Trans RINA, Vol 152, Part A2, Intl J Maritime Eng, Apr-Jun 2010
loading computer or a number of other alternatives, but the main conclusion is that it is neither particularly difficult nor very expensive to provide such tools or information for onboard use.
2.
The authors agree that a (more) complete model will contain RFR as one of the main economic parameters. One shortcoming of RFR is that this a performance indicator that is focusing solely on the ship, whereas our scope may also include non-maritime parts of the total chain, in which case more general metrics will be proposed.
3.
Prof. Papanikolaou here raises a question that the authors and, we suspect, the ship design community in general, have discussed at length for quite some time. The foregone conclusion on our part, as revealed by our paper, is that the earliest concept evaluation stages could, and perhaps also should, be made without leaning too
heavily software.
There are a wide range of arguments supporting this position,
or perhaps it is wiser to say “that have
traditionally supported this position”, because many of these are primarily intuitive and non-quantifiable. To name a few;
The danger of fixation at a premature solution or stage in the
process, whereby the designer or design team
experiences that the idea generation or solution space is restricted by the tool, the model or even the mere existence of a model. The (perceived) amount of work associated with a redesign of a model, or also with maintaining a number of variants or scenarios, may inhibit the exploration of potentially viable alternatives; the scope is involuntarily and/or inevitably restricted. As we stipulated in our previous publication [31], we ultimately envision a design process that would propose a concept solution in one work day which, albeit more of a vision than a hard target, would point to another reason that we are not primarily looking in the direction of engineering grade tools or -processes.
The copy-paste dilemma, where solutions and choices embedded in the old solution (the template) may be carried over to the new product without being subjected to (sufficient) critical evaluation. The risk of ending up with a “default increase as a result.
design approach” might be said to
Using advanced tools will make the design task less of a team effort and more of a specialist’s game. Team members that are not skilled users may not be aware of the limitations and possibilities offered by the tools, and the design process might suffer as a consequence.
on advanced integrated design
Having said that, we feel that it should be pointed out that in our minds there are no contradictions or mutually exclusive relations between using estimation approaches – and making them more powerful and precise – and using advanced design software. If anything, our paper should be taken as an advocacy for formalising the groundwork for a full and detailed design task and, as the title (of our paper “The extension of system boundaries in ship design”) points to, to ensuring a more holistic basis for vessels and chain design.
The authors would like to thank Professor Bertram for his supporting comments and questions; they are very welcome indeed inasmuch as this will allow us to elaborate a bit on issues not sufficiently well covered in the paper.
The works of Schneekluth are part of the basic formation of naval architects also in Norway; it is tempting to assert that there is in fact a line going from Benford (and the Ann Arbor group) and Schneekluth, via the work carried out at the NTH (Norwegian Institute of Technology) and NSFI (Norwegian Ship Research Institute), to the newer tradition and practice related to integrated ship design that we are subscribing to. But that is another discussion, perhaps.
The first question Prof. Bertram raises is an interesting one: Why is it that the wider perspective – the transport chain approach – is more in focus in Germany, Holland, Denmark and Norway? The authors shall not claim to have the final answer, but we may name two general factors that will surely contribute:
1.
A very mature shipping industry, characterised by a. Stability and long-term security (to try to avoid the typical boom-bust cycles), less asset play, shift towards specialized and/or high value
vessels, in general a high presence of industrial shipping.
b. Financial systems: tax laws, German KG system: Longer investment horizons favour more “industrial” sectors
c. More focus building
2. on owning/operating than
d. Close links between ship owners and the cargo owners.
National focus, including political
determination: a. Environmental issues in combination with transport sector problems, traffic congestion on land
demanding a perspective
b. Long tradition of supporting holistic approaches through targeted R&D programs
in the mentioned countries well as EU in general. as wide system
A - 96
© 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