Chapter 5

The Ship Design Process

Peter A. Gale

5.1 INTRODUCTION process (albeit that the role of science is steadily grow-
ing at the expense of art), and
5.1.1 Definition of Design • The fact that creativity and teamwork will always be
Design can be defined as the activity involved in producing cornerstones of the process.
the drawings (or 3-D computer models), specifications and
other data needed to construct an object, in this case a ship. This chapter covers both naval and commercial ships.
The purpose of this chapter is to describe the process fol- Where appropriate the differences are described. However,
lowed in creating a ship design, in full recognition of the to do this for every aspect throughout the chapter would
fact that the process varies, to some extent, depending on have resulted in a very complicated text. It was decided to
the type of ship being designed and the personal prefer- take the high road; that is, the greater level of design in-
ences of the design team leaders. It is also true that, as this volved in naval ships has been described. It should be noted
chapter is written, the design process is being scrutinized, that for most commercial ship designs the clear definition
and in some cases modified, with a frequency and intensity and use of the design phases become blurred and that the
never before experienced. This is primarily the result of the design phases omit many of the described steps.
opportunities presented by the accelerating advance of com- This is only possible, however, for shipyards with good
puter technology, coupled with the competition of the global current ship design and construction experience. For com-
marketplace, which causes all enterprises to constantly re- mercial ship types that are new to a shipyard or are of high
view their processes with an eye to improving efficiency. complexity, such as cruise ships, more design phases, phase
Thus, there is no single ship design process today and content and scope will be required and may approach the
the generic, typical process described here will certainly level applied to naval ships (see references 1 and 2 for typ-
change somewhat in the years to come. What will not change ical commercial ship design practice).
significantly, it is believed, are:
• The objectives of the design process, 5.1.2 Objectives of Design
• The need for the designer to understand the shipowner’s The primary objective of the design effort, besides creating
requirements and, at the same time, to help the shipowner the information needed to build the ship, is to satisfy the
to refine his requirements. (See Chapter 7 – Require- shipowner’s requirements at minimum cost. A ship’s life cycle
ments Definition), cost includes the design, construction, and operating and sup-
• The time and resource constraints imposed on the port (O&S) costs. For designs that incorporate new tech-
process, nologies [and hence research and development (R&D) costs]
• The fact that both art and science are reflected in the and/or significant disposal costs, these also must be included.

5 -1
5-2 Ship Design & Construction, Volume 1

One of the responsibilities of the ship designer is to make equations, which can be solved directly. Instead, educated
the shipowner aware of design options that might increase guesses are made as to hull size, displacement, etc. to get
acquisition cost but accrue even greater savings in O&S the process started and then the initial guesses are modified,
costs over the ship’s life cycle. There are other design ob- as better information becomes available. The design spiral,
jectives as well. The specifications required to test the com- first described in reference 3, has been used to characterize
pleted ship and demonstrate that it indeed meets the the design process. Figure 5.1 is one of many possible ver-
shipowner’s requirements must be developed. Regulatory sions of the characterization. In this visualization, the ship
body and classification society requirements must be satis- designers’ move through the design process in a sequential
fied. (See Chapter 8 – Regulatory and Classification Re- series of steps, each dealing with a particular synthesis or
quirements.) Beyond these objectives, the designers must analysis task. After all the steps have been completed, the
make every effort to create a ship that the shipowner will design is unlikely to be balanced (or even feasible). Thus a
be pleased with. This means that it must be safe, reliable, second cycle begins and all the steps are repeated in the same
and as economical, to operate and maintain as possible, sequence. Typically, a number of cycles (design iterations)
within the constraints imposed by technology and the are required to arrive at a satisfactory solution. Anyone who
shipowner’s budget. has ever participated in a ship design knows that this char-
acterization leaves much to be desired. In practice, the process
is not sequential, unless the design is developed entirely by
5.1.3 The Nature of Design one person. Even then, the steps often will not be performed
Ship design is an iterative process, especially in the early in a prescribed order but rather the naval architect will jump
stages. (See Chapter 11 – Parametric Design.) The ultimate from one spot to another on the spiral, as knowledge is gained
result is postulated and then analyzed and modified. The and problems are encountered.
modified result is re-analyzed and so on until all requirements In fact, the design process in the early stages is rather un-
are satisfied. The reason for iteration is that ship design has predictable. Once a baseline concept has been identified and
so far proven to be too complex to be described by a set of defined in sufficient detail for it to be understood and used

Owner Cost:
Requirements R&D
Payload
(cargo, mission systems) Construction
Operations & Support
Baseline 1
Hull form and hull size
(principal dimensions) Auxiliary Machinery
and Electric Plant
Baseline 2

Baseline 3

Space and Propulsion

Arrangements Plant

Weights Structure
and Centers

Freeboard and Trim Speed-Power

Stability

Figure 5.1 Design Spiral

 Chapter 5: The Ship Design Process 5-3

by the principal design disciplines, for example, structures, computer model that all design team members have access
propulsion, electrical, general arrangements, weight esti- to by means of a network, but that can only be updated with
mation, etc., then design work in these principal disciplines the approval of the team leader. When a major problem is
will generally proceed in parallel, as shown in Figure 5.2. identified soon after a baseline update, the design team must
For each discipline, a series of tasks must be performed decide how to approach its resolution and, when a solution
and there is usually a preferred sequence for the tasks. As has been found, whether to issue an unscheduled baseline
each task is completed, the products of the task can be shared update immediately or to wait until the next planned update.
with the other members of the design team. The downside of waiting is that additional work will have
This may sound rather orderly. In fact, major problems to be done. The downside of an immediate update is that in
are identified in the course of design and the act of resolv- some disciplines, the work stop/restart may delay the dis-
ing these problems typically perturbs the design effort in a covery of another major problem just around the corner.
number of design disciplines, requiring restarts or reworks
of tasks previously completed. The number and severity of
the problems identified are generally greatest early in de- 5.1.4 The Design Environment
sign; they tend to decrease in both respects as the design is
Ship design takes place within a surrounding environment
developed in greater detail.
that can have a significant effect upon the process. Factors
A major design effort is planned so that formal updates
in this environment include:
of the design baseline occur at regular intervals. At these
milestones, the current hull form and general arrangements • economic trends,
are formally issued to the other members of the team and • current and pending government policies and regula-
they are directed to shift to these configurations in their sub- tions,
sequent work. • the status of international regulations on matters such as
Today, the current configuration is likely to be a 3-D pollution control,

Baseline Baseline Baseline

1 2 3

Configuration External Configuration

General Arrangements

System Design Mission Systems

Structure

Machinery

Outfit

(weight, stability,
Total Ship Analysis cost, etc.)

Figure 5.2 Design Development Process

5-4 Ship Design & Construction, Volume 1

• the breadth and depth of the vendor base for major equip- specialized expertise regarding the systems and equipment
ment items, they offer. Even commercial ship designs may require other
• the management of the organization within which the de- specialized expertise, for example, computational fluid dy-
sign team works and to whom it reports, be that organ- namics (CFD) analysis, finite element structural analysis
ization a shipyard or a design agent, and (FEA), propeller design, acoustic analysis, reliability analy-
• the prospective shipowner—his foibles, preferences, sis, or human factors engineering, which might be obtained
modus operandi, etc. via consultants. If the new ship is to be certified by a clas-
sification society, liaison with that society is established
For naval and other government ships, additional factors
early in design. Hydrodynamic model testing is still the
come into play, including the congressional budget process,
norm during the pre-contract naval ship design process, but
the terms in office of key decision makers in the Executive
not for commercial ships, and representatives of the selected
Branch and Congress, and political considerations.
model basin can provide invaluable assistance to the design
Projected economic trends not only affect the viability
team. It is essential that cost analysis expertise be represented
of a proposed shipbuilding program, but also affect the trade-
on the team; one or more shipowner’s representatives are
off studies and design decisions within the design effort it-
also important team members.
self. An example is how the projected cost of fuel will affect
the decision on propulsion plant type and prime mover. The
double hull tanker rules, which resulted from the OPA 90
legislation, are a good example of the impact that pending 5.1.6 Design Tools
government regulations can have on ship design. Ship designers rely upon extensive databases for previous
How will top management interact with the design team? designs, together with lessons learned from operational ex-
How frequent and how detailed do they want status briefs perience with the ships built to those designs. (See Chap-
to be? To what extent do they wish to participate in design ter 11 – Parametric Design.) Increasingly, such data is held
decisions? The last three questions apply to the prospective in the computer, in a form, which is readily accessible and
shipowner as well. Good relationships between the design easily manipulated to suit the needs of the designer. The de-
team, the shipowner-to-be and the design team’s manage- sign team uses a myriad of other design tools. These tools
ment can foster mutual understanding, speed up the design generally exist in the form of computer software used to
process by getting critical design decisions made more model the ship geometry or perform analyses of various
quickly, without second guessing, and produce a better prod- types. (See Chapter 13 – Computer Based Tools.) Increas-
uct with less stress. Poor relationships between the design ingly, these ship design and analysis tools are being linked
team and either of these two groups can cause high stress, into integrated design systems. These systems can speed up
burnout and, ultimately, a poorer product. the design process by eliminating much of the time and ef-
fort spent moving between individual computer programs
that are not efficiently linked. More often, use of these so-
5.1.5 Design Participants phisticated systems does not save time but instead permits
the designers to explore more alternatives in greater detail
One person can develop the design for a relatively small,
in the time available.
simple ship but typically ship design is a team effort. The
team size will generally grow as the design is developed in
progressively greater detail. For a small, relatively straight-
forward ship design, the team size might start at one and 5.1.7 Design Standards
ultimately increase to five or six. For a large, complex war- Design standards, as the term is used here, refers to a broad
ship, the design team size might start at 25 to 50 and ulti- category of second tier design, construction, inspection,
mately grow to many hundreds, assuming that the combat and/or test requirements which are normally imposed on a
system design integrators are included. new design. They are distinctly different from the
Core team members will always include naval archi- Shipowner’s Requirements, which are typically top-level
tects, marine engineers and designers with CAD skills for performance requirements, such as, cargo capacity, speed,
3-D modeling using the computer. Structural, mechanical, and endurance. If the ship is to be classed, the rules of the
and electrical engineers are also typically represented. Ship- designated classification society are a form of design stan-
yard personnel with expertise in ship construction and pro- dards. There are national and international regulations per-
duction planning are needed, as are equipment vendors with taining to matters such as personnel health and safety, safe
 Chapter 5: The Ship Design Process 5-5

navigation, and pollution control. These regulations are a Frequently, drydock, pier, harbor or canal limitations cre-
form of design standards. Shipowners with large fleets will ate constraints. Hull dimensions and air and water drafts are
typically have design standards of their own. For example, affected most frequently. Bridge or overhead cable heights
a shipowner might specify the use of a certain propulsion may limit air draft, the height of the uppermost point on the
prime mover to achieve standardization within his fleet. ship above the water surface. Harbor or canal channel depths
Government agencies such as the U.S. Navy, NOAA and often establish the limit on water draft, more properly the
the U.S. Coast Guard have standards or preferences that navigational draft, or this limit may be set by the sill height
they apply to designs for new ships that they will operate. in drydocks to be used to maintain the new ship. Hull length
Design standards, as defined previously, can have a signif- and/or beam might be limited by canal lock, drydock, or
icant influence on a new design, and even on the design building way dimensions. The available length at piers the
process itself. For this reason, it is very important for the ship will moor to might also limit hull length. These are just
design team to identify all the applicable design standards some examples of operational considerations that can im-
at the beginning of the design effort. Failure to do this can pose physical constraints on a new ship design.
result in major problems downstream, including delays,
wasted design effort and added expense.
5.1.9 Design Philosophy
A design philosophy is a weighted list of desired design/ship
5.1.8 Design Constraints attributes that is used in the evaluation of design alterna-
tives. Examples of such attributes include:
Every ship design must satisfy a purpose and this is usually
defined in the Shipowner’s Requirements. While the • first cost,
shipowner’s requirements are not really constraints they set • operating cost,
the boundaries for the design. • manning,
Constraints apply to every ship design, both the process • producibility,
and the product. Time and cost are nearly always constraints, • operability,
applied to both the design itself and the delivered product: • maintainability,
the ship. Other examples of design process constraints might • reliability,
be the unavailability of sufficient skilled design personnel • mission capability,
or required computer software, hardware, or network ca- • sustainability,
pability. • supportability, and
Physical constraints might be applied to the design it- • risk (cost, schedule and technical).
self for any one of three reasons: the need to build the ship
Each attribute should be measurable in clearly defined
in a specific shipyard and then get it to sea, the need to main-
units; the shipowner should agree to them all. The design
tain the ship during its service life, and the need for the ship
philosophy is a guide used by the members of the design
to visit specific ports.
team as they perform trade-offs and evaluate design alter-
natives during design development. The need for a design
philosophy increases when the number of design participants
is large and/or when the design team is physically (geo-
Assigned
Weight Attribute
graphically) separated. A risk in large design teams is that
individual members of the team might apply their own per-
1 Cargo carrying capacity sonal priorities as they evaluate design alternatives and make
1 Acquisition Cost decisions. The design philosophy is an attempt to keep all
team members marching to the same drummer as they make
2 Energy conservation
1 = 10 points design decisions. Figure 5.3 is an example of a design phi-
2 Manning reduction 2 = 5 points losophy that might be used during a new ship design.
2 Reliability 3 = 2.5 points In practice, the design philosophy is tailored to suit the
3 Minimum risk specifics of each trade-off study to which it is applied. Not
all elements of the philosophy apply to each trade-off de-
3 Standardization
cision and many trade-offs will require unique performance
Figure 5.3 Example of Ship Design Philosophy measures to be evaluated.
5-6 Ship Design & Construction, Volume 1

5.1.10 Degree of Uniqueness sults are much less certain, that is, there is a higher degree
New designs cover the gamut in terms of their uniqueness. of risk in the results of early stage studies of unique de-
Some new designs are very similar to existing ships with signs. This uncertainty can be partially compensated for by
modest changes, for example, somewhat more or less propul- the use of larger design margins as discussed in Section 5.7.
sion power or payload. Other designs reflect significant
changes from current practice in specific respects, the
propulsion plant type might be an example, but in all other 5.2 DESIGN PHASES
respects they are not unique. At the extreme, and quite rare,
is the design that is very different from anything considered The design process is subdivided into phases. One reason
before. The rare unique design is not only an exciting chal- for this is that the nature of the work done, the design skills
lenge for the naval architect but it affects the approach to required, the number of persons participating in the design
early stage design as well. effort, the level of detail of the design deliverables and other
For designs that are well understood, that is, similar to features of the design process change over time as a design
what has been done in the past, the design team will have is developed. Design management is facilitated if the effort
access to a multitude of data for similar ships. This data can is divided into phases separated by intervals, which permit
be used in early stage design to make quick and reasonably design reviews to occur, along with planning and prepara-
accurate estimates of the principal characteristics (Chapter tion for the next design phase. Another reason for phasing
11 – Parametric Design) and costs of alternative concepts a design effort is the major milestones in the typical ship
for the new design. This may be done using ship synthesis development process. An example of such a milestone would
models, discussed in Chapter 14, that contain estimating be the point at which the budget for the new ship must be
relationships derived from parametric analyses of the body established. Another typical milestone would be the point
of data on existing ships. The parent ship approach may at which specifications and drawings must be completed to
also be used if the database contains one or more ships that solicit shipyard bids for the detail design and construction
are sufficiently similar to the desired new design. In any effort. Note that this milestone might not apply in every
case, the large body of existing data pertinent to well un- case; for example, if a ship design were being developed
derstood designs simplifies early stage estimating and makes on speculation by a shipyard.
it possible to readily examine the effects on performance The number of design phases and the names applied to
and cost of a large number of primary design parameters, them vary and this is a source of confusion. For this dis-
for example, speed, endurance, payload, etc. cussion, the approach developed in the early 1980s as part
On the other hand, for the unique design, the database of the IHI Technology Transfer, and defined in references
on existing ships is of little or no value. The naval architect 1 and 2, which divided the design and engineering effort
must fall back to reliance on first principles to laboriously into Basic Design and Product Engineering, is used.
develop a small set of point designs, that is, conceptual de- Basic Design is further subdivided into four phases, des-
signs that cover the ranges of the primary design variables ignated as follows:
of interest. More technical experts will have to be brought
1. concept design,
in to develop these point designs and they will generally have
2. preliminary design,
to develop more design detail than is typical in the initial
3. contract design, and
design phase. An example would be the development of a
4. functional design.
point design for a high-speed multi-hull with a unique hull
form. The estimate of required propulsion power is critical The latter two phases are often referred to collectively
to sizing the hull and estimating its cost. Power at the re- as the “System Design Phase.”
quired top speed is, in turn, a function of the full load dis- Product Engineering is subdivided into two phases:
placement. Lacking weight data on similar designs, in order
1. transition design, and
to get a reasonable weight estimate, a considerable effort
2. workstation/zone information preparation.
might have to be expended on an initial structural design.
This, in turn, might require a major effort to assess the an- During Basic Design, the ship is designed in its entirety,
ticipated hydrodynamic loads on the structure. The point de- on a system-by-system basis. During Product Engineering,
signs, once they have been developed, can be used as parents the ship design is translated into a form suitable for mod-
to explore the effects of parametric variations in other, sec- ern production techniques and necessary additional infor-
ond order parameters. For the unique design, early stage mation is developed. Some experts consider Functional
design progress is slower, more difficult, and the design re- Design to be part of Product Engineering but it has been in-
 Chapter 5: The Ship Design Process 5-7

