Trans RINA, Vol 152, Part A2, Intl J Maritime Eng, Apr-Jun 2010
“Smoke Nuisance Problem on Ships - A Review “ using Computational
Fluid Dynamics (CFD) based
computerised techniques and in 2006 D Andrews et al of UCL on “Design for Production Using the Design Building Block Approach”, which used Computer Aided Ship Design (CASD) to improve Design for Production very early in both merchant and naval ship design. An earlier paper by R Turner et al of Vickers Barrow considered “Some Aspects of Passenger Liner Design” by comparing several alternative designs with regard to machinery choice and structural loading. More of a general review of naval ship design issues was given by D Brown & E Tupper in 1989 under “Naval Architecture of Surface Warships” and finally issues fundamental to the profession were presented in 1990 by K Rawson in “Ethics & Fashion in Design”. Such reviews by (often) senior Ministry of Defence designers have enhanced knowledge on ship design through out the 150 years of the Transactions’ publication.
4.7. DESIGN METHODS AND PRACTICE
This category seems to have grown immensely in the last forty years, largely due to the advent of the digital computer leading, particularly, to papers presented on ship design methods and approaches, reflecting also growth in design duration and effort applied, not least to meet demands for great safety assurance. However, this theme commenced with descriptions of computer aided ship design techniques and tools being addressed in the Transactions. A further related topic is that of the design environment, under which the wider managerial issues in ship design, particularly in the protracted and expensive field of naval ship acquisition, have been addressed in the last three decades, with some extensive written discussions, more typical of many lively discussions in the 19th Century, particularly in those days when major new ship designs were being presented.
The first of several CASD papers was one of two by I Yuille of the Admiralty Research Laboratory in 1970 “A System for the Online Computer Aided Design of Ships – A Prototype System & Future Possibilities”: suitably forward looking, but now appearing very addressing Coons Patches and hull
lines, yet
design tool development above. In the same year D Hally of the Canadian DREA in “On the Systematic variation of Hull Representation for Computers” showed the drive to tackle the ship designer’s perennial issue of adequately capturing hull form definition.
The large number of papers on ship design methods and design approaches started in 1977 with the computer based ”Concept Exploration – An Approach to Small Warship Design” by C Eames & T Drummond, also of DREA Canada, and can be seen alongside D Watson & A Gilfallin of YARD’s paper “Some Ship Design Methods”, a seminal presentation of merchant ship initial sizing, which, despite the subsequent era of rapid growth in ship size and types remains an excellent guide. D Andrews of UCL and MoD presented a series of papers on
justified by advances in computer utility: in 1981 “Creative Ship
an architecturally driven approach increasingly Design”; in
Approach to Ship Synthesis” and in 2004 “Creative Approach to
Ship Architecture” – all
1986 “An Integrated provoking
extensive discussion on the nature of naval ship design, in particular. The Newcastle University team of W Hills et al in the 1989 paper “Integrating Ship Design & Production Considerations in the Pre-Contract Phase” looked at the merchant and offshore ‘Made-to-Order’ process.
A series of papers have considered the scope that numerical
optimisation techniques might provide to
improve ship design, started in 1991 with M Welsh et al “Application of An Expert Systems to Ship Concept Design Investigations” and A Keane et al, now at Southampton University, “Optimisation Techniques in Ship Concept Design” followed the next year by P Sen of Newcastle University with “Marine Design : The Multi Criteria Approach” and in 2007 by G Ernst et al “Application of
Artifical Numerical Methods in
dated, in already
seeing the potential in terms of design efficiency and accuracy. Yuille’s second paper in 1978 “Forward Design System for CASD using a Mini Computer” showed examples of actual ship compartments and major items of equipment being modelled, together with ship analysis by now being undertaken interactively. The same MoD system was addressed by the Ship Department’s lead, S Holmes, two years later in “Application & Development of Computer Systems for Warship Design” with examples of initial structural design and considerations of through life computer design support. The then Brunel University team in 1989, J Keane et al, in “A Computer Based Method for Hull Concept Design” showed work for the UK MoD on a concept system distinct
from the down stream main
Preliminary Sailing Yacht Design” which showed how a tradition design “art” was now part of the general CAD environment . Two UCL papers by W van Griethuysen in 1992 “On the Variety of Monohull Warship Geometry” and in 1994 “On the Choice of Monohull Warship Geometry” gave similar guidance for naval combatants to that by Watson and Gilfallin for merchant ship sizing and form selection. A series of more thematic design papers commenced with D Brown’s 1993 “History as a Design Tool”, followed by D Andrews of UCL’s 2007 paper “Art & Science of Ship Design” and B Woods of Massey
University 2008 paper on the “Role of
Ambiguity in the Art & Science of Yacht Design”. These were followed by two further papers by Andrews in 2004 on “Architectural Considerations in Carrier Design” and, with R Pawling, also of UCL, in 2008 on “A Case Study in Preliminary Ship Design”, the latter included a review of preliminary ship design methods alongside a specific detailed design study’s presented in any earlier paper.
evolution, something not
A - 68
©2010: The Royal Institution of Naval Architects
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