterative Ship Design Process

14




Ship Design Dependencies




UCL Concept Design Logic

15




IDEF for Preliminary Design




Ship SynthesisModel

16




Naval ShipInitial SizingProcess




Commercial ShipContract DesignProcess

17



The TotalProduct-orientedDesign and Engineering Process




SHIP DESIGN APPROACHES (Continued)DESIGN BOUNDING

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

INPUT DERIVED FROM OWNERS REQUIREMENTS:•SPEED•RANGE•CARGO DEADWEIGHT•CARGO CAPACITY

18



DESIGNBOUNDING SKETCH




TIME 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 0

1 1

1 2

1 3

1 4

1 5

1 6

1 7

1 8

1 9

2 0

2 1

2 2

2 3

2 4

2 5

2 6

2 7

2 8

2 9

3 0

3 1

3 2

3 3

3 4

3 5

3 6

3 7

3 8

3 9

4 0

4 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

TRADITIONAL ITERATIVE DESIGN APPROACH

19



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


INPUTS• Mission Needs Statement

• PerformanceSpecs

• CONOPS

• ORD

• “Desirements”

FUNCTIONALANALYSIS

• Functional decomposition of requirements

• Operational impact of performance

• Combat Systems payload

CONCEPT EXPLORATION

• Multiple ship solutions

• Impact Studies

• ROM Cost estimates

• COEA/AoA

CONCEPTVALIDATION

• Point design(s)

• Detailed trade studies

• Risk management plan

• Cost Estimates

TOOLSNone Required

TOOLS• CRADLE

TOOLS• CEM (Frigate and Carrier Only)

TOOLS• ASSET

• TRIBON/FlagShip

• CATIA/MasterSeries

Too complex for fully automatedprocess – human ingenuity vital

Design process can be highly automated atthis level of detail (concept exploration & earlier)

Courtesy of NG Newport News Shipbuilding


20


IMPACT OF COMPUTERS ON DESIGNSome 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 efficientin operation.



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 notinclude 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.


21


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.



• 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 thepublications 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).


22


SYSTEMS ENGINEERING (Continued)• 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 Griethuysenhas 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.





23


SYSTEMS ENGINEERING (Continued)AUSTRALIAN BRANCHES OF RINA AND IMAREST IN SYDNEY


SYSTEMS ENGINEERING (Continued)• Current trends indicate that in general, the complexity of systems is

increasing with the introduction of new technologies. In todaysenvironment, 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.


24



• 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.




25






26







27


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 ofup to 40 drawings and 800 page specification. Rest of the worldwould 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.



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.


28


TOOLS TO ASSIST SHIP DESIGN (Continued)AUSTRALIAN BRANCHES OF RINA AND IMAREST IN SYDNEY

Design of Experiments (DOE) – Considering right thingsRobust Design (Taguchi) – Repeatability and consistencyDesign for X where X can be:

OperationManufactureProductionDisposalEtc.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 decisionsAnalytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) – Pair wise Comparison


TOOLS TO ASSIST SHIP DESIGN (Continued)AUSTRALIAN BRANCHES OF RINA AND IMAREST IN SYDNEY

NEEDED TOOLSYou 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.

29


SHIP DESIGN REFERENCESBOOKS• “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



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


30


SHIP DESIGN REFERENCES (Continued)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



SHIP DESIGN REFERENCES (Continued)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 *


31


SHIP DESIGN REFERENCES (Continued)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



SHIP DESIGN REFERENCES (Continued)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


32


SHIP DESIGN REFERENCES (Continued)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



SHIP DESIGN REFERENCES (Continued)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


33


SHIP DESIGN REFERENCES (Continued)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•



SHIP DESIGN REFERENCES (Continued)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 *


34


SHIP DESIGN REFERENCES (Continued)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


ship design method

Documents