INCREASING
DETAIL

WORKSTATION/
ZONE
INFORMATION
PREPARATION
TRANSITIONAL
CONTRACT

FUNCTIONAL
PRELIMINARY

CONCEPT

PRODUCT
BASIC DESIGN ENGINEERING
Figure 5.4 Ship Design Phases

cluded here in Basic Design since it remains systems ori- past. Another effect has been to largely eliminate the tradi-
ented. The first three phases of Basic Design must be com- tional overlap between detail design and ship construction.
pleted before the award of a contract for detail design and The current philosophy is to resolve problems in the detail
construction. Note that the traditional detail design phase design package before cutting steel. The extra time and ef-
has been divided here into three phases, namely, functional fort spent on detail design is more than recovered by a more
design, transition design, and workstation/zone informa- efficient construction effort, as can be seen by very flat learn-
tion preparation. ing curves for multiple ship construction in Japanese ship-
Modern techniques for modular ship construction per- yards. That is the benefits of learning are obtained because
mit extensive pre-outfitting and pre-testing of ship blocks mistakes and rework on the first ship are eliminated by bet-
prior to ship assembly. This improves efficiency and saves ter and completed design.
cost by reducing on-way or in-dock time during ship as- Figure 5.4 depicts the design phases and the increase in
sembly and by maximizing the amount of advance work detail as a design progresses.
done in better working conditions at vendors’ facilities or
in enclosed buildings at the shipyard. Use of these tech-
niques increases the time required for detail design as well 5.2.1 Concept Design
as the level of detail and completeness of the detail design This first design phase, referred to herein as Concept De-
package, which is now up to 20 to 30% larger than in the sign (CD), is sometimes referred to in the naval ship world
5-8 Ship Design & Construction, Volume 1

as the Cost and Feasibility Study phase, or simply the Fea- racy. Collectively, the set of alternatives must illuminate the
sibility Study phase. The principal objective of this phase capability versus cost versus risk trade-offs of interest to the
is to clarify the shipowner’s requirements, that is, the ship’s shipowner. At the conclusion of this process, the mission of
mission and principal required performance attributes, which the new ship will have been defined along with the principal
reflect the desired balance between capability and afford- ship performance requirements, that is, required ship capa-
ability. (See Chapter 7 – Requirements Definition.) bilities. In addition, a feasibility study will have been created
Another objective is to develop a concept design, which which represents an initial solution to the stated requirements.
satisfies the requirements, as well as a cost estimate and a Normally, near the end of the phase, this feasibility study is
risk assessment. From the designer’s point of view, the ob- developed in greater detail to become a concept design. This
jective during this phase is to work with the shipowner to is done to reduce risk, improve the cost estimate, refine and
understand and define the ship’s mission, that is, to help the validate the most important derived ship performance re-
shipowner decide what it is that he needs and can afford. quirements, and establish a baseline for the start of prelimi-
When this has been done, a concept design is developed nary design and its major trade-off studies. The products of
which reflects this mutual understanding. a typical naval single feasibility study and a concept design
At the outset, the shipowner will know that he has a need are listed in Tables 5.I and 5.II, respectively.
for a new, converted or modified ship and will know in gen- Figure 5.5, based on a figure in reference 4, classifies all
eral what functions the ship must perform. However, the seagoing ships in two broad categories: transport and non-
shipowner often will not know specifically what the per- transport, with three and four sub-categories, respectively.
formance requirements are for speed, fuel endurance, cargo The above process description generally applies to all of the
capacity, etc. If the shipowner does have some specific val- sub-categories.
ues in mind for these variables, the shipowner may not know
whether they are compatible with the budget. Thus a sys-
tems analysis is required which couples mission analysis
with economic analysis. Ranges of each of the key ship pa- TABLE 5.I Feasibility Study Products (U.S. Naval and
rameters are explored in a systematic way, ship feasibility Government Ships)
studies are developed for attractive combinations of the pa-
rameters, the cost and performance of each total-ship al- Feasibility Study Report, documenting the following:
ternative is estimated, a cost-benefit analysis is performed, Essential performance requirements
and feedback is obtained from the shipowner as to his pref-
Principal hull dimensions and hull form coefficients (Cp, Cx)
erences.
Typically several cycles of synthesis and analysis are Area/volume summary
performed, punctuated by interactions with the shipowner, Configuration sketches: inboard profile and main deck plan
during which the range of options studied is progressively Payload definition, for example, space, weight, critical
narrowed. Through this process, a consistent set of per- dimensions, adjacencies, required support services
formance requirements is established, which can be satis- Description of mission-critical systems and features
fied by a practical ship design solution and is within the
Weight/KG estimate, 1-digit level
shipowner’s budget.
The role of the design team is to perform parametric stud- Propulsion plant type, installed power, and number of
ies that sketch out the design alternatives of interest in suf- propulsors
ficient detail that the cost (capital and operating), Installed electric generating capacity
performance, and risks (cost, technical and schedule) of each List of major equipment
can be assessed and compared. The alternatives are often re- Manning estimate
ferred to as feasibility studies because the feasibility of each
postulated combination of the major design requirements Speed/power estimate
must be established, that is, is there a viable design solution Endurance fuel estimate
for each case? Where there isn’t, that combination of re- Intact stability check
quirements can be rejected. Where there is a viable solution, Estimates of critical performance aspects, as required, e.g.,
that solution can be input into the cost-benefit analysis. radiated noise or seakeeping
Because performance, cost and risk are being compared
Cost estimate
among the alternatives, relative accuracy and consistency
among the alternatives is stressed rather than absolute accu- Technical risk assessment and risk management plan
 Chapter 5: The Ship Design Process 5-9

In the case of ships designed to transport bulk or gen- TABLE 5.II Concept Design Products (U.S. Naval and
eral cargo from point to point as elements of a larger trans- Government Ships)
portation system, analyses of the overall system, including
its land-based elements, are typically performed. For the Concept Design Report, documenting the following:
ship portion of the system, the fundamental decisions to be
made are: number of ships, payload (carrying capacity, in Performance specification (initial draft)
both weight and cubic terms), and speed. Computer mod- Body plan and appendage sketch
els are applied to simulate the operation of a single ship or Area/volume summary
an entire fleet. Such models range in complexity from sim-
Concept general arrangement drawings (space blocks allocated
ple deterministic models to complex time domain simula-
by function)
tions. They generally incorporate simplified design models
with the ability to quickly generate ship characteristics cor- Topside arrangement sketch
responding to various combinations of payload and speed. Payload definition
The models estimate the capital and operating costs for each Description of mission-critical systems and features
alternative. Optimization techniques can be applied to the Weight estimate
major variables to compare alternatives and search for the
optimum or graphical output of performance metrics can Concept midship section
be shown for the study option space so that a human deci- Propulsion plant description
sion-making selection can be made. Machinery arrangement sketch
It is more difficult to apply the classical systems analy- Electric load analysis and generated selection
sis techniques to ships in the non-transport categories. For
Simplified one line diagrams
the latter types, the number of critical mission characteris-
tics is generally greater and the ability to analyze and com- Master Equipment List (MEL)
pare mission performance as related to these characteristics Speed-power curve
is more difficult. For example, it is more difficult to predict Manning estimate
the ability to detect and catch fish than it is to predict the
Endurance fuel analysis
speed of a transport ship. In a multi-mission warship, arriv-
Estimates of critical performance aspects, as required
Cost estimate
Technical risk assessment and risk management plan
Self-Propelled Ships

Inland Waterways Seagoing

Transport Non-Transport

Bulk General Passenger Industrial Service Military Other

Cargo Cargo
Fish Catcher Tug Carrier Yacht
Fish Processor Icebreaker Cruiser
Fisheries Supply Vessel Destroyer
Liquid Dry Break Unit Ferry Cruise Research
Bulk Load
Oceanographic Crane Ship Frigate
Oil Tanker Bulk Research
Cargo Liner Container
Liq. Gas Carrier Reefer RO/RO Hydrographic Crewboat Submarine
Chemical Heavy Lift Ship Car Carrier Survey
Barge Carrier Dredge Diving Support Amphibious
Ocean Mining Fire boat Patrol Craft
Combination
Carrier Drill ship Pilot boat Mine Craft
(ore/bulk/oil-OBO) Seismic Salvage Ship Support Ships
Exploration
Cable Layer Training Ship
Pipe Layer
Figure 5.5 Ship Type Categories
5-10 Ship Design & Construction, Volume 1

ing at a single figure of merit is challenging since it is gen- developed at the feasibility study level of detail or may re-
erally scenario dependent. quire greater detail. An initial design baseline is established
early in the design phase to serve as a point of reference for
the trade-off studies. This initial baseline is generally the
5.2.2 Preliminary Design concept design created at the end of the previous design
Design work, for the specific ship, begins in earnest in the phase. Usually the design baseline is updated several times
preliminary design phase and the size of the design team before the end of the preliminary design phase so that the
and the cost of the design effort take a big jump. The fol- results of major trade-off studies can be incorporated as
lowing are the objectives of this phase: they are completed.
The preliminary design is developed beyond the initial
• validate the top level ship performance requirements and
concept design in all technical areas, regardless of whether
develop second tier requirements,
they are subject to formal trade-off studies. In design areas
• establish ship size and overall configuration,
not subject to the investigation of design alternatives, a rea-
• select major ship systems,
sonable baseline concept is selected and defined to the ap-
• quantify ship performance,
propriate level of detail. For many ship systems, this is the
• reduce or eliminate major technical, cost and schedule
identification and approximate sizing of major system com-
risks,
ponents and the development of a simple one-line diagram
• refine capital and operating cost estimate, and
of the system. System alternatives will be studied in the fol-
• develop draft version of the Build Strategy (see Chap-
lowing phase.
ter 14 – Design/Production Integration).
The Build Strategy for the ship (5,6), reflecting zone
Since the eventual cost and performance of the new ship construction, is drafted during this design phase, if not ear-
will be established largely by the end of the preliminary de- lier. Production considerations are reflected in the design
sign phase, the work done during this phase is very impor- work to the extent practical. For example, in the develop-
tant. A feasibility study or concept design that satisfies the ment of the hull form and superstructure configurations and
performance requirements developed in the previous phase in defining the locations of decks and bulkheads within the
will be available and this forms the starting point for the ship, maximum use is made of flat plates and readily formed
preliminary design effort. During this phase, formal trade- shapes. If a shipbuilder is developing the design, the ship-
off studies are performed on design issues that will have a yard production specification (Shipbuilding Policy), which
major effect on ship size, overall configuration, perform- defines the design processes and production methods and
ance, cost or risk. The study of issues that do not have a major processes to be used to build the ship, must be developed
impact on these parameters should be deferred to the fol- during this phase, if it does not already exist. This specifi-
lowing phase. Failure to do so can waste resources and di- cation will influence the contract design effort and the par-
vert the attention of the design team. allel completion of the build strategy. If the design team
Some examples of pertinent issues for trade-off study in does not know which shipyard will build the ship (as in the
this phase are: case of a build competition), the Build Strategy may have
to be generic, that is, suitable for all potential shipbuilders.
• hull proportions (L/B, B/D, etc.),
Major emphasis is placed on predicting performance to
• hull shape (transom vs. cruiser stern, bow bulb vs. no
validate that the stated performance requirements have been
bulb, topside flare vs. tumblehome, etc.),
satisfied. These predictions might include ship speed, sea-
• general arrangement,
keeping, station keeping, ability to traverse along a defined
• propulsion plant type (low speed diesel, medium speed
track line, acoustic performance, cargo on-/off-load rates,
diesel, gas turbine, integrated electric, etc.), (Often ad-
or the ability to perform critical missions in a seaway, as
dressed in Concept Design phase),
typical examples. If the hull form is unusual and hydro-
• deckhouse size and location,
dynamic performance is of critical importance, limited
• mission-critical payload features, (hardware components,
model testing may be done to validate performance esti-
space allocation, arrangement, etc.),
mates. More often, model testing is deferred to the fol-
• hull structural configuration, and
lowing phase.
• crew size.
Risk identification and reduction is another area of em-
The ship impacts of some issues studied in this phase phasis. Major risks must be identified and alternative ways
will be so large that whole ships must be wrapped around to reduce them explored. These generally include fallback
the candidates being studied in order to get valid assessments design options with lower risk but less performance. The
of total ship impacts. These whole ship alternatives may be objective is to reduce the risks associated with the completed
 Chapter 5: The Ship Design Process 5-11

preliminary design to low or, where this is not possible, to TABLE 5.III Preliminary Design Products (U.S. Naval and
develop a clear and detailed plan to accomplish this by the Government Ships)
end of the next design phase. This must be accomplished be-
fore the next design phase is entered. The products of a typ- Preliminary Design Report, documenting the following:
ical preliminary design are listed in Table 5.III. Performance specification
Note that the preceding discussion has assumed that a
Lines drawing and appendage sketch
new ship is being designed. Frequently, ship conversions or
modernizations are also evaluated as possible solutions to Area/volume report (req’d vs. actual)
the shipowner’s requirements during this design phase. General arrangement drawings (to individual compartment
level)
Topside arrangement drawing
5.2.3 Contract Design
Line of sight analysis
The principal objectives of the contract design phase are: Payload definition
• confirm ship capability and cost to the prospective ship- Descriptions of principal ship systems and features
owner, Weight report (3-digit level, KG and LCG)
• provide a meaningful and accurate bid package for ship-
Structural midship section
builders, and
• provide criteria for shipowner acceptance of the ship. Preliminary scantling drawings
Propulsion system analysis
Extensive additional engineering effort is required to
Machinery arrangement drawings
achieve the first objective. Emphasis is placed on the de-
velopment and refinement of ship systems across the board. Shafting arrangement
Trade-off studies deferred from the previous phase due to Preliminary propulsor design
their lesser ship impacts are now performed. The technical Electric load analysis
portion of the bid package is developed by the design team HVAC load analysis
and consists of a ship specification, drawings, and other
One line diagrams
ship descriptive data, for example, the weight estimate.
For each ship system, the following tasks must be per- Typical space arrangements
formed: Deck systems arrangements
• derive lower tier performance requirements from the Ship control and communications systems analysis
higher level ship performance requirements, Preliminary Master Equipment List (MEL)
• develop and evaluate alternative system concepts (where Preliminary ship manning analysis
this has not been done in the previous phase), Stability analysis, intact and damaged
• make system selections,
Speed-power curves
• complete engineering work on the selected system, and,
finally, Endurance fuel analysis
• develop system specifications and drawings. Seakeeping and maneuvering analyses
Model test plan
The ship hull form, including appendage definition, and
general arrangement are further refined. Formal configura- Other performance estimates, as required, for example, radiated
tion control is often invoked near the mid-point of this de- noise
sign phase. Arrangement drawings are developed for many Preliminary availability analysis (Ao)
of the ship’s internal spaces and for topside system instal- Maintenance concept
lations, for example, anchoring and mooring, boat handling, Supportability concept
communications and navigation, and helicopter facilities.
T&E plan (draft)
As the ship systems are designed, careful attention is
paid to the integration of the ship systems and their human Preliminary safety analysis
operators and maintainers. As part of this effort, for naval Build strategy (draft)
ships, the ship manning requirements are refined and train- Shipyard production specification (Shipbuilding Policy)
ing requirements are defined. Reliability, maintainability, Cost estimate
and availability (RMA) analyses are performed, as are stud-
Technical risk assessment and risk management plan
ies and design work related to the ship’s maintenance and
5-12 Ship Design & Construction, Volume 1

support requirements, often referred to as Integrated Lo- how to specifications, the latter reflecting the shipowner’s
gistics Support or ILS. preferences and the shipbuilder’s preferences if the speci-
The ILS effort addresses issues such as: fication is prepared by the shipbuilder. It includes the test
and trials requirements for the new ship, as well as accept-
• the ship maintenance philosophy (for example, what
ance criteria for each test and trial requirement. These cri-
maintenance work will be done at sea by the ship’s crew
teria must be met for the shipowner to accept the ship. The
vs. work done in port by shore-based personnel),
ship specification also contains requirements for the docu-
• the repair parts required to be stowed aboard ship,
mentation that must be delivered with the ship, documen-
• parts commonality and interchangeability between ships,
tation necessary to properly support the ship throughout its
• re-supply of the ship with stores and repair parts,
life. Because of the importance of the ship specification and
• approach to ship configuration control and the tracking
the drawings referenced in it, it is carefully reviewed prior
of maintenance actions,
to the completion of the design phase. In the review process,
• the required shore-based facilities for ship support in-
specifications and drawing integration is emphasized, to en-
cluding spare parts stowage and maintenance facilities,
sure that there are no conflicting requirements between sec-
and
tions of the specification and/or the various drawings.
• planned maintenance strategy and schedule (restricted
Obviously, the specification language must be unambigu-
availabilities, overhauls, and dry dockings).
ous. Table 5.IV lists products that may be included in a con-
The Build Strategy drafted during preliminary design is tract design.
validated and approved during this phase (5). It includes
the design and engineering plan, and the block and zone def-
initions to be employed during ship construction. The ship 5.2.4 Functional Design
production plan is also developed. It includes the key event This design phase, and the other two that follow, are only
schedule and the selected approaches to advanced outfitting briefly described herein. See references 1, 2, and 7 for ad-
and ship assembly and construction. ditonal detail and other references.
Technical specifications required for the advanced or- During Functional Design, the Contract Design is de-
dering of long lead equipment and materials are developed. veloped further to complete the design on a system-oriented
All aspects of ship performance are analyzed and the stated basis. The products of a typical functional design are listed
performance requirements validated. A full program of hy- in Table 5.V. All design calculations and configuration def-
drodynamic model tests is typically performed for naval inition are completed and all design decisions still out-
ships, some of which support the propeller design, which standing are made.
is also typically developed in this phase. Final tests of the Detailed naval architectural calculations are performed,
design propeller mounted on the final hull model may not including structural and vibrations analyses. The sizing of
be completed until the following phase, however. all structural scantlings is completed. All hull outfit is de-
Traditionally, critical ship systems and spaces such as fined in detail, including the complete definition of all ma-
the anchor handling system and the navigation bridge were terial. All marine engineering and electrical design
modeled using small or full-scale physical mockups to en- calculations are completed, as are system arrangement draw-
sure correctness and to permit review by the shipowner. ings and diagrams.
Today, however, 3-D models with simulation and walk- System arrangements (drawings or computer models)
through capabilities, developed by computer, are replacing are prepared for systems such as the mooring system that
physical mockups. If land-based testing will be required for do not lend themselves to diagrams. Sized distributive sys-
essential elements of the ship, these tests and the associated tems are shown on the system plans. The completed dia-
site requirements will be defined during the subsequent grams for piping, electrical and HVAC show pipe, cable
functional design phase. and vent duct sizes, cable types, bills of material and sys-
The ship specification is perhaps the most important tem routing in assigned wire ways or system corridors.
product of contract design (see Chapter 9 – Contracts and Typical sections are indicated for pipe and vent duct
Specifications). The specification is, of course, essential if runs. The first revision of the budget control list is issued,
the shipowner plans to have shipbuilders bid for the detail which advises all concerned of updated material quantities
design and construction task. However, even if a shipbuilder and weights. Manufacturing drawings are prepared for all
is developing the design, the specification is required in long-lead-time items that are to be built by the shipyard. Pur-
order to acquaint others in the yard with the work required chase technical specifications not developed earlier are com-
and to arrive at a valid estimate of the anticipated build cost. pleted. Shipowner and regulatory body comments on and
The ship specification typically is a mix of performance and approvals of the completed design are obtained. Vendor se-
 Chapter 5: The Ship Design Process 5-13

