Trans RINA, Vol 153, Part A1, Intl J Maritime Eng, 2011 Jan-Mar DISCUSSION
150 YEARS OF SHIP DESIGN D Andrews FREng, FRINA (Vol 152 Part A2 2010) COMMENT C Dicks, Fleet Constructor, Navy Command HQ, UK I should like
to thank Professor Andrews, for
his safety case. Developing the safety case requires a broad understanding of the use of the vessel and wider disciplines such as seamanship, as well as the underlying technical analysis, for example when assessing risk to a human during submarine to boat transfer. This fits nicely with the wider role of Naval Architects as the ship integration lead.
his
excellent summary of many lifetimes of achievement. It is quite humbling to realise the elements of one’s profession that one is simply not aware of, or takes for granted! It is also important that such achievements are documented.
My comments are aimed in three directions: Where is the role of the naval architect heading? Are the students of today sufficiently aware of the achievements of their predecessors to learn from them? Is it appropriate that the public at large takes the capability of modern shipping for granted, if not how do we educate?
With regard to the first point I find myself torn, I can argue the current direction of travel is no longer “simply” towards using new technologies and knowledge to allow a new capability to be introduced, but one in which maintenance of today’s level of performance with economy of
effort, increasing levels of safety and
reduced environmental impact are key. These challenges may lead to a different kind of Naval Architect or Marine Engineer to those pioneers detailed in the papers, a team member focused on technical risk, instead of individuals each pioneering ultimate levels of performance. Alternatively
future resource and conservation
challenges, Panama canal construction or deep water exploration, increasing demands from cruise passengers and high technology naval capability requirements will all demand that the technological edge is pursued and maintained, whether for profit, project viability or for military superiority. Will the author comment on whether the role of the naval architect will change in the foreseeable future and whether we are preparing our successors correctly for that future? Is our priority on teaching complex analysis methods the right one? Should we focus more on design, both theory and practice than at present? Is there a greater need for technology development skills?
I would also ask Prof. Andrews to consider appending a further S to his S5 teaching tool to recognise the prominence of safety as a discipline. Naval Architects spend increasing amounts of their time on this discipline, especially the risk based safety case culture which has become such an integral
part of naval ship design
evolution that the Commanding Officer of a new RN ship should not operate it without a thorough understanding of
©2011: The Royal Institution of Naval Architects
I find myself reading this paper, and that by Professor Buxton, wondering why, with the availability of M.Eng. degrees with a little more breathing space for subjects beyond the core disciplines, it
is not generally a
requirement of all undergraduates to study, the history of ship design, technology development or analysis. I would suggest that an understanding the development of solutions to problems past would be an invaluable tool to shape
problem solving capability. Using previous
technological advances as a way of introducing classical analysis approaches, would enliven heavily maths based courses. Possibly most importantly, such a course might provide an additional opportunity to increase the ability of the student
to write a persuasive argument in a
technical subject. Would the authors consider this course a useful addition to the core curriculum?
By the appearance of their papers in the Trans. RINA, Professors Buxton and Andrews have succeeded in enthusing further an already enthusiastic audience. However, many consider the UK public to be “Sea Blind” to both Naval and Merchant shipping. While Formula 1, Discovery Channel and other popular media regularly take the public into areas of technological complexity
without
prominent media appearances environmental disasters
them switching and
off, are
our most safety or
project management
mistakes. How do we enthuse the public into understanding how complex our endeavours are, how interesting they are and how they could be involved? My own start point is to propose that the next available Royal Institution Christmas Lecture series focuses on the different technologies involved in the concept design of a Submarine.
I Buxton, FRINA
David Andrews has given us a comprehensive review of the evolution of ship design over 150 years, well divided into both chronological and subject sections. As noted, there were generally few INA papers addressing the rationale of design or designs, which may have been a result of designers unwilling to part with hard-earned information. This was less the case with the regional engineering institutions. Perhaps this was because apart from the Admiralty (DNC Department based in London until 1940) most actual ship design was carried out in shipyards concentrated in the north of England and in Scotland, after the decline of Thames shipyards from about 1870. Design papers were regularly presented and
A-55
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74