Trans RINA, Vol 152, Part A2, Intl J Maritime Eng, Apr-Jun 2010


The final group of papers on the practice of ship design started with D Andrews’ two UK MoD papers on the “Management of Warship Design – the MoD Warship Project Manager’s Perspective” in 1993 and “Preliminary Warship Design” in 1994 describing the process for a major concept


design investigation. Again extensive


discussions on both papers provide insights into practice in a time of rapid process change, while L Ferreiro & M Stonehouse of US Navy and UK MoD respectively, also in 1994, in “A Comparative Study of US & UK Frigate Design”, separately presented to RINA and SNAME, led to both discussions being published in each Transactions, thus giving a wealth of insight into comparative design practice. D Brown bowed out in 1995 with “Advanced Warship


Design, Limited Resources – A Personal


Perspective” on naval ship design, while R Cripps et al of the Royal National Lifeboat Institution (RNLI) in 2005 in “Development of Integrated Design Procedures for Lifeboats” showed procedural matters are not restricted to the naval design sector. The following year P Gates, then with BAE Systems Marine, presented “Design Authority of the Daring Class Destroyers” showing how the traditional UK MoD design responsibility had been passed to industry, not without some quizzical views being expressed in the discussion. Finally in 2009 P Gauleni of Genoa University and N Dazzi of OSN Italy in “Naval Architecture & Systems Engineering : A Deal for Naval Ship Design Evolution” posed a history based analysis to suggest a systems based approach to D Brown’s 1995 resources dilemma, leaving ship design still searching for coherence in an increasingly uncertain future.


5. THE FUTURE OF SHIP DESIGN


From the above survey of the ship design related papers captured in the 150


years of the Institution’s


Transactions, it is clear that papers on ship design constitute an important record of the naval architect’s primary function, that of producing ships to meet the needs of our various customers, users and wider society. The Transactions continue to record discussions by other ship


this adds greatly to the important that this continues as the profession goes


forward. Clearly in the future both ships and the practice of ship design will continue to change and to do so in ways, in which we can only partially predict. Thus there will be unforeseen issues, just as, for example, in two specific instances, that of the global extent of container shipping and of the all


pervasiveness of digital


computation. Yet both were un-predictable 150 or, even, 50 years ago.


The author feels, as is addressed in Reference 1, that the practice of ship design, at least in the artisan or craft sense, still does have “art” present in the nature of design practice, through the many large and small decisions the engineering designer makes, despite increasing pressure to automate much of ship design. However, the essential bespoke nature of ship design still means it is possible to use the ever growing power of the digital computer to allow the designer to have more freedom to explore design options and provide better solutions for an ever more demanding maritime environment. Furthermore, the vital creative element required of ship designers can now be emphasised as part of initial ship synthesis design through the


exploitation of advances in computer


graphics, so science and art can, and should, remain integrated together in preliminary ship design.


With the intent to foster creativity in the design synthesis of


future ships, already underway, such as those to incorporate


there are developments ever more


sophisticated simulation tools into graphically driven preliminary ship design. Such developments can mean that ship design can exploratory,


through a comprehensive marriage of art


and science. However in the future, this will require naval architects to acquire both a more creative and a broader knowledge base of skills, in addition to the traditional engineering disciplines that have been relied upon to date. So we can be sure that the future practice of ship design will continue to be as demanding and exciting in its unpredictability, as it clearly has been in the last momentous 150 years.


designers, specialists (including increasingly


academic researchers) and operators on the designs presented, which are often prestige and novel vessels, and, increasingly, also on the new design tools and methods being developed. All


body of knowledge that is openly available to the profession in regard to ship design.


The overall impression gathered from surveying 150 years of ship design is of the rapid rate of change in ships recorded; substantial improvements in predicting and achieving enhanced performance; the large number of novel designs, issues and technologies presented; and the extent of the written record of the discussion on the nature of ship designs and the practice of ship designing. This has been an important part of the learned society role of the Institution for its first 150 years and it is


6. REFERENCES The very many papers highlighted in this historical


survey are all published in the RINA Transactions, so they are not detailed below. Those highlighted from the first 100 years are surveyed in more detail in Reference 3, as are many for 1960 to 1980 in Reference 5.


1. 2.


3.


Andrews, D J: “Ship Design – From Art to Science”, Article in Reference 2.


Barnaby, K J: “A Centenary Review”, RINA, London, 1960.


Blakeley, T (Editor): “150th Anniversary of the Royal Institution of Naval Architects”, RINA London, 2010.


become more creative and


©2010: The Royal Institution of Naval Architects


A - 69


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