TABLE 5.IV Contract Design Products (U.S. Naval and Government Ships)
Ship specification HVAC load analysis and design criteria water, self-propulsion, maneuvering,
Lines drawing Ventilation and air conditioning systems seakeeping, etc. and performance
diagrams assessment reports
Appendage drawing
Piping systems analysis Stack gas flow analysis
General arrangements (outboard profile,
Diagrammatic arrangements of all piping Evaluations of other aspects of required
inboard profile, all decks and holds)
systems performance
Topside arrangement
Fire control diagram by decks and profile Availability analysis (Ao)
Capacity plan
Maintenance Plan
Mechanical systems arrangements, for
Weight report (3-digit level, KG and
example, deck, hull and ship control Supportability Plan
LCG, 20-station weight distribution,
systems Crew Training Plan
gyradii)
Living space arrangements (berthing, T&E Plan
Structural design criteria manual
messing, sanitary, recreation, etc.)
Midship Section Safety analysis
Commissary space arrangements
Steel scantling drawings (decks, Procurement specifications for long-lead-
Pilot House, Chart Room, and other time and other important outfit
bulkheads, shell expansion, typical
working space arrangements components, for example, main
sections, deckhouse)
Interior communications system diagram propulsion engines, diesel generators,
Machinery control system diagrams reduction gears, anchor windlass
Master Equipment List (MEL)
Propulsion and auxiliary machinery Models and Mockups
arrangement drawings (plan views, Preliminary ship manning document
Cost estimate
elevations, and sections) Pollution control systems report
Technical risk assessment and risk
Propulsion shafting arrangement Loading conditions management plan
Propeller design Floodable length curves Initial regulatory body review
Electric load analysis Trim and stability booklet Building plan
Electric power and lighting systems - Damage stability analysis Budget control list (estimated weight of
One line diagrams Endurance fuel analysis all required material by material
Fault current analysis Hydrodynamic model test results, for family or cost code)
Navigation system diagram example, resistance, propeller open Production plan

lection is completed and vendor drawings are approved. paper or by 3-D modeling in the computer. Zone design
Advance equipment and material is ordered. composite arrangements are developed from the distribu-
tion system routing diagrams developed in the previous
phase. The zone design arrangements show all visible items
5.2.5 Transition Design seen from the viewing plane, no matter how small. All el-
During transition design, all design information is transi- ements are included. The required zone/unit material quan-
tioned from systems to block and zone orientation as com- tity is also developed. Interference checking occurs as the
plete block and zone design arrangements and the ordering work proceeds. All working, maintenance, and access re-
and assigning of all materials are completed (7). Drawings quirements are checked.
and product models also indicate subdivisions and material- Structural design work is completed and structural draw-
ordering zones. The Shipyard’s Shipbuilding Policy and the ings for each block are developed, each with an accompa-
Contract Build Strategy will define how the ship will be nying bill of material.
built; for example, how major machinery items will be
loaded, how auxiliary machinery and other components will
be fitted, what work will be done on-unit, on-block (before 5.2.6 Workstation/Zone Information Preparation
and after turnover), and on-board. The breakdown of each During this phase, all drawings, data and other information
zone into sub-zones is also defined. required by the production and other service departments to
A virtual prototype of the ship is developed, either on construct the ship are prepared. This includes drawings,
5-14 Ship Design & Construction, Volume 1

TABLE 5.V Functional Design Products

Hull Rudder and propeller lifting gear Electrical
General arrangement- Compartment and arrangement Electrical Load analysis
access (C&A) drawings Anchor handling arrangement One-line diagram
Outboard profile Mooring arrangement Short circuit analysis
Lines drawing List of motors and controllers
Life-saving equipment arrangement
N.A. drawings, for example, List of feeders and mains
hydrostatics, cross curves of Hull piping system diagrammatics
Electrical equipment and installation
stability, docking drawing Purchase Technical Specifications (PTS) diagrams
Block arrangement and list Advanced Material Ordering (AMO) Switchboard drawings
Frame body plan (based on faired lines) Lists List of Portable electrical equipment
Structural block drawings with scantlings Steel List per block Electrical system weights
Major foundation drawings Purchase Technical Specifications (PTS)
Welding plan Machinery and Piping Advanced Material Ordering (AMO)
Hull fitting drawings Machinery arrangement Lists

Hull weights, centers, and block Shafting arrangement HVAC

lifting data
Stern tube arrangement Heating and cooling analysis
Lists of hull outfit
Machinery space and wheelhouse control HVAC diagram and equipment list
Lists of hull fittings console arrangement HVAC insulation schedule
Nameplates and Notices
Machinery piping system diagrammatics HVAC system weights
Summary paint schedule Purchase Technical Specifications (PTS)
Diesel exhaust arrangement
Summary deck covering schedule Advanced Material Ordering (AMO)
Lifting gear in machinery space
Summary hull insulation schedule Lists
Furniture list Machinery and pipe insulation schedule
Production Planning
Plumbing and fixture list Unit and equipment foundations
Work station information plan and
Galley arrangement Machinery and foundation weights schedule
Accommodation arrangement Purchase technical specifications (PTS) Block outfitting and erection schedule
Steering gear arrangement Advanced material ordering (AMO) Zone outfitting schedule
Rudder and rudder stock arrangement Lists Tests and Trials schedule

sketches, parts lists, process instructions, and production aids broken down into separate workstations. Again, the worksta-
such as templates, marking tapes, and software to control ro- tion information is complete, the worker needs no other in-
bots doing plate burning/marking and pipe fabrication. The formation to complete the job, and no unnecessary information
work required to produce an entire zone is broken down into is provided. The workstation information is provided on A4
many work packages, each defining a much smaller task. A or letter size sheets and typically consists of sketches and a
typical guide for work package size is that no more than three parts list. The sketches show the work as the worker will see
workers can complete the work defined by the package in no it; upside down, for example, if the work is to be done upside
more than two weeks, or no more than 200 work hours. down. Structural workstation/zone information is developed
Production planners size the work packages and either use for: burning plate, cutting shapes, processing plates or shapes
the information needed by the workers, prepared by Engi- (bending, flanging, or drilling), subassembly construction, as-
neering and develop it further to complete the package. Only sembly construction, block construction, and block erection.
the information needed to complete each work package, in- Block assembly sketches are developed; these permit the de-
cluding production aids, is included. Each work package is signer to consider block access requirements during con-
 Chapter 5: The Ship Design Process 5-15

struction. Planning and production personnel also jointly de- sonnel. Because of the dominant effect of the carrier’s flight
velop work sequence sketches. They define in considerable deck and hangar on its design, initial design effort will focus
detail how the ship will be put together. Outfit work sta- on the flight deck and hangar and their configuration.
tion/zone information is developed for shops, assemblies, In the case of the containership, the number of contain-
blocks and zones. For the shops, workstation information for ers to be carried is critical. Initial design effort will focus
both processing and assembly is developed for hull fittings, on the arrangement of these containers. How many will be
pipe, sheet metal, foundation structure, joiner, paint, and elec- stowed in the hull and how many above the weather deck?
trical. Workstation information also is developed for machin- Based on the container dimensions, what are appropriate
ery installations on units. hold lengths and what are sensible hull beam and depth pos-
sibilities based on the number of container rows and levels
to be stowed in the hull?
In the case of the buoy tender, buoy handling will be ad-
5.3 DESIGN PROCEDURE
dressed first. Will buoys be handled forward or aft of the
In the preceding section, the design process was described deckhouse? How will the buoys and their anchors and chains
in terms of the design phases that a design normally passes be lifted on and off the vessel?
through as it evolves. In this section, the nature of the work In the case of the inter-island passenger/cargo ship, the
done in the early design phases is described in more detail. required beaching capability is addressed first. What beach
Again the focus is on naval design. slopes are anticipated and how much cargo weight can be
The early design phases are the most mysterious to, and brought how close to the shore line for various combina-
most misunderstood by, those who do not practice the art tions of hull dimensions and fullness coefficients? Once the
of ship design. A generic step-by-step procedure is outlined ship is beached, how will passengers and cargo be moved
for developing a single ship feasibility study, the first step from the ship to the shore?
in the design process, and a single conceptual design. Then, These examples demonstrate that the design approach
broader aspects of the subsequent design development is influenced by the ship’s mission and payload or cargo
process are described. Emphasis is given to the trade-off characteristics, as well as by the attributes of the ship itself.
study process, the concept of design baselines and their up- The ship designer will initially focus on gaining a full un-
dates, and the design integration process. The reader is re- derstanding of these requirements and characteristics and
minded that normally many ship feasibility studies are formulating, in their mind, overall ship concepts and con-
developed in the process of assisting the shipowner to de- figurations that will satisfy them. In doing this, the required
cide on the major requirements for a new ship. Several con- ship design speed will be a primary consideration. Many
ceptual designs may also be developed as major design concepts suitable for relatively low speeds will not be fea-
alternatives are explored. sible if the required speed is high.
The naval architect will also judge whether the design
will be weight, volume, or main deck limited. In a weight-
5.3.1 Getting Started limited design, the buoyancy required to float the weight
Once the major performance requirements and constraints of the ship and its payload establishes the ship’s principal
for a new design have been established, design work can dimensions. In a volume-limited design, the internal space
begin. Initial attention is focused on the mission(s) of the required to accommodate the payload and other ship func-
ship and its payload (weapon suite) or cargo requirements. tions establishes the principal dimensions; thus space
These two parameters will have a dominant effect on the analysis is of major importance from the outset. For
size, configuration and key features of the completed de- weight-limited designs, space requirements need not be rig-
sign, as well as on the process used to arrive at the design. orously addressed in the initial design cycles. In a main
To illustrate, consider the design of an aircraft carrier, a deck limited design, the objects to be carried or built upon
containership, a buoy tender, and an inter-island passen- the deck establish the ship’s length and/or beam. The air-
ger/cargo ship that must beach itself at ports of call with- craft carrier is an obvious example. The lengths of most
out normal pier facilities. surface combatant ships are determined by the so-called
The primary payload of the aircraft carrier is its air wing. stack-up length, the sum of the deck lengths required for
The primary mission of the carrier is to support the air wing: weapons, sensors, propulsion air intakes and exhausts, avi-
to house, maintain, fuel, arm, launch and recover, and pro- ation facilities, anchor handling and mooring equipment,
vide command and control functions for the aircraft in the etc. (see Chapter 54 – Naval Vessels). Today most ship
air wing and to care for the pilots and other air wing per- types are volume-limited.
5-16 Ship Design & Construction, Volume 1

5.3.2 Feasibility Study 1. FIX PAYLOAD, SPEED, FUEL ENDURANCE, HULL TYPE,
The development of a ship feasibility study is the first step C p , C X , PROPULSION PLANT TYPE, MARGINS, ETC.

in the design development process for naval ships and is

often performed by shipowners for complex commercial 2. ESTIMATE WEIGHT AND VOLUME OF PAYLOAD
ships. Four primary physical criteria must be satisfied by
any ship design, in addition to the requirement that the de- 3. ESTIMATE LENGTH, DISPL., PROPULSION POWER
sign elements must be packaged in a feasible overall ship
configuration. These physical criteria are, available inter-
4. ESTIMATE MANNING/ACCOMMODATIONS
nal volume must equal or exceed the total required volume,
weight must equal buoyancy, there must be satisfactory in-
5. ESTIMATE TOTAL REQUIRED VOLUME
tact stability, and the installed propulsion power must be ca-
pable of propelling the ship at the required top speed.
These four criteria must be addressed in the initial de- 6. SIZE HULL AND DECKHOUSE

sign process. A typical sequence of steps followed in de-

veloping a feasibility study is shown in Figure 5.6. The four
primary criteria are noted down the left side of the figure. NO
AVAIL. VOL. >
The steps in the generic design process are numbered in the VOLUME REQ'D. VOL.
ADJUST
L, B, D
figure and are discussed below. ?
It is important to note that the sequence of steps depicted
YES
in the figure is not inviolate. A different sequence is often
better suited to a particular design problem. Also, there is an 7. ESTIMATE WEIGHT AND VCG

interaction between the analytical process described below

and the process used to define the external configuration of
the ship. Some designs lend themselves to the very early WEIGHT = NO
ADJUST
definition of some features of the external configuration. WEIGHT BUOYANCY L, B
?
When this is the case, it can affect the steps in the analyti-
cal solution procedure. Regardless of the sequence used, the YES
same solution should be arrived at, if consistent assumptions
8. ESTIMATE GMt
and decisions are made as the iterative process unfolds. Each
step will be described in the following sub-sections.
NO
5.3.2.1 Principal performance requirements STABILITY GM T ≥ 
X 
B
ADJUST
 100  L, B, D
At the outset, three principal performance requirements
?
must be known or assumed. They are, payload (cargo dead-
weight and stowage factor), maximum or sustained speed YES

(design speed), and fuel endurance (design voyage distance). 9. CALCULATE REQUIRED PROPULSION POWER
Values for these can be found in the different ship type
design chapters in Volume II of this book. In addition, as-
sumptions must be made for certain ship characteristics, in- POWER
NO ADJUST
cluding the ship type, hull type, propulsion plant type, POWERING REQUIRED = INSTALLED
INSTALLED ?
principal hull form coefficients, and the design margins to POWER

be applied. The effects of varying the latter assumptions

YES
can, and often are, explored by performing additional fea-
sibility studies. DESIGN OK

By ship type is meant the overall hull configuration and

method of support, for example, conventional displacement SKETCH ARRG'T
monohull, SWATH, planing monohull, catamaran, trimaran, ASSESS:
- PERFORMANCE
hydrofoil, air cushion vehicle (ACV), or surface effect ship
- COST
(SES). As the term hull type is used here, it refers to major - RISK
features of the hull form: transom vs. cruiser stern, flared
vs. tumblehome topsides, bulbous bow vs. no bulb, etc. Note Figure 5.6 Feasibility Study Process
 Chapter 5: The Ship Design Process 5-17

that the procedure outlined herein applies in principle to porated in the feasibility study. The ship designers are re-
any ship type. The specific steps followed will vary, espe- sponsible for the selection of D&C margins; they must also
cially for the non-displacement ship types. provide for all shipowner-specified service life allowances.
The propulsion plant type might be medium speed geared
diesel, low speed directly connected diesel, geared gas tur- 5.3.2.2 Payload weight and volume estimation
bine, or geared fossil fuel or nuclear steam turbine, all con- Payload weight (cargo deadweight) and volume are esti-
nected by shafts to propellers in the conventional manner. mated. The definition of payload must be clear and con-
Electric drive or integrated electric drive plants might be con- sistent with the estimating relationships described later.
sidered, with a variety of generator prime movers. Combined The term payload as used here refers to weapons and the
plants such as Combined Diesel or Gas Turbine (CODOG) equipment, supplies and crew to support the cargo and/or
might be considered as well as various propulsors, includ- other items directly related to the ship’s mission. Ship en-
ing conventional open propellers, water jets and podded durance fuel, fresh water, provisions and other consum-
propulsors. To develop a single feasibility study, a single ables are not included. Some might define this payload as
plant type must be assumed. Other propulsion plant alter- consisting solely of variable load items carried to perform
natives are often evaluated with the aid of additional feasi- the ship’s mission. For ship sizing purposes, however, it is
bility studies. probably best to take a broader view and define payload to
For a displacement monohull, the principal hull form be any built-in ship systems and spaces that directly sup-
coefficients are the longitudinal prismatic coefficient, Cp, port the ship’s mission, in addition to the variable loads
and the maximum section coefficient, Cx. For many com- themselves. An example would be the scientific gear and
mercial ships with Cx about 0.98, Cb is used instead of Cp. laboratory spaces on an oceanographic research ship, as
Together these coefficients establish the block coefficient, well as the equipment used to raise and lower the scien-
Cb. Cp has a major influence on hull resistance and hence tific gear overboard from the deck of the ship. In this ex-
powering. Cx has a major effect on the vertical center of ample, the payload consists of a number of installed systems
buoyancy and on the vertical center of gravity of items and shipboard spaces, as well as scientific supplies and
stowed low in the hull. Hence it has a significant effect on equipment that can be loaded onto and off of the ship. Pay-
intact stability. Both coefficients affect the space available load weight and volume estimation is relatively straight-
in the hull as well as the buoyancy provided by the hull. Ini- forward for commercial ships such as crude oil tankers,
tial values of these coefficients are selected based on the de- bulk carriers or container ships where the entire payload
signer’s experience and judgment. Alternative combinations is cargo, although variable cargo densities can complicate
of values are often studied later. the task. It is more difficult for payloads that include in-
Design and Construction (D&C) margins, also known stalled ship spaces and systems. Note that the payload vol-
as acquisition margins, are applied to early stage design es- ume, which must be provided within the hull and/or the
timates to account for unknowns, errors in prediction tech- deckhouse, must be distinguished from payload volume,
niques and the likelihood of design changes as the design which will be carried external to the hull envelope, such as
requirements are refined during design development. Con- containers loaded on deck.
struction margins are applied to compensate for growth dur-
ing construction. In some acquisitions, the shipbuilder will 5.3.2.3 First estimates of principal characteristics
not be known during the early design stages; nor will the Initial estimates are made of hull length, full load dis-
many vendors who will supply equipment. These uncer- placement and installed power. Almost any values can be
tainties also translate into weight and KG uncertainties that used for the initial estimates but the closer they are to the
are addressed by margins. It is expected that D&C margins final result, the fewer iterations will be required to get to
will be depleted as the ship design and construction process closure, when using the spiral design or similar single point
unfolds. Typical margin categories include weight, KG rise, design approach. These estimates are generally based on em-
ship service electric power, HVAC loads, hull resistance, pirical plots or equations derived from a statistical analysis
space and accommodations. Design and Construction mar- of existing ship data for the particular hull type and ship mis-
gins are separate and distinct from service life allowances, sion being considered. Displacement might be estimated
which some shipowners require to be provided in a new from a plot of payload weight versus displacement (or Dead-
ship at delivery. The latter allowances are provided in an- weight Coefficient for commercial ships), length might be
ticipation of growth during the ship’s life of attributes such estimated from a plot of length vs. displacement, and in-
as weight, KG, and required electric power. Appropriate stalled power might be estimated from a plot of power per
D&C margins and service life allowances must be incor- ton versus Froude number.
5-18 Ship Design & Construction, Volume 1

5.3.2.4 Determination of manning/accommodations from a plot of hull steel weight versus LBD/100 (cubic num-
requirements ber), machinery weight might be based on a plot of ma-
The total number of accommodations to be provided is es- chinery weight versus installed power for the assumed plant
timated. This is generally based on a manning estimate (pro- type, etc. Living space outfit is generally a function of crew
vided by the shipowner for commercial ships), increased by size while hull outfit might be a function of LBD/100. Light-
an allowance for transients and perhaps a D&C margin ship KG is generally estimated by using KG/D factors for
and/or a service life growth allowance. the individual weight groups based on data from similar
ships. Load items are estimated or computed. The variable
5.3.2.5 Estimation of required volume portion of the payload weight estimated in Sub-section
The total required internal volume is estimated. Initially, 5.3.2.2 is known. Endurance fuel weight can be estimated
this is a gross figure that reflects the payload (cargo) vol- initially, and then computed once a speed-power curve has
ume plus the volume required for crew living, propulsion been estimated in Sub-section 5.3.2.9. Load KG is esti-
machinery (total machinery space volume, including air in- mated by assigning KG values to the individual load items
takes, exhaust uptakes, and shaft alleys), tankage, stores, ac- based on the naval architect’s vision of the ship configura-
cess, ship control spaces, voids, and other miscellaneous tion and data for similar ships.
spaces. For the initial estimate, an empirical plot of total in- At this point, weight is checked against buoyancy. Since
ternal volume versus payload (cargo) volume is often used, L, B, Cp, and Cx are known, the draft required to float the
based on data for ships with similar missions and hull types. ship’s weight can be computed. If it is too great (navigational
More detailed estimates will be made in later iterations. draft constraint exceeded or freeboard too low, based on ei-
ther required regulatory freeboard or empirical criteria de-
5.3.2.6 Sizing of hull and deckhouse rived from successful designs), L and/or B can be increased,
The hull and deckhouse are sized to provide the required which affects available volume and weight. Hull depth might
internal volume. A split between the hull and deckhouse be reduced in an attempt to avoid excess volume, if adequate
volume is chosen. This might be based on a factor chosen freeboard could be achieved. Deckhouse size (volume) also
from previous designs, or it might be based on a tentative might be reduced. Note that Cp and/or Cx also could be in-
deckhouse sketch with an associated deckhouse volume. creased at this point to reduce draft but the naval architect
Deducting the estimated deckhouse volume from the total may choose not to, seeking a solution at the selected Cp and
required volume yields the required hull volume. Hull Cx values with the idea that other Cp and Cx combinations
length, beam, depth and block or prismatic coefficient, are also will be studied later. If the calculated draft is too low,
adjusted until the necessary hull volume is provided. Em- perhaps not enough draft to swing a propeller of reasonable
pirical plots of hull proportions such as L/B, B/D, and L/D diameter, L and/or B could be reduced; D and/or deckhouse
for ships with similar hull types and missions are often used size would have to be increased commensurately to maintain
as a guide in this process. Extreme proportions will often adequate internal volume. Again, note that Cp and Cx could
lead to problems: too great a L/B ratio and too low a B/D also be varied in the effort to find a solution. At this point,
ratio could result in deficient stability, and too great an L/D weight and volume have been evaluated. Bear in mind that
could result in adverse hull girder strength. Large object displacement weight must equal buoyancy, but that the avail-
volumes with specific minimum dimensions to be accom- able volume may exceed the required volume. If the avail-
modated within the hull, must be considered when select- able volume must exceed the required volume in order to
ing the principal hull dimensions. Examples might be an provide sufficient buoyancy, this is an indication of a weight-
engine room, a large cargo hold, an aircraft hangar or a mis- driven design such as an Ore Carrier.
sile magazine. Large object volumes typically have a ver-
tical height that exceeds one normal deck height; they may 5.3.2.8 Stability check
also have an unusually large length or beam. The transverse metacentric height, GMt, is estimated to
check initial intact stability. Note that initial stability at large
5.3.2.7 Weight and center of gravity estimates heel angles and damage stability are evaluated at a later
The full load weight and Vertical Center of Gravity (VCG) point in design when the required design detail is available.
(KG) are estimated. Lightship weight groups and load items To estimate GMt, estimate KMt and subtract KG, mak-
are treated separately. Lightship weight components are ini- ing a reasonable correction for tankage free surface (see
tially estimated in major groups, using selected parent ships Chapter 11 – Parametric Design). The two constituents of
or empirical plots of data for ships with similar missions KMt, KB and BMt, are each estimated based on the known
and hull types. Hull structural weight might be estimated quantities L, B, T, Cp, and Cx, and the results summed. The
 Chapter 5: The Ship Design Process 5-19

transverse moment of inertia of the waterplane, It is esti- sustained speed, the speed-power estimate in Step 9 will in-
mated from the waterplane coefficient, Cw. Cw is estimated clude the endurance speed so that a refined estimate of fuel
from Cp, recognizing that a transom stern significantly af- weight can be made. This is a common situation for fossil
fects both Cw and It. GMt/B is computed and compared to fuel naval ships that cruise much of the time at fuel-efficient
a predetermined criterion of acceptability, generally rang- speeds and spend very little time at high speeds.
ing from 3 to 10%, depending on the ship type and its in- This completes the description of the nine steps listed
tended mission (lower for cargo ships, mid-range for in Figure 5.6. Even if a tentative solution has been achieved
passenger ships, and higher for warships). If the criterion in the first pass through the process, it may be repeated start-
is exceeded, the result might be accepted, at least tem- ing at the step described in Sub-sections 5.3.2.4 or 5.3.2.5,
porarily; if the criterion is not met, corrective action must using more refined estimates for the various parameters.
be taken. Either KG must be reduced or KMt increased. KG This greatly improves the quality of the study and reduces
can be reduced by reducing D or deckhouse size or by low- risk. Required volume, weight and KG are prime candi-
ering weights within the ship. At this early stage, reducing dates for refinement.
KG by lowering weights is not really feasible since indi- An arrangement sketch must be developed in order to
vidual weights have not yet been located within the hull. validate the tentative solution before the study can be ac-
Reducing deckhouse size yields small gains and reducing cepted. As a minimum, an inboard profile and main deck
D may be infeasible due to freeboard requirements or large plan view must be depicted. A typical transverse section
object volume dimensions, for example, the required height through the ship’s midbody would be the next priority.
of a low-speed diesel engine room. The most effective way Even if it were not required for validation, the customer
to raise KMt is to increase beam since BMt varies as B would want to see a sketch anyway. The term sketch is used
squared, and this is generally the approach taken. Length deliberately. Detail is not desired, only a simplified outline
may be reduced at the same time, if possible, to avoid ex- of the hull and deckhouse boundaries and the principal in-
cessive hull volume. ternal subdivisions: decks and bulkheads. Large object vol-
umes should be located and identified. The primary reason
5.3.2.9 First estimate of propulsion power for the sketch is for the naval architect to ensure that a sat-
The power required to propel the ship at the desired maxi- isfactory ship arrangement can be developed within the se-
mum or sustained speed is estimated. This estimate can be lected principal dimensions. In profile, does the selected
much improved over the Subsection 5.3.2.3 estimate since hull depth permit a satisfactory allocation of deck heights
the hull dimensions and form coefficients are now known, to be made with adequate space in the overheads to run dis-
along with a better estimate of ship displacement. As- tributed systems? Can the heights of large object volumes
sumptions have been made regarding the general charac- such as the engine room be accommodated efficiently?
teristics of the hull shape at the ends, for example, whether Does the selected hull length permit a satisfactory arrange-
or not there is a transom or bow bulb. Bare hull resistance ment of main transverse bulkheads? Can the lengths of
is estimated using one of the established techniques; for ex- large object volumes such as the engine room and cargo
ample, a standard series, a regression analysis, or test re- holds be accommodated efficiently, considering the re-
sults of a similar hull. The principal hull appendages are quirements for collision and after peak bulkheads? Can one
identified, permitting an estimate of appendage drag to be or more deckhouses with the required total volume be sat-
made. Overall propulsive coefficient is estimated and shaft- isfactorily located on the hull so as to provide proper align-
ing and reduction gear losses are accounted for (or electric ment with the engine room below deck, for example? Is
losses in the case of an electric ship). The resulting required the main deck length (and beam) adequate to accommo-
propulsive power is compared to the installed power as- date all of the required topside functions? The minimum
sumed in Step 3 of Figure 5.6. If the installed power is equal length required to do this in naval ship design is referred
to or somewhat greater than the required power, a tentative to as the stack-up length. The stack-up length often sets the
solution has been achieved. If the installed power greatly hull length in ships with cluttered topsides such as surface
exceeds the requirement, it must be reduced. If it falls short combatants or in ships with specific topside cargo stowage
of the requirement, it must be increased. In either case, the requirements, such as heavy lift ships or container ships.
assumed propulsion plant must be modified and the process After a practical arrangement sketch has validated the
repeated, starting with Step 5. The revised propulsion plant study, capital and operating and support (O&S) costs can
is likely to have a revised engine room volume and hence be estimated. Risks also must be assessed. Unique aspects
the total required volume will change. If the fuel endurance of performance, beyond the usual calm water speed and fuel
is specified at a speed other than the specified maximum or endurance estimates, are sometimes evaluated, albeit in pre-
5-20 Ship Design & Construction, Volume 1

liminary fashion. Ship motions and maneuvering predic- improve the estimate of project cost, refine and validate the
tions are examples. major ship performance requirements established previ-
Countless versions of the feasibility study development ously and, not least, to establish a baseline for the start of
process outlined above have been programmed for speedy preliminary design and its major trade-off studies. In de-
execution by computer. These programs, termed synthesis veloping a set of feasibility studies, emphasis is given to rel-
models, differ primarily in four ways: level of detail, de- ative correctness, that is, to establishing the correct deltas
gree of tailoring to specific ship types, approach to user in- between studies in the set. In developing a concept design,
teraction, and solution approach. Some programs are quite emphasis shifts to absolute correctness, that is, how large
simplistic and contain only rough approximations for es- and heavy is this specific ship really going to be and what
timating relationships; others are very sophisticated and will it really cost?
estimate parameters such as weight and space in consid- Concept design, and all the design phases, which follow
erable detail (see Chapter 13 – Computer Based Tools). it, is really a parallel process, as depicted in Figure 5.7.
Some programs are finely tuned to deal with a particular Three critical steps, as shown in the figure, initiate the
type of ship, for example, a container ship, and a particu- process.
lar hull form type such as a cruiser stern hull with bow First, the exterior envelope of the ship is defined for the
bulb; others are much more flexible. Some programs run first time. This consists of the hull and deckhouse bound-
without user interaction after the necessary inputs are pro- aries. The assumptions reflected by the selected feasibility
vided; others permit the user to interact with the program study are translated into a specific initial shape for the ship.
and steer the computer towards a particular solution. Graph- These initial assumptions include parameters such as the
ical interfaces that permit arrangement sketches to be de- principal hull dimensions (L, B, T, D), principal hull form
veloped on-line are becoming more common. Some coefficients (Cp, Cx), freeboard and deckhouse volume.
programs iterate and converge to a single solution inter- For the initial hull form, an existing hull may be used or
nally; others produce a huge matrix of solutions and point a new one developed from scratch. The existing hull may
out to the user which ones fail to meet one or another of be modified to match the desired dimensions and form co-
the prescribed acceptance criteria. efficients. Techniques for doing this are well known (8) and
The advantages of a synthesis model include speed, re- today are integrated into naval architecture software pack-
peatability, relative accuracy, and the ability to capture the ages, such as TRIBON and FORAN. The initial deckhouse
best thinking of all the experts in the organization devel- configuration must reflect the desired volume and also nu-
oping the model. Relative, as opposed to absolute, accu- merous practical considerations such as realistic molded
racy is essential in the early stage design process. When deck heights, sight lines from the bridge, provisions for
alternatives are being evaluated and compared, capturing the propulsion air inlets and exhausts, and maintenance of the
true delta between the alternatives is of paramount impor- required working deck areas. Even in this initial definition
tance. In the past, parametric studies were done manually, of the hull and deckhouse, production considerations should
often by different individuals. The true deltas between al- be given significant weight.
ternatives were often lost due to differing assumptions or After the hull and deckhouse boundaries have been de-
round-off errors. fined initially, the principal internal subdivisions must be es-
On the other hand, synthesis models are costly to develop tablished. The process of doing this is sometimes referred to
and require continuing care and feeding to keep up with ad- as decking out the design. Deck locations within the hull and
vancing technology. The primary use of synthesis models deckhouse are defined, as are the locations of the principal
is in the concept design phase; that is, to develop ship fea- bulkheads, both transverse and longitudinal. The naval ar-
sibility studies. They also are used in later design phases to chitect performing this task uses judgment based on experi-
perform trade-off studies, for example, study the effects of ence plus knowledge of the numerous influencing factors.
varying hull proportions, form coefficients, etc. and to as- These factors include considerations such as realistic molded
sess the total ship impacts of subsystem alternatives; for ex- deck heights (at least 2.6 m today) necessary to achieve de-
ample, alternative propulsion plants, habitability standards, sired clear deck heights, practical double bottom depth, de-
margin policies, etc. sired frame spacing for efficient structure, and the transverse
bulkhead spacing needed to meet cargo stowage, floodable
length and damage stability requirements. Production con-
5.3.3 Concept Design siderations and the need for structural continuity are given
A concept design represents the further development of a high priority in establishing the internal subdivisions. Ad-
specific feasibility study. The work is done to reduce risk, vice may be sought from experts in these areas. At the same
 Chapter 5: The Ship Design Process 5-21

time, it is important to remember that this is simply a start- After the decking out process is completed, an initial
ing point, and that all design decisions tentatively made at general arrangement drawing is developed. The drawing
this point will be thoroughly reviewed later in the design depicts all so-called large object volumes such as the en-
process before they are locked in. The decking out process gine room and cargo holds. These are spaces whose heights
may require small changes to certain of the input parame- are greater than a single normal deck height. Smaller spaces
ters. The hull depth, for example, may be adjusted to pro- with normal deck heights are not individually defined at
vide the desired number of internal deck levels in an efficient this point. Rather, blocks of space are allocated by function,
manner, that is, without either inadequate or excessive tween- for example, crew living, office and administrative spaces,
deck heights. Hull or compartment length might be modi- navigation and other ship control spaces, workshops, etc.
fied slightly to equate to an even number of frames at the In the process of defining the initial general arrangement,
desired spacing. it may be necessary to modify deck or bulkhead locations
or even the deckhouse boundaries.
After the initial hull envelope and general arrangement
have been defined, parallel design development can pro-
ceed in a number of functional areas, as depicted in Figure
Selected Define Hull Form
5.7. The parallel design development effort extends beyond
Feasibility and Deckhouse
the concept design development and, in fact, continues
Study Configuration
through all the remaining design phases. The ensuing de-
sign development activities can be classed as design and
analysis activities, as depicted in the figure. As system de-
sign and total ship analysis proceeds, conflicts with the ini-
tial hull envelope and/or the general arrangement will be
Locate Decks Initial
identified and must be resolved. Resolution may necessi-
and General
Bulkheads Arrangement
tate changes in either the hull envelope or the general
arrangement. For example, development of the propulsion
plant, including the initial machinery arrangement, may in-
dicate the need to lengthen the engine room, which in turn
will require a change to the general arrangement.
Figure 5.8 is a depiction of the concept design task cat-
Configuration Development: egories after the initial configuration definition (Baseline 1
External Configuration (Hull Form/Deckhouse) in Figure 5.7). Additional detail is provided. There are
and General Arrangement strong interactions between both the ship envelope and the
general arrangement and three of the eight areas of system
design activity noted in the figure. These are structures,
System Design and Analysis: propulsion plant and mission systems. Similarly, there are
Mission Systems strong interactions between most of the areas of system de-
Structure sign activity and the eight analysis activities noted in the
Machinery upper block of total ship analysis tasks. For example, most
Outfit areas of system design will contribute products to the
area/volume analysis, the weight estimate, the electric load
estimate, and the Master Equipment List (MEL). The top-
ics listed in the second block of analysis tasks have equally
Total Ship Analysis:
strong interactions but with fewer system design tasks. There
Weights and Centers Capacities
are strong interactions between both the hull form and the
Trim and Stability Availability
Electric Load Manning
weight estimate and the hydrodynamic performance and
Hydrodynamic Performance Cost, etc. stability analysis tasks. The general arrangement also has
a strong interaction with the damage stability analysis task.
Noise and vibrations analysis tasks are strongly linked to
the general arrangements and to the principal noise sources:
Baseline 1 Baseline 2 Baseline 3 propulsion and other rotating machinery and the propulsor
Figure 5.7 Naval Ship Concept Design Process itself. Fuel weight and volume are linked to the required
5-22 Ship Design & Construction, Volume 1

propulsion power at the endurance speed, as well as to the (O&F), fluid systems, HVAC system, and auxiliary ma-
efficiency of the propulsion and electric power generating chinery/mechanical systems. For concept design, there is
plants at that speed. insufficient detail to develop a manning estimate based on
As design development proceeds, interim products are workload considerations. It would be premature to spend
produced in each of the system design and total ship analy- much effort defining O&F details. Design effort in the sys-
sis task areas and fed to other areas that use them as inputs tems task areas mentioned above might be restricted to se-
or as information updates. Frequently, updated information lecting a reasonable baseline system concept, describing it
will reveal problems or disconnects in the design that the by means of a highly simplified 1-line diagram and, for that
team must set to work to resolve. For example, the damage concept, identifying major system components and esti-
stability analysis may reveal the need to change transverse mating their sizes by ratiocination from similar ships.
bulkhead spacing at the after quarter point which is at odds
with the general arrangement. Such disconnects cannot be
predicted in advance and the skill of a design team may be
5.4 DESIGN DEVELOPMENT
measured by how quickly they can be identified, addressed
and satisfactorily resolved. In this section, the design development process, subsequent
Figures 5.7 and 5.8 are generic in that they are applica- to the development of an initial concept design, is discussed.
ble to the entire system design process once the initial hull This process occurs during the preliminary, contract and
envelope and general arrangement have been defined. In functional design phases.
concept design, not all of the tasks identified in Figure 5.8
will be performed; others will receive varying degrees of
attention, depending on the design problem at hand. 5.4.1 Overview
Tasks emphasized are those with the major influence on The design development process is a parallel one, performed
overall ship size, cost, performance and risk. Examples of by persons with expertise in the various design disciplines.
tasks not performed in concept design might include the These persons develop their portions of the design in par-
availability, noise and vibrations analysis tasks. Tasks given allel, exchanging data at appropriate points in the process.
minimal attention might include the manning analysis task The initial concept design provides the data that is needed
and the following design tasks: Outfit and Furnishings to start this parallel development process. It is the initial de-

CONFIGURATION DEVELOPMENT

Ship Envelope General Topside Appendage

•Hull Form Arrangement Arrangement Configuration
•Deckhouse Configuration

SYSTEM DESIGN AND ANALYSIS

Mission Structure Propulsion Electric Fluid HVAC Auxiliary Outfit

Systems Plant ( incl. Plant Systems System Machinery & and
Propulsor) Mechanical Furnishings
Systems

TOTAL SHIP ANALYSIS I

Manning Area/ Weights Availability Electric Master Cost Risk

Volume and (Ao) Load Equipment •R&D
Centers List (MEL) •Construction
•O&S

TOTAL SHIP ANALYSIS II

Hydrodynamic List, Trim Intact Floodable Deadweight Fuel Noise Vibrations

Performance and Stability Length and Capacities Weight •Airborne
•Speed-power Freeboard Damage & Centers and •Radiated
•Maneuvering Stability Volume
•Seakeeping

Figure 5.8 Concept Design Task Categories

 Chapter 5: The Ship Design Process 5-23

sign baseline. The design development process generally re- Issues that have a major impact on ship cost, perform-
flects the classical systems engineering process with two ance or risk should be dealt with early in the process while
principal objectives: to optimize the total ship system at the issues with lesser impact can be deferred. It makes sense
expense, perhaps, of individual subsystem optimization, to do this since studies done too soon may have to be re-
and to address production, operation and support aspects worked if there are significant changes in the design base-
too often neglected, for example, producibility, reliability, line. Issues with a significant impact on ship size and/or
maintainability, supportability, operability, life cycle cost and configuration must be dealt with at the total ship level, that
human systems integration (manpower, personnel, training, is, these impacts must be evaluated. Issues with little or no
safety and health hazards). impact on overall ship size or configuration can be dealt
In each design discipline, the development process con- with at the individual system level. Issues with significant
sists of the following generic steps: requirements derivation, impacts can be subdivided further into those with effects
synthesis of alternative concepts, evaluation of the concepts, so dominant that they require alternative ship concepts to
selection of the preferred concept, and further development be developed and evaluated vs. those whose impacts can
of the selected concept. This may lead to the exploration at be assessed without deviating from the baseline ship con-
finer levels of detail of additional alternatives for elements cept. Some issues can be studied by a single design disci-
of the parent concept. Thus, after the initial requirements pline while experts representing several disciplines must
derivation, the process consists of a trade-off study followed address others.
by design development effort. This cycle may be repeated In planning and executing the design development
several times before the design is fully developed. process, these categories should be considered and greater
The development effort in each discipline is referenced attention given to the more important ones. In general, the
to the overall ship design baseline in order to keep the over- highest priority should be given to multi-disciplinary stud-
all effort on track. The design baseline represents an inte-
ies with significant ship size and/or configuration impacts.
grated total ship design, at the level of detail to which the
These studies should be planned in greater detail and per-
design has been developed. Periodically, the design base-
formed as early in the process as possible. By so doing,
line is updated and reissued to the design team. The up-
the overall efficiency of the design process is maximized
dated baseline reflects interim design decisions, which have
and the chances of major downstream perturbations of
been made in the various disciplines as result of the on-
the design baseline are minimized. Formal trade-off stud-
going trade-off study and design development process.
ies are necessary to achieve a near-optimum design so-
The design team leadership must ratify all such deci-
lution but they require time and resources. Thus the
sions before they are incorporated into the baseline. Sev-
eral design baselines might be developed and issued over number of such studies undertaken must be tailored to
the course of a single design phase. As noted in Figures 5.7 the available design time and resources. A few studies of
and 5.8, some design development tasks are purely analy- critical issues done well are always preferable to many
sis tasks. These are referenced to the current design base- mediocre studies of lesser issues. The shipowner will often
line. The orderly process outlined previously is disrupted identify specific issues that he wishes to see formally stud-
when design problems are identified which involve more ied. The products of a trade-off study of several design
than one design discipline. The affected design disciplines alternatives should typically include the design require-
must work together quickly and efficiently to solve such ments, descriptions of the alternatives, and estimates of
problems and minimize the disruption to the overall devel- the following attributes for each alternative, relative to
opment process. the design baseline: design and engineering cost, if there
are significant differences, procurement cost, operating
and support cost, weight, space, electric load, manning,
5.4.2 Trade-off Studies
reliability, maintenance requirements, support require-
Trade-off studies are an essential element of the design de- ments, training requirements, operability, risk (technical,
velopment process. The challenge is deciding which design cost and schedule) and pertinent aspects of performance,
issues must be subjected to a formal trade-off study and for such as speed or seakeeping. The list of attributes to be
those, deciding when the study should be done and to what evaluated is tailored to suit each trade-off study (see Sub-
level of detail. Design issues can be categorized in various Section 5.1.9).
ways, including: The recommendation of each completed trade-off study
• impact on ship cost, performance, and/or risk, must be reviewed and approved by the leadership of the de-
• impact on ship size and/or configuration, and sign team before it can be incorporated into the next update
• multi-discipline vs. single discipline. of the design baseline.
5-24 Ship Design & Construction, Volume 1

5.4.3 Design Integration there are organizational interfaces that are related to the in-
Total ship optimization is the primary purpose of design in- terfaces between ship system elements. Certain principles
tegration. Other objectives are to: must be adhered to when organizing for ship design if de-
sign integration efforts are to be effective. They are:
• ensure ship feasibility,
• satisfy the shipowner’s requirements and constraints, • assign responsibility for complete functional elements
and to a single, lowest-level organizational unit,
• facilitate ship construction. • assign responsibility for closely interacting functional el-
ements to a single organizational unit,
An optimized ship design is a balanced ship design. A • distribute responsibility evenly between organizational
balanced design is not optimized at the system or sub-sys- elements,
tem levels, that is, give and take has occurred between el- • assign a manageable number of organizational elements
ements of the design. An optimized total ship will typically to any one supervisor,
not have optimized systems and sub-systems. • establish one organizational element responsible for
In this regard it may be useful to view the ship as com- whole-ship characteristics (tests and trials, manning,
prising different levels. Level I is the total ship. At Level II RMA, safety, cost, etc.) and for system engineering of
are the major ship systems such as hull, machinery, mission areas which cut across several organizational elements,
systems, etc. Level III comprises elements or sub-systems for example, ship control,
such as structure, propulsion, electrical, control, commu- • staff with a high percentage of competent and experi-
nications, and auxiliary machinery. Level IV consists of enced engineers and designers,
components such as prime movers, generators, reduction • keep the total design organization small, and
gears, shafting, and propulsors. Design integration is nor- • avoid the introduction of organizational elements whose
mally focused on the interfaces between elements at Level sole responsibility is the review of another organiza-
III and below. tional element’s work.
Interfaces are classified as either functional or physical.
Functional interfaces refer to the service transfers between The first two principles avoid introducing organizational
various functional elements of the ship (electric power, cool- interfaces where hardware interfaces do not exist. The next
ing water, communications, data, etc.), while physical in- two principles assure a manageable workload for the vari-
terfaces refer to the spatial relationships between ship ous levels of supervision so that decisions involving sys-
elements. Functional interfaces are most critical during the tem compromises can be made in a timely and efficient
early design stages and must be resolved by the start of func- manner. The fifth principle assures proper attention is given
tional design. Physical interfaces are dealt with at all stages to the total ship system characteristics. The last three prin-
of design, but receive the most attention in the later stages ciples are necessary for efficient performance.
of design, when issues such as alignment, physical support, An experienced design team will effectively address their
interconnection, and routing are addressed in detail. interfaces with a minimum of direction and control from
Six critical areas receive special attention during the de- management and, the smaller the number of personnel in-
sign integration process. They are: volved, the fewer will be the number of communication
channels and the more effective will be the exchange of in-
1. weight vs. buoyancy and draft, freeboard, trim and list, terface data. Frequent, rapid and effective communications
2. stability, are a key to efficient design integration. Communications
3. hull girder strength, are essential, and a challenge. A collocated design team fa-
4. space balance; that is, required vs. available internal vol- cilitates communications. Modern communication tech-
ume, and deck area, niques permit virtual collocation of the members of a widely
5. ship energy balance; that is, required vs. available en- dispersed design team. However, virtual collocation is un-
ergy of each type (electric power, steam, compressed, likely to ever equal the effectiveness of face-to-face ex-
air, cooling water, etc.), and changes of data and opinion.
6. ship control; that is, the interfaces between the ship con- In the initial concept design phase, the design team is
trol system and every dynamic functional element of the small and communications are frequent and informal. The in-
ship. dividual team members perform design integration as they
Ship design is performed by engineers and designers, typ- work. Integration is an interactive and iterative function, and
ically organized along functional lines. Elements of the or- this is facilitated during concept design when the design team
ganization are responsible for elements of the design. Thus is small and, normally, collocated. As the design proceeds
 Chapter 5: The Ship Design Process 5-25

through preliminary and contract design, the integration func- work effort in each task area must be defined, including the
tion is no less important, but proves more difficult. Integra- approach to be taken, the inputs required from other task
tion is important because during these phases decisions will areas, the deliverables or products to be created, the work
be made on systems, sub-systems, and possibly even equip- schedule, including the dates for inputs, outputs and inter-
ment that will determine the cost and performance of the mediate milestones, and finally, the labor hours and re-
ship. The integration function is more difficult because as the sources required. Resources could include computers,
design matures it becomes more detailed and complex and, facilities, funds for model construction and testing, etc. The
as a result, the size and diversity of the design team grows. DIT must take the lead in creating an overall, top-level de-
For a complex warship, it has been estimated that as many sign schedule. This must address intermediate project mile-
as 40 different engineering disciplines ultimately may be in- stones at which the design baseline will be formally updated,
volved, although not all on a continuous basis. as well as the dates for major reviews of the entire ship de-
For complex ship designs, it is, therefore, common to sign. The individual plans for each task area must be inte-
create and empower a Design Integration Team (DIT) in the grated with this overall plan and with each other. Emphasis
preliminary design phase or shortly thereafter. The DIT is must be placed on the interfaces between the various func-
focused on total ship design integration and its members are tional elements. These interfaces must be identified and rec-
dedicated to that task. Typically, the DIT is staff to the ship ognized by the affected parties on both sides of the interface.
design project manager and is empowered to act in his/her The dates for the exchange of interface data must be sched-
name. The members of the DIT are typically senior engi- uled such that there is sufficient time to complete the de-
neers with broad experience and with a total ship perspec- sign of the affected elements of the design. The DIT must
tive. Collectively, their experience covers the full scope of identify major design issues that can only be addressed by
topics and issues to be addressed during the design. Spe- the joint action of two or more functional areas. The DIT
cialists in the functional design organization perform syn- must lead the effort to develop action plans to address these
thesis, analysis and trade studies. The DIT’s objective is to issues and see that they are incorporated into the overall de-
achieve that combination of subsystem features and per- sign phase plan. The DIT must also ensure that the design
formance that provides the best or optimum combination of phase plan includes the effort to produce the design prod-
total ship cost, performance and risk, within the bounds of ucts that that it needs to do its job.
economic and technological constraints. In some engineer-
ing organizations the functional groups are quite strong and 5.4.4.2 In-process control
independent, and resist oversight and direction. This has led The second design integration activity is in-process con-
to unbalanced ships where one function or element has been trol. The DIT plays a key role in controlling the effort of a
emphasized at the expense of others. The key is to make all large design team. The DIT continually assesses the devel-
decisions on what is best for the total ship. The DIT must oping design, but periodic meetings and design reviews are
be empowered by top management to make the tough deci- held as well. Minutes are taken and action items assigned
sions. And, of course, they must serve as honest brokers. and followed up. The DIT can employ several design con-
trol techniques. One is to formally update the design base-
line at regular intervals during a lengthy design phase. A
5.4.4 Design Planning and Control six-week interval is typical. The interval can be shorter for
The objectives of design integration have been described as smaller teams and those working to an accelerated overall
well as its nature. The concept of the Design Integration schedule. Formal updates of the design baseline help to keep
Team has been introduced. Turning now to the design inte- all members of the design team working on the same de-
gration process, it can be described as three sequential ac- sign. They also serve to keep the current design baseline rel-
tivities for a specific design phase. These are up-front atively up to date and reflective of recent design decisions,
planning, in-process control and formal reviews at the end made since the previous baseline refresh. This reduces the
of the phase. amount of rework that must be done by the design team
members as they shift their own work to the new baseline.
5.4.4.1 Planning If the update interval is too short, team members must stop
The first and perhaps most important activity is proper plan- work and shift to the new baseline too frequently. If the in-
ning of the design phase. Many designs are started on a ca- terval is too long, team members spend too much time work-
sual, ad hoc basis and there is little or no opportunity for ing to a badly outdated baseline. Shifting to the new baseline
formal planning. For each subsequent phase, however, for- when it is finally issued is a major task and too much costly
mal planning before the start of the phase is essential. The re-work is required.
5-26 Ship Design & Construction, Volume 1

Another control technique is to require formal approval the overall goals. On the other hand, if the approach is ap-
of changes to specific elements of the design baseline such plied too rigidly, a great deal of work can be wasted in fu-
as the lines drawing, the general arrangements or the Mas- tile efforts to reach an unobtainable goal. In the case of
ter Equipment List (MEL). Since the MEL can go down to attempts to save weight, this not only wastes engineering
a very detailed level such as the 5-digit Extended Ship Work effort but also generally drives up ship cost as well since
Breakdown Structure (ESWBS) level, and is constantly lighter weight systems and materials generally cost more.
changing, formal approval should be reserved for the big- A very effective control technique is the in-process de-
ticket items. The hull lines and the deckhouse or super- sign review. At these informal reviews, the individual re-
structure configuration define total internal volume. The sponsible for a specific element of the ship design presents
general arrangement drawing or 3-D arrangement model the design approach, status and current design configura-
defines the subdivision and spatial arrangement of the ship’s tion. A typical design review agenda is shown in Table 5.VI.
enclosed volume. These drawings can be used to control In attendance are the DIT and other members of the design
overall ship size and internal arrangement by controlling the team responsible for the design of elements or subsystems
changes made to the drawings as the design is developed. that interface with the element under review. Frequently,
The design team leader may delegate change control au- misunderstandings regarding the interfaces between ele-
thority to the DIT or may retain this authority but look to ments are identified and resolved on the spot; in some cases,
the DIT for its recommendation on each proposed change. the design approach is modified as a result. The DIT has
The power to control changes must be exercised judiciously. the opportunity in such reviews to verify that the subject
Two important issues are when to apply formal change con- design effort is on track and that no attractive design op-
trols and what features or parameters should be controlled. tions are being overlooked.
If formal controls are applied too early in the design effort, During the design development process, unanticipated
they can stifle innovation, burn up valuable resources in
managing the effort and destroy design team morale. Morale
plummets if it becomes too difficult to get approval of
TABLE 5.VI Design Review Agenda
straightforward changes intended to improve the design or
solve a recently discovered problem such as a physical in- Major design requirements
terference. On the other hand, later in the design process, Trade study results (if applicable) and documentation
formal configuration control procedures become manda-
tory to avoid the devastating ripple effects if one person or Area/volume requirements (vs. space allocations)
functional group unilaterally makes an ill-advised change Compartment arrangements
without adequate consultation with design management and One-line diagrams
the other affected parties. Performance analysis results
Design resources can be controlled to some extent by a
Specifications status
technique called design budgeting. For example, the DIT
might establish a light ship weight budget with each ele- Status of MEL inputs
ment assigned to the functional area with cognizance, such Cost (current estimates vs. allocations - design, construction,
as, structure, propulsion, O&F, etc. Each functional area is O&S)
then tasked to attempt to stay within their allocated budget Manning (current estimate vs. allocation)
as the design is developed. The estimated or calculated Weight (current estimate vs. allocation)
weight is compared to the budget value at regular intervals
and the trend is tracked over time. This approach also can Producibility considerations
be employed with other design parameters such as electric Test and Validation requirements and status
power load and other support services, system availability, Risk assessment and status
and manning. The collected trend analysis results for each Logistics support
parameter are updated and distributed among the design
Reliability, maintainability, and availability
team on a regular basis. The allocated budgets for any pa-
rameter can be modified with or without increasing the over- System safety
all budget, if during design development it becomes clear Status of formal deliverables
that re-allocations are indicated. This technique is useful for The way ahead (plans to complete work)
sensitizing the design team to the importance of certain de-
Review of assigned action items
sign parameters and for enlisting their aid in efforts to meet
 Chapter 5: The Ship Design Process 5-27

technical problems are often identified that must be promptly then combined by an experienced team composed of experts
addressed by the design team. When these problems involve in each discipline. These experts optimize the combined
issues within the purview of more than a single organiza- system designs, eliminating interferences in the process.
tional unit, the DIT is chartered to take the lead in seeking The product is a single master overlay drawing for the con-
a solution. Oftentimes, an ad hoc working group (some- trol area. Hole control drawings are the results of a proce-
times called a tiger team) is formed if the problem or issue dure implemented during detail design to ensure that the
is particularly complex. Members are drawn from the or- structural penetrations required to run distributive systems
ganizational units most directly affected by the issue. En- do not impair the strength of the hull and superstructure.
gineering effort may be required to synthesize and analyze Composite drawings are another means of performing
one or more alternative solutions to the problem. physical integration. A composite drawing is a single draw-
The DIT must quickly develop a plan of action in con- ing showing all of the system runs, equipment and other
cert with the affected parties and then manage the resulting obstructions in a control area in multi-views. The master
study in parallel with the on-going mainstream design ef- overlay drawing described above is a single view com-
fort. The study results must be reviewed before a recom- posite drawing. Composites are more accurate than over-
mendation as to the best resolution can be made. lays but overlays are simpler and can be produced more
The preceding discussion of the design integration quickly and cheaply. On some designs, composites are used
process is primarily applicable to the system design phases selectively to supplement the overlays in particularly im-
through contract design, when the focus is on the identi- portant and congested areas. The Interface Control Draw-
fication and resolution of functional interfaces. Physical ing (ICD) depicts selected features of two or more
interfaces are addressed in the early design phases also, interfacing items to ensure compatibility between and
but at a fairly high level, in terms of space, weight and sup- among them. ICDs are developed after a local area has
port services requirements. Space assignments, adjacen- been designed to control the resulting configuration. The
cies and access requirements are addressed via the general ICD permits subsequent design activities to proceed inde-
arrangements drawing. One-line diagrams define support pendently and concurrently with assurance that the speci-
services. In the functional design phase, the focus turns to fied interface previously agreed upon is adhered to. One
physical integration, which must be addressed in com- example of an ICD is a drawing of a section of deck struc-
prehensive detail. During functional design and beyond, ture showing the distributive system penetrations. The ICD
two major activities occur. One is the development of as- defines the physical interface between the distributive sys-
sembly and installation (A&I) details, that define how each tems in the area above the deck and those in the area below.
piece is mated with another, for example, a stiffener to the Another ICD example is an Outline and Mounting (O&M)
adjacent plate, or a piece of equipment to its foundation. drawing that defines the physical interfaces between a piece
The other activity is the entire process of physical inte- of equipment and its foundation, support system connec-
gration. The A&I details are important to the shipbuilder tions, and adjacent ship structure, joiner work, equipment
but the physical integration process is a much greater chal- and other systems.
lenge to the design team. This process concerns the Physical models and mockups are built when drawings
arrangement of all the items in an area or zone of the ship are not considered to be adequate for full evaluation and
so as to optimize performance, producibility and cost, as physical integration of the design. These situations are typ-
well as eliminate all interferences. Typical items in a zone ically portions of complex, high value ship designs that are
are structure, joiner work, insulation, distributive systems especially congested, such as the propulsion machinery
(for example, power cable, vent ducts and piping), equip- rooms, Navigation Bridge, and ship control spaces.
ment, furniture and other outfit items. To remain compet- As was previously mentioned, today the drawings and
itive, it is mandatory that an efficient physical integration physical models and mockups described above are giving
process be employed. way to the computer-based 3-D geometry model. As the de-
Traditionally, 2-D drawings and physical models and sign team develops the physical details of the design, they
mockups have been used to support the task of physical in- are captured in a single 3-D model that steadily grows in com-
tegration and to document its results. Today, computer-based plexity. Members of the design team can view the model at
3-D geometry models are replacing these techniques. any time and from any point of view. The computer can be
Overlay drawings are transparent, multi-sheet, plan view programmed to identify and flag each physical interference
drawings for a control area showing the deck arrangement, to facilitate their elimination by the design team. Slicing the
overhead structure, lighting arrangement, and the optimum 3-D computer model with any desired intersecting plane can
run for each distributive system. The sheets are overlaid and readily produce any drawing mentioned previously.
5-28 Ship Design & Construction, Volume 1

5.4.4.3 Formal design review overall system effectiveness within cost and schedule con-
The third and concluding activity is a formal design review straints, albeit at the expense of sub-system optimization.
performed at the conclusion of the design phase. During this The SE process transforms an operational need into a com-
review, all elements of the ship design are scrutinized to en- pleted system design employing an iterative process of func-
sure that they are complete, fully integrated, and collectively tional analysis, design synthesis, system analysis, evaluation
describe a ship design that meets the shipowner’s require- and decision, and system documentation. Per the Interna-
ments, is producible, and is economically viable. The DIT tional Council on Systems Engineering (INCOSE), as
plays a leadership role in the final design review. If a specifi- quoted in Table 2 of reference 9, the SE process focuses on
cation is included in the design deliverables, it is also care- defining customer needs and required functionality early in
fully reviewed for completeness, technical accuracy, and the development cycle, documenting requirements, and then
consistency, both internally and with other elements of the proceeding with design and system validation. The SE
design package. After the specification has been completed, process integrates related system technical elements and
it is distributed to all concerned parties for their individual re- ensures the compatibility of all physical, functional, and
views. Comments are collected, collated and again distrib- program interfaces. The SE process embraces technical dis-
uted to all concerned. Finally, a reading session is held to ciplines that cut across the traditional functional discipline
which all parties are invited. At the reading session, the com- boundaries as key elements of the total engineering effort.
ments received on each specification section are reviewed and These disciplines include: reliability, maintainability, sup-
consensus is reached on the disposition of each. Failing con- portability, safety, manning, human factors, survivability, test
sensus, the design team leadership will make the decision. To engineering and production engineering. During system de-
save time, when a difficult issue is identified, it is assigned to velopment, the SE process gives great weight to customer
an individual and taken off-line for further consideration of needs, characterizing and managing technical risk, transi-
the comments received, debate on the issues, and develop- tioning technology from the R&D community into the sys-
ment of a specific recommendation. The recommendation is tem development effort, system test and evaluation, system
then brought back to the reading session for final discussion production, and life cycle support considerations.
and approval. The recommendation may necessitate changes Per reference 10, the objectives of the SE process are:
to other parts of the design package. A specification reading
• ensure that the system definition and design reflect re-
session typically lasts for several weeks. The time is well
quirements for all system elements: hardware, computer
spent, however, since the session is an invaluable opportunity
software, personnel, facilities, and procedural data,
for everyone with a vital interest to voice their concerns and
• integrate the technical efforts of the design team spe-
also hear the concerns of others. The resulting specification
cialists to produce an optimally balanced design,
and design package is greatly improved by this interaction.
• provide a comprehensive indentured framework of sys-
tem requirements for use as performance, design, inter-
face, support, production and test criteria,
5.5 DESIGN TOPICS • provide source data required to produce and test the sys-
tem,
The ship design process is undergoing significant change.
• provide a systems framework for logistic analysis, inte-
This includes the adoption of new tools, new processes, and
grated logistic support (ILS) trade studies, and logistic
new management practices. These trends are briefly dis-
documentation,
cussed in this section. Some are essentially stand alone top-
• provide a systems framework for production engineer-
ics, but others describe approaches that build upon and
ing analysis, producibility trade studies, and produc-
support each other.
tion/manufacturing documentation, and
• ensure that life cycle cost considerations and require-
5.5.1 Systems Engineering ments are fully considered in all phases of the design
process.
5.5.1.1 Description
Systems Engineering (SE) is a formal process for the de- It should be noted that reference 10 is the source of much
sign of complex systems to meet technical performance and of the information presented in this section.
supportability objectives within cost and schedule con-
straints. The SE process involves both technical and man- 5.5.1.2 History
agement aspects. Its principal objective is to achieve the The development of formal SE processes is linked to the
optimum balance of all system elements so as to optimize development of increasingly complex systems utilizing ad-
 Chapter 5: The Ship Design Process 5-29

vanced technologies and incorporating human operators as system! The principal steps in the process are shown in the
well as computers in analysis and decision-making roles. figure. Each step is briefly discussed below.
Increased system complexity has increased emphasis on the Initial Requirements: Initial requirements are needed to
definition of requirements for individual system elements start the system development process. Typically these re-
as well as definition of the interfaces between system ele- quirements are contained in an initial draft system require-
ments. A formal hierarchy of linked requirements is devel- ments document. They reflect an operational need and consist
oped, spanning the gamut from top level total system of mission objectives, environments and constraints, and the
requirements down to requirements for the smallest ele- relevant measures of effectiveness for the new system.
ments of the system. Increased system complexity has also A detailed description of how these initial requirements
seen an explosion in the effort required for computer soft- are developed is beyond the scope of this discussion. Gen-
ware development relative to hardware development. Today, erally they come from the customer for the system with
the software development effort for complex systems may major inputs from the operating forces that are potential
equal or exceed the hardware development effort. Increased system users.
system size and complexity has forced expansion of the en- Functional Analysis: Functional Analysis (FA) is a
gineering workforce required to develop and field the sys- method for analyzing the initial top level requirements for
tem, as well as increased specialization within the workforce. a new system and dividing them into discrete tasks or ac-
Collectively, these trends have inevitably forced the man- tivities. FA defines the essential functions that the system
agers and integrators of complex systems to expand and must perform based on the system mission requirements.
formalize their development procedures and processes under FA consists of two activities: the identification of system
the systems engineering umbrella. functions, and the allocation of system requirements. FA is
The origins of SE go back to well before WW II. How- performed in parallel with the second step in the funda-
ever, the SE process for the development of complex systems mental process, design synthesis, since there must be in-
was first formalized in the mid-1950s in connection with US teractions between the two activities. FA starts with the
Government ballistic missile programs. MIL-STD-499 was
issued in 1969 to provide guidance on SE principles and
processes to the US defense industry. MIL-STD-499A, is-
sued in 1974, has been a foundation document in the devel-
INITIAL
opment of the field. INCOSE was formed in 1990 to support REQUIREMENTS
SE practitioners with guidance documentation and sponsor-
ship of workshops and symposia for the exchange of inno-
= FEEDBACK
vative ideas. MIL-STD-499B was drafted in 1994 but never
issued. In its place, EIA/IS-632, an interim commercial stan- FUNCTIONAL
dard, was issued in June 1994. This document has since been ANALYSIS ITERATIVE TRADE-OFFS
formalized and issued in Jan 1999 as EIA-632.

5.5.1.3 Process DESIGN

The SE process is, in fact, a collection of processes. There SYNTHESIS

is a fundamental process, almost a philosophy, which is sur-

rounded and enhanced by a number of other processes that
complement or focus on particular aspects of the funda- SYSTEM
ANALYSIS
mental process. Examples are processes for risk manage-
ment and requirements development and allocation. The
fundamental SE process is depicted in Figure 5.9.
The process is iterative; it is repeated in increasing de- EVALUATION
AND
tail in each phase of the system development. The funda- DECISION
mental process is also utilized by many elements of the
design team in parallel. It is followed at the total system level
by those with overall responsibility for system integration
SYSTEM
while, at the same time, it is being followed by the devel- DOCUMENTATION
opers of individual subsystems, elements and components.
Remember that one person’s system is another person’s sub- Figure 5.9 The Systems Engineering Process
5-30 Ship Design & Construction, Volume 1

identification of the top level system functions and then pro- flexible format. Performance requirements may be qualita-
gressively allocates the functions to lower levels in the sys- tive or quantitative. The personnel requirements for all tasks
tem, for example, each top level function is subdivided into are defined. Design constraints such as dimensions, weight,
several second tier functions, each of which is further sub- and electric power are defined and documented in the RAS,
divided, and so on. There is a dramatic increase in the num- along with all functional and technical interface require-
ber of functions to be performed at each lower level. A ments. Some performance requirements or design con-
decimal numbering system, applied to each function, is used straints can be allocated to lower levels of the system, for
to maintain traceability between the functions identified. example. weight. A technical budget is established when a
There are five system element types: hardware, computer design or performance parameter is allocated among the
software, facilities (for production and service life support), system elements.
personnel, and procedural data. Each identified function is Design Synthesis: Design synthesis is sometimes called
assigned to one element or to combinations of elements. conceptual design. It provides the engineers’response to the
Each function is described in terms of inputs, outputs, and requirements outputs of functional analysis. Its goal is the
interface requirements. Functional Flow Block Diagrams creation of a system or design concept that best meets the
(FFBDs) are used to document the results of function iden- stated system requirements. Technology options are com-
tification. The FFBD depicts the sequential relationship of bined in a creative process that is constrained by the laws
all the functions to be performed at one level, that is, the of physics. Inputs from all functional areas (engineering
time-phased sequence of the functional events. Some func- specialties) that significantly affect the result are utilized.
tions can be performed in parallel and this is reflected in Typically, several possible technical approaches are postu-
the diagram. The FFBDs are developed at several levels. A lated and, for each approach, several system concepts. For
single function block at Level 1 is subdivided into many each system concept, several design concepts are typically
blocks at Level 2. For some time-critical functions, time synthesized and assessed. Two tools are used to document
line analysis is used to support the functional analysis and the resulting candidate design solutions, that is, the overall
design requirements development. configuration, internal arrangement of system elements, and
Requirements Allocation: Requirements Allocation (RA) principal attributes of each design concept: the Schematic
proceeds after the system functions have been identified in Block Diagram (SBD) and Concept Description Sheet
sufficient detail and candidate system design concepts have (CDS). SBDs define the functions performed by the system
been synthesized. RA defines the performance requirements and the interfaces between system elements. As the concepts
for each functional block depicted in a FFBD and allocates that survive the screening process are developed further,
the functional performance requirements to individual sys- SBDs are developed in greater detail. Ultimately, they are
tem elements (hardware, computer software, personnel, used to develop Interface Control Documents (ICDs). For
technical manuals, or facilities). The performance require- attractive design concepts, physical and analytical system
ments are stated in terms of: 1) purpose of the function, 2) models are developed later in the synthesis process. These
performance requirements, 3) design constraints, and 4) re- models are used to support the subsequent system analysis
quirements for aspects such as reliability, human perform- by means of simulations, for example. The CDS is the ini-
ance, safety, operability, maintainability, and transportability. tial version of the Concept Design Report, a technical re-
RA decomposes the system level requirements to the point port that documents the completed concept design. This
where a specific hardware item, software routine, or trained report includes drawings and technical data such as weights,
crew member will fulfill the needed functional/perform- MEL, etc. The results of system analysis for the concept,
ance requirements. RA is complete when further decom- described next, are also typically included in the report.
position of the functions/tasks does not result in additional System Analysis: Once a design concept has been syn-
requirements for hardware, software, facilities, or person- thesized, its mission effectiveness (overall performance),
nel. Supporting analyses and simulations may be required costs and risks are analyzed. The assessments may be either
to allocate system level requirements. RA is the logical ex- quantitative or qualitative, depending upon the attribute being
tension of the initial functional identification; it is gener- analyzed, the number of candidate concepts, and the extent
ally done prior to completion of preliminary design. to which the concepts have been defined. As the design de-
The end result of RA is the system specification and velopment proceeds, the number of attributes analyzed and
lower tier specifications. RA results are documented using the sophistication and level of detail of the analyses will tend
a Requirements Allocation Sheet (RAS) or the equivalent to increase. Early phase analysis typically consists of quick
commercial computer software. Both performance and de- quantitative assessments using empirical data based on past
sign requirements are captured in the RAS, which has a designs and reflects many simplifying assumptions. For a few
 Chapter 5: The Ship Design Process 5-31

critical aspects of performance, more detailed qualitative as- tem Analysis). Then score the overall mission capabil-
sessments might be made. In the later stages of develop- ity vs. cost. Calculate the cost/capability ratio (or its in-
ment, much more sophisticated modeling and simulation is verse) for each alternative.
done, coupled with physical model tests in some cases. It is • Step 7: Perform sensitivity analysis. Assess the sensitivity
often very difficult to evaluate overall mission effectiveness of the resulting overall score to changes in criteria,
for complex, multi-mission systems. Instead, the aspects of weights, and utility functions. This enables a more in-
performance with major effects on mission effectiveness are formed judgment to be made as to whether one alterna-
identified and analyzed individually. Development, produc- tive is clearly preferred over the others.
tion and operation and support (O&S) costs are typically an-
System Documentation: The system design must be doc-
alyzed for each option being considered. Risk is assessed
umented as it evolves. Traditionally, this has been done on
using standard procedures. Two parameters are evaluated:
paper by means of documents such as specifications, draw-
first, the probability that a failure might occur, and second,
ings, technical reports, and tables of data. Today, this is in-
the potential impact of that failure.
creasingly done utilizing integrated design systems and
Evaluation and Decision: Trade-off studies are an es-
producing the desired documentation on CDs. In the future,
sential part of the systems engineering process. Once sev-
Smart Product Models will contain all necessary design
eral alternative design concepts that satisfy a set of
documentation; see Section 5.5.2.
requirements have been developed and analyzed, the results
of the analysis must be evaluated and a decision made. This
5.5.1.4 Relationship Between Systems Engineering and
is typically done using a standard trade study methodology
Traditional Ship Design
that provides a structured analytical framework for evalu-
van Griethuysen (11) has stated that:
ating a set of alternative design solutions (candidate con-
cepts). There are seven steps in the standard methodology In many ways systems engineering is no more than a gen-
as discussed in reference 10. Each step is briefly described eralized model of, and framework for thinking about, the
below. engineering process, which needs tailoring to be applica-
ble to a particular product and project. It is, therefore, self-
• Step 1: Precisely define the objectives and requirements evident that marine products have always been designed
to be met by the solution candidates (the Functional and produced using a form of “systems engineering” even
Analysis step described previously). if those particular words were rarely used. It is also true
• Step 2: Identify the solution candidates and screen out that much of naval architecture and marine engineering
the obvious losers (Design Synthesis). concerned with design and management is undoubtedly an
• Step 3: Formulate selection criteria and, if possible, de- example of systems engineering.
fine threshold and goal values for each (minimum ac-
It is true that the traditional ship design process is an ex-
ceptable and desired values, respectively).
ample of SE and that naval architects designing ships are
• Step 4: Weight the criteria. Assign numerical weights to
systems engineers. It is also true that the rigor of the SE
each criterion according to its perceived contribution to
overall mission effectiveness. Mathematical techniques
can be used to factor in various opinions as to the pre-
ferred weights. 1
• Step 5: Prepare utility functions. This is a good tech-
nique for translating diverse criteria to a common scale,
for example, comparing speed vs. endurance vs. cargo Shape TBD
Utility Score

capacity vs. on-off-load times for a sealift ship. The util-

0.5
ity score for each criterion varies from 0 to 1, repre-
senting the threshold and goal values, respectively. The
utility function is a curve on a 2-D plot; a notional ex-
ample is shown in Figure 5.10. The shape of the curve
must be defined based on a judgment as to the relative
value of incremental performance improvements at var- 0

ious points in the threshold to goal range. Threshold Value Goal

• Step 6: Evaluate the alternatives. Estimate overall per- Criterion
formance and other required attributes such as risk (Sys- Figure 5.10 Sample Utility Curve
5-32 Ship Design & Construction, Volume 1

process is required to design a successful modern multi- plemented gradually and gracefully; an all or nothing ap-
mission warship or complex commercial ship such as a proach is required.
cruise liner, with all of its hardware, software and human Implementation of CE requires moving from:
factors complexities. The fundamental SE process differs
• department focus to customer focus,
from the traditional ship design process primarily in the
• directed individual or group to coached team,
functional analysis step, including requirements allocation,
• individual interests to team interests,
and, to a lesser extent, in the system analysis step. Naval
• autocratic management to leadership with empowered
architects have not traditionally performed a complete, rig-
followers, and,
orous functional analysis for each new ship design because
• dictated decisions to consensus decisions.
it was not necessary. The ships being designed were not
complex enough to warrant it; the functions to be performed, Such changes are clearly difficult to implement. They re-
the associated performance requirements, and the links be- quire the expenditure of time and money. Perhaps an even
tween these performance requirements and the system el- greater challenge is changing the culture of the organiza-
ements were well understood. Nor have naval architects tion. Top management must understand that CE is not a
traditionally performed the complete system analysis re- quick fix, but there are potential long-term benefits. CE is
quired for complex systems, including the formal and com- not the flavor of the month. Managers and workers at all lev-
prehensive assessment of overall mission effectiveness. The els may be fearful of giving up some individual authority,
functional analysis and rigorous system analysis steps are but they must recognize that change is necessary in order
second nature to combat systems engineers but are not as to remain competitive in a world economy.
familiar to most naval architects and marine engineers. Naval Why then should CE be adopted? The primary benefit
architects and marine engineers who are members of the is improved design and production productivity and design
multi-disciplinary team designing a modern warship must quality (12). This can lead to increased market share. This
understand and actively participate in these processes. is achieved by:
• understanding the customer’s requirements, both qual-
5.5.2 Concurrent Engineering and IPPD itative and quantifiable, and the cost impact of satisfy-
ing these requirements (see Section 5.5.5).
Concurrent Engineering (CE) is the totally integrated, con-
• an objective appraisal of one’s own (current) products
current development of product and process design using
and those of the competition (bench marking), and,
collocated, cross-functional, empowered teams to examine
• minimizing the time (and hence the cost) from initial
both product and process. The essential tenets of CE are cus-
design through production and fielding.
tomer focus, life cycle emphasis, and the acceptance of de-
sign ownership and commitment by all team members. It A basic premise is that the ship designer has many cus-
reflects the view that design, whether it is art or science, tomers. These include the shipbuilder who must take the
should not occur in isolation. products of design and turn them into a ship. It also includes
CE, with its focus on consensus, has its greatest value those who will operate and maintain the completed ship
for developing systems which require widest acceptance through its service life. Experts on crew training and lo-
for their success, such as those that directly impact the sur- gistics are also customers, particularly if the design includes
vival of individuals. This success is also its greatest weak- new technologies. Finally and foremost, the prospective
ness resulting in design by committee and groupthink. It shipowner/operator is a customer.
must be realized that CE is not a science but a human art, These different groups view the ship design from dif-
which cannot be quantified. ferent perspectives. They have different goals and objectives,
In the past in the U.S. there has been widespread em- and they bring different experiences and expertise to the
phasis on work specialization, and the result often has been team. The basic premise of concurrent engineering is that
a stovepipe organizational structure. These walls impede the early involvement of all these different customers will
communications and the transfer of information. CE is not produce a better product. Expressions such as Integrated
new; many of its techniques and tools have been around Product Teams (IPT) and Integrated Product and Process
much longer than CE, but CE packaged them into an inte- Development (IPPD) are now widely discussed. The word
grated philosophy. CE was invented to remove the walls dis- integration is significant. Coupling process and product is
cussed above. Its implementation, therefore, goes to the very also worthy of note, since it recognizes that if you hope to
structure of an organization and its management philosophy improve the product (the ship), you must first examine and
Experience has shown (12,13) that CE cannot be im- improve the processes used to design and build the ship.
 Chapter 5: The Ship Design Process 5-33

What then does the application of CE mean to the ship 5.5.3 Collocation
designer? In the past, ship designs were often developed by The decision to collocate the design team should be non-
a stove piped design organization without the direct, early controversial since it leads to better integration and com-
participation of the future ship’s builder, shipowner, oper- munications, and those intangibles such as teamwork, a
ators and maintainers. Nor were specialists in unique but sense of ownership, and esprit de corps. However, in a large
important disciplines such as manning, cost, safety, relia- engineering organization, many designs or products may
bility, and risk analyses involved from the outset. When be being pursued at the same time, and/or the functional en-
these and other groups did get involved, after the design gineering codes may have other tasks: Research and De-
was largely complete, it was generally in a review and com- velopment (R&D), In-service Engineering (ISE) for ships
ment mode. By this time, changes would be difficult to in- at sea or in overhaul, and fire drills. The argument against
corporate without cost and schedule ramifications. In collocation is that dedicating resources to a single project
addition, an us versus them relationship might exist. would dilute the total available resources. Thus, colloca-
In contrast, a design team that employs CE principles tion can only be justified for high priority, high visibility,
also includes experts in: or high-risk programs. Top management must resolve the
• requirements analysis benefits of, and the counter-arguments to, collocation as it
• cost analysis (acquisition and O&S), sets priorities.
• the Ilities (reliability, maintainability, availability), In the past, collocation referred to physical collocation
• manning, including training, and up to 100 percent dedication. While, it is believed that
• manufacturing/producibility (production engineering), there is still no substitute for face-to-face communications,
• material procurement, today shared computer networks, shared electronic data-
• tests and trials, bases, video teleconferencing, and even e-mail, can allow
• marketing, and the design team to virtually collocate. In some recent ship
• in-service support. acquisitions, ad hoc industry teams have been formed, with
different and, often, new partners. Team members are usu-
A shipowner’s representative is also a team member. ally separated geographically, as well as organizationally,
The basic premise of CE is that it is better to make design and electronic collocation is a given. In such a distributed
decisions (at all Levels) based on real time (or near real time) design environment, communications, database manage-
feedback from all who have an interest in designing, produc- ment, and security must receive a high priority in planning,
ing, marketing, operating, and servicing the final product. maintenance, and operations. If a key communications sys-
This approach has a common-sense appeal, and CE, IPT, tem goes down, productivity quickly suffers. Face to face
and IPPD have achieved a certain vogue in the US, within meetings should still occur regularly. The design manage-
both industry and the Government. These approaches are ment plan must ensure that sufficient resources are provided
adopted in order to get disparate groups to communicate bet- for the tools needed to support the virtual collocated team,
ter and thus to eliminate the stovepipes. They are, there- and for the necessary travel.
fore, a means to an end. Of interest, some other shipbuilding
countries have seen no need to take such measures, having
a successful tradition of getting groups to work in concert 5.5.4 Integrated Design Systems/Modeling and
without the need for formal, ad hoc CE teams. Simulation
The term concurrent engineering is sometimes confused The application of computers to the ship design process
with concurrent development. The latter primarily refers to continues to evolve. In the (not that distant) past, a design
warships where new systems (combat, weapons, and propul- site could be recognized by:
sion) may be developed simultaneously with ship design de-
• many engineers working with pencils and paper, hand
velopment. This presents a unique set of risks and
books, mechanical calculators, slide rules, and trig ta-
challenges. If new, fully defined, systems are frozen too
bles, and
soon, they may prove to be obsolescent when the ship is com-
• a large number of draftsmen laboring over drawing
pleted years later, particularly electronic systems. Yet, if se-
boards with T-square’s, triangles, French curves, battens
lection is delayed to permit the concurrent development and
and batten weights (ducks).
maturing of new systems, these systems may prove to be
difficult to integrate when their ship impact characteristics Perhaps the first computer applications used computer
(space, weight, kW, manning, etc.) are well defined. This programs written to solve discrete, math-intensive prob-
topic, however, is beyond the scope of this chapter. lems in order to save labor and achieve more consistently
5-34 Ship Design & Construction, Volume 1

accurate results. This required adapting physics-based mod- chines that performed very discrete tasks (for example,
els (PBM) to the computer. Languages were rudimentary milling machines). Later, computer lofting was used to di-
by today’s standards, data was input by punch cards and mensionally describe structural plates and shapes and, ul-
batch processed on a mainframe in non-real time (often over timately, to direct cutting heads and shaping rollers.
night), and output was typically tabular numerical data; Eventually, shipyards developed 3-D computer models to
graphical output lay in the future. As local PCs became aid in interference checking between systems competing
available (and later, powerful engineering workstations), for space within a compartment. Previously this had been
turnaround time was reduced. These engineering programs accomplished by overlaying 2-D drawings on a light table.
(there are scores in the marine field alone) were developed Shipyards procured commercial CAM programs, or devel-
by engineers (and organizations) to suit their specific needs, oped their own, or created hybrids. There were no industry
often on an ad hoc, stand-alone basis. Accordingly, many standards; indeed, the shipyards viewed these programs as
different computer languages were used, documentation proprietary.
was often meager, and the various programs could not talk Essentially all of the CAE, CAD, and CAM programs
to each other. Over time, commercial programs were de- discussed above were developed independently, some by
veloped in the U.S. and overseas. This field is described as Governments (navies) and some by industry. These stand-
Computer Aided Engineering (CAE) (see Chapter 13 – alone programs solved discrete problems. Standards and in-
Computer Based Tools). terfaces were poorly defined. There was little or no linkage.
At the total ship level, computer-based ship design syn- What has been described thus far represented at best a
thesis models have been in use for several decades. They federation of a myriad of programs. The next step was to
permit a large number of concept alternatives to be gener- develop a truly integrated design system (Figure 5.11).
ated quickly. Such models are only as good as their data- CAD programs describe the geometry of a system or,
bases, and thus are not as useful when an entirely new (novel) even the total ship. A natural extension to the use of CAD
design is being considered. They provide answers that are has been the relatively recent development of 3-D digital
relatively correct, which is adequate for making compar- product models. In addition to providing an accurate geo-
isons. metric description, they also include product characteristics
Soon, the computer also started to be used to generate such as mass, material properties, electric power/cooling
2-D lines drawings using commercial software. Even with requirements, and manning requirements.
a skilled practitioner, establishing the initial baseline was Originally conceived to facilitate communications be-
relatively slow, but subsequent changes and revisions could tween design team members, product models are becom-
be incorporated much more rapidly than in the manual ing the primary vehicles for transmitting the ship design
process. The next evolutionary step was to 3-D computer description to the shipbuilder. This has the potential to elim-
drawings (or solid models). Preparing 3-D drawings by hand inate the need for the shipbuilder to develop its own 3-D
required art as well as science. Technology enables the rapid model. This reduces time, cost, and the introduction of er-
preparation of 3-D computer drawings based on an avail- rors. Issues such as interface standards and protocols must,
able 2-D baseline. This field is described as CAD (Com- however, be addressed. In addition, upon ship delivery, the
puter Aided Design; see Chapter 13 – Computer Based as-built 3-D product model will provide the basis for con-
Tools). figuration control and managing changes throughout the
In the 1980s, drawings (analog or digital) described the ship’s operational life.
ship’s geometry. Interference checking in highly congested CAE programs describe the behavior of a system, or
areas of the ship was very difficult, labor intensive and time- even the total ship. A natural extension to the use of nu-
consuming. Many times problems would not be discovered merous CAE codes has been the relatively recent develop-
until ship construction started, resulting in costly and time- ment of dynamic (vice static) physics-based models.
consuming rework. Today, highly congested areas of the In a recent U.S. Navy design of an amphibious warfare
ship can be modeled in 3-D (solid modeling). This might ship, dynamic physics-based modeling was used to quan-
include piping systems, structures, installed equipment, ven- tify the forces placed on the boat crane when handling boats
tilation ducting, electric power cables, passageways, doors, in Sea State 3. (The seakeeping analysis for the selected
and ladders. Potential interference problems can readily be hull form was imported into the program to provide ship
identified and resolved. motions). The program was used to evaluate commercial
Independently, shipbuilders (and others) were applying cranes to see if they could satisfy the requirement. Perfor-
the power of the computer to manufacturing (CAM). Ini- mance parameters were then used to specify system re-
tially this was restricted to NC (numerically controlled) ma- quirements in commercial terms, and eliminate the use of
 Chapter 5: The Ship Design Process 5-35

the typical multi-tier military specification. This is an ex- and provide feedback to the designers. Virtual prototyping
ample of the application of an Integrated Design System has been used to mimic the loading and off-loading of
(IDS) where the geometry model and the engineering analy- tracked and wheeled vehicles from a sealift ship.
sis models can readily communicate with one another. The ultimate goal is to be able to conceive, design, build,
When a 3-D product model and physics-based models and test the ship in a computer long before any manufac-
are married, the result is a smart product model (SPM). The turing proceeds.
SPM can also include bills of material, manufacturing
processes, maintenance requirements, and cost analysis
tools—the list is endless.When the SPM is combined with 5.5.5 Risk Analysis
state-of-the art visualization and high-speed computers, sim- The dictionary defines risk as a chance or possibility of dan-
ulation based design/virtual prototyping (SBD/VP) becomes ger, loss, injury, etc. Risk is part of life. It results from the
possible. As is well known, ships are rarely prototyped be- inability to accurately predict the future, and a degree of un-
cause of the time and cost involved. There is no real fly be- certainty that is significant enough to be noticed. Any key
fore buy. As a result, in series production many ships may factor that is unknown represents risk. Risk is therefore tied
be under construction before the lead ship delivers. To min- to knowledge or, more accurately, the lack thereof (see
imize risk, developmental systems may be tested in land- Chapter 19 – Reliability-based Structural Design).
based test sites or at sea. This, however, is expensive and, The synthesis and analysis of an engineering system
for naval ships, occurs late in the ship development cycle. often involves the development of a model. Today this fre-
The ship as a whole is not tested until after delivery. It is quently means a computer-based model. In fact, however,
only then that the actual performance achieved can be meas- a model is simply an abstraction of reality, and engineers
ured against the desired capabilities established many years have always employed them (a sketch of a ship or a system
earlier. At this stage, schedule and cost considerations pre- or a mathematic expression or formula is therefore a model).
clude correcting all but the most severe deficiencies. SBD/VP Model uncertainties arise because of simplifying assump-
offers the opportunity to short circuit this process by the use tions, simplified methods, and idealized representations of
of virtual ship prototypes in a virtual environment. real (physical) behavior and performance.
In the deck crane example mentioned above, experienced At the beginning of the design process, knowledge can
deck seamen were able to operate the crane in real time, be categorized three ways:

GEOMETRY:

CAD 3-D INTERACTION

SYSTEMS PRODUCT
MODEL

BEHAVIOR: SMART
VIRTUAL
REAL-TIME
PRODUCT VISUALIZATION
PHYSICS- PROTOTYPE
CAE MODEL SYSTEMS
BASED
CODES
MODEL

VIRTUAL ENVIRONMENT
MANU-
FACTURING
MODEL
OTHER FINANCIAL
CHARACTERISTICS: MODEL

LOGISTICS
MODEL

Figure 5.11 Integrated Design System

5-36 Ship Design & Construction, Volume 1

1. that which is known, qualitatively described. The design engineer has tradition-
2. that which is unknown, but known to be unknown, and ally been primarily concerned with technical risk (perform-
3. that which is unknown, and not known to be unknown. ance), but should also be concerned with cost and schedule
risks since design decisions may influence them. There are
An example of something that is known is the body of also secondary risk areas such as the market place, national
knowledge. This might be publicly available or unique to and world economic trends, energy crises, availability of
the team (proprietary). There should be no risks associated labor, legislation, etc. Risks are identified after an analysis
with applying this knowledge. of the customer’s requirements and constraints, and an as-
In the ship design process, however, not everything can sessment of the needed technologies and capabilities.
be known at the beginning. During the early concept stages, After the risks are identified, they are prioritized so that
for example, simplifying assumptions are made based on management attention and resources can be focused on those
experience, parametric studies, or databases of similar ships. risks that are most important. A common approach is to es-
As the design matures, analysis, detailed engineering, and timate both the likelihood of an event (probability of oc-
model tests will confirm (or modify) the earlier assump- currence) and the associated consequences. The probability
tions. This is a part of normal design development, and mar- of occurrence will range from zero to unity. High proba-
gins may be applied to ensure that the performance bilities will be assigned, for example, when the required
envelopes are not violated. Typical margins include technology is pushing the state of the art and is untested.
speed/power, weight and VCG, but may also include kW Conversely, a low probability of occurrence is assigned
and HVAC requirements, and manning (accommodations). when using proven technology or off-the-shelf equipment.
It also may be prudent to develop fallback positions. Since Next, for each risk the severity of consequence is estimated
the genesis of risk is uncertainty, applying additional engi- (severity could also be ranked on a zero to unitary scale).
neering resources may be appropriate (for example, apply A high number is assigned if the program is threatened (ei-
resources to accelerate model testing, or the development ther from a performance, cost, or schedule viewpoint). A
and testing of a new system). As the design matures, the low number is assigned when there are fallback positions.
known unknowns will move into the known category and When the two numbers are multiplied together, an overall
risks will be reduced. risk ranking is produced.
In ship design development there are also unknown un- While is it impossible to avoid value judgments (that is,
knowns. By definition, they cannot be quantified, and are dif- bias and preconceptions), the assessment should be as ob-
ficult to anticipate. History tells us, however, that on a jective and consistent as possible.
statistically significant basis they will arise. Examples in- Commercial software programs are available to assist in
clude an unanticipated change in shipowner requirements or these tasks. The more sophisticated might explore the prem-
a new shipowner or major decision maker for government ise that probabilities are not unique but, rather are distrib-
programs, major cost or schedule changes, loss of key de- uted (a rectangular or triangular function might be assumed,
sign personnel, an energy crisis or labor unrest causing loss or a bell shaped curve, or a skewed curve). Monte Carlo sim-
of productivity during construction, new national or interna- ulations can be applied in a computer model a large number
tional regulations, a technology breakthrough (or a technol- of times until the pattern becomes evident. These programs
ogy failure), and a major vendor leaving the business or are also useful for conducting sensitivity analyses.
ceasing production of a line of equipment. Another example Risk Management is the process of selecting alternatives
that falls into the category of an unknown-unknown is human and deciding how to mitigate an assessed risk. For purposes
error. Anticipating such risks is obviously quite difficult since of this discussion, the designer is primarily concerned with
it can only be done subjectively, even if by experts. engineering risks, but risk management involves consider-
Design has been defined as the selection and integration ation of a variety of factors including engineering, tech-
of systems and subsystems to meet the requirements and nology, economics, political, legal, and even cultural
constraints. Risk, whether technical, cost, or schedule, must considerations. Risk mitigation can be designed to either re-
be of concern to the design team. Every effort must be made duce the probability of occurrence of a risk, or the conse-
to identify risks and work to reduce them during the design quences, or both. After alternative risk mitigation actions
and construction process. This activity is termed Risk Analy- have been developed and the cost to execute them estimated,
sis. Risk analysis consists of three major components: risk senior managers decide which to implement.
assessment, risk management, and risk communications. Risk Communications is the process by which informa-
Risk Assessment is the process of deciding how signifi- tion is exchanged about risk. During the course of design
cant a potential hazard is. First, the hazards are identified and development, risks must be tracked and reported. Risk
 Chapter 5: The Ship Design Process 5-37

should be an agenda item during all design reviews. If there tributes, weights, etc. The latter three methods all represent
are a large number of risk areas, periodic risk reviews can improvements over the traditional weighted sum technique
be held to ensure that all risks are being managed, that the at the expense of added complexity. Including risk and un-
assessments are current, and that the mitigation plans are certainty in the evaluation is desirable; however, doing so
achieving their desired results. If new risks are identified, adds further complexity. The reference presents a quantita-
they must be assessed as described previously, and mitiga- tive method for performing cost-effectiveness trade-offs
tion plans developed. using the DDG 51 as a ship design example. The impor-
tance of evaluating cost and effectiveness separately in per-
forming such trade-offs is emphasized. They are independent
5.5.6 Decision-making qualities. If the cost and effectiveness FOMs for each al-
Decisions must be made at every stage of the design de- ternative are plotted, the design team may be fortunate
velopment process in the course of choosing among the enough to find that the optimum solutions plot along a rough
technical alternatives that are typically available to meet curve. In this case, the best of the optimum solutions will
functional requirements. There are two classes of decisions generally lie at the knee of the curve.
(14), namely when: Quality Function Deployment (QFD) is a management
tool developed by a Japanese shipbuilder in the late sixties
1. technical alternatives are finite and available (as in a cat-
to support the design process for large ships. QFD is a
alogue), and
method for structured product planning and development.
2. alternatives must be synthesized.
It translates customer requirements into requirements for the
Traditionally, it has been assumed for both classes of product development team. QFD has also been defined as
decisions that the technical requirements are mutually com- a system for designing a product or service based on cus-
patible. Thus feasible alternatives can be developed, selec- tomer demands and involving all members of the producer
tion criteria (an objective function) established, the criteria or supplier organization. QFD is a planning and decision
applied and a selection made. No real decision-making is making tool; it is a good example of concurrent develop-
involved. However, when the requirements governing a se- ment. QFD enables the development team to identify the
lection are in conflict, which is often the case in design sit- customer’s wants and needs and then to systematically eval-
uations, the designer’s priorities will determine the solution. uate each potential product attribute in terms of its contri-
In such cases, the decision-making process is as important bution to satisfying the needs. The process involves
as the facts upon which the decision is based. Multiple Cri- constructing one or more matrices or quality tables; see Fig-
teria Decision Making (MCDM) methods (15) are designed ure 5.12, from reference 16. Matrix 1 in the figure is termed
to address this kind of problem. The MCDM approach clar- the House of Quality (HOQ) due to its shape.
ifies the trade-offs between objectives and permits them to The first step in the process is to identify the customer’s
be manipulated; better decisions are the result. requirements such as wants and needs, likes and dislikes,
There is a large array of methods that deal with multiple termed the WHATS. The customer is defined as any user of
criteria problems. Four Multi-Attribute Decision Making the design. Thus there is typically more than one customer,
(MADM) models are described, evaluated and demonstrated for example, the shipowner, the ship operators (future crew),
in reference 15. They are: the shipbuilders, the future ship maintainers, etc. The needs
and desires of these customers are identified, based on con-
• Weighted Sum
sensus, and then prioritized (weighted). Many representa-
• Hierarchical Weighted Sum
tives of each customer group might be polled to assist in
• Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP)
this step.
• Multi-Attribute Utility (MAU) Analysis.
The next step is to develop the HOWS, that is, the de-
All of these MADM methods simplify and clarify the sign requirements (technical measures of performance) that,
design decision-making process by transforming multi-di- if met, will produce satisfied customers. There must be at
mensional decision problems to a single criterion, a Figure least one HOW for each WHAT and there may be more.
of Merit (FOM), which is used to indicate the overall de- Also, each HOW will typically influence more than one
sign goodness for each alternative. All the methods allow WHAT. The HOWS and WHATS are then correlated by
subjective assessments to be translated into quantitative val- means of a 2-D matrix, the WHATS along the left side and
ues for evaluation purposes. The quantification process does the HOWS along the top. This matrix, the HOQ, is an ef-
not make the decision process objective, but it does allow fective aid in untangling the complex web of relationships
the design team to explore the effects of their choices of at- between the WHATS and the HOWS. The HOWS associ-
5-38 Ship Design & Construction, Volume 1

HOQ: “Hows” 2: “Hows” 3: “Hows”

2: “Hows” Priorities
“Whats” Priorities

“Hows” Priorities
HOQ: "Whats"

HOQ: “Hows”

2: “Hows”
HOQ:

HOQ:
House of Quality Matrix 2 Matrix 3

HOQ: “Hows” 2: “Hows” 3: “Hows”

Priorities Priorities Priorities

Figure 5.12 QFD Matrix Chain

ated with each WHAT are noted in the appropriate boxes opment process. The brief outline above is intended only to
of the matrix and the strength of each association is esti- give the reader an indication of the basic QFD goals and
mated. By this means, the relative benefits of each HOW approach. In addition to providing design guidance, QFD
can be expressed numerically, that is, the HOWS can be shines at facilitating self-interviews within the design team,
prioritized or weighted. In addition, the HOWS can be cor- consensus building and improving communications among
related with one another and the strengths of the relation- the stakeholders in a large project.
ships noted. This is done in the attic of the HOQ.
Strong positive correlations indicate synergy and possi-
bly duplication. Negative correlations indicate conflicts and
5.6 REFERENCES
opportunities for trade-offs. Ultimately, the HOWS are quan-
tified by “how much,” that is, specific performance objec- 1. Lamb, T., “Engineering for Ship Production,” Journal of Ship
tives expressed in measurable terms. In more sophisticated Production, Vol. 3, No. 4, November 1985, pp 254–295
analyses, the cost of each HOW is estimated (design de- 2. Lamb, T. “Engineering for Ship Production,” NSRP Pub.
velopment, construction, and TOC). This can be combined 0219, Jan 1986
with the weights (relative importance) of the WHATS, and 3. Evans, J. H., “Basic Design Concepts,” ASNE Journal, No-
vember 1959
the development team can see what the cost vs. perform-
4. Buxton, I. L., “Matching Merchant Ship Designs to Mar-
ance actually is. kets,” Transactions, North East Coast Institution of Engi-
Typically, the HOWS in the HOQ (Matrix 1) are not suf- neers and Shipbuilders, 98, pp 91–104
ficiently detailed to be used directly in product design. The 5. Lamb, T and Clarke, J. “Build Strategy Development,” Ship
matrix chain depicted in Figure 5.12 is provides the required Production Symposium, Seattle, WA, 1995
definition. In each successive matrix, the WHATS are the 6. Wilkins, J. R. Jr., Singh, P., and Cary, T., “Generic Build
HOWS from the preceding matrix and the HOWS repre- Strategy—A Preliminary Design Experience,” Journal of
sent a more specific, detailed decomposition of the per- Ship Production, 12: 1, February 1996, pp 11–19
formance measures, attributes and characteristics of the 7. Storch, R. L., Hammon, C. P., Bunch, H. M., and Moore, R.
product being developed. C., Ship Production, Second Edition, SNAME, 1995
In each successive matrix, correlations can be identified 8. Lackenby, H., “On the Systematic Geometrical Variation of
and the strengths of these correlations can be judged. By Ship Forms,” Transactions, RINA, 92, 1950, p 289
9. Calvano, C. N., Jons, O. and Keane, R. G. “Systems Engi-
this multi-step process, the customers’desires can be linked
neering in Naval Ship Design,” ASNE Naval Engineers Jour-
to system features and the relative importance of various nal, 112: 4, July 2000
system features can be assessed. This knowledge can be 10. Defense Systems Management College, “Systems Engi-
used to influence the allocation of design resources and the neering Management Guide,” January 1990
numerous trade-off decisions that must be made during de- 11. van Griethuysen, W. J., “Marine Design—Can Systems En-
sign development. The QFD approach and philosophy can gineering Cope,” Proceedings of the 7th International Ma-
be applied to numerous other aspects of the product devel- rine Design Conference, May 21–24, 2000, Kyongju, Korea
 Chapter 5: The Ship Design Process 5-39

12. Lamb, T. and Bennett, J., “Concurrent Engineering: Appli- Miller, R. T., “A Ship Design Process,” Marine Technology, Oc-
cation and Implementation for U.S. Shipbuilding,” Ship Pro- tober 1965, SNAME
duction Symposium, Seattle, WA, 1995 Mistree, F., Smith, W. F., et al, “Decision-Based Design: A Con-
13. Lamb, T., “CE or Not CE? That is the Question,” Ship Pro- temporary Paradigm for Ship Design,” Transactions, SNAME,
duction Symposium, New Orleans, LA, 1997 Vol. 98, 1990, pp 565–595
14. “IMDC State of the Art Report on Design Methodology,” Sejd, J. J., “Marginal Cost—A Tool in Designing to Cost,” ASNE
Sixth International Marine Design Conference, Newcastle, Naval Engineers Journal, December 1954
England, 1995, 2. Penshaw Press, Cleadon, Sunderland SR Spaulding, K.B. and Johnson, A.F., “Management of Ship Design
6 5UX, UK at the Naval Ship Engineering Center,” ASNE Naval Engineers
15. Whitcomb, C. A., “Naval Ship Design Philosophy Imple- Journal, February 1956
mentation,” ASNE Journal, January 1998 Tibbitts, B. F., Comstock, E., Covich, P. M., and Keane, R. G.,
16. Cohen, L., Quality Function Deployment, How to Make QFD “Naval Ship Design in the 21st Century,” Transactions,
Work for You, Addison-Wesley Publishing Co., New York, SNAME, 1993
1995 Tibbitts, B. F. and Keane, R. G., “Making Design Everybody’s
Job—The Warship Design Process,” ASNE Journal, May 1995
Watson, D. G. M., “Estimating Preliminary Dimensions in Ship
5.7 BIBLIOGRAPHY Design,” Transactions, The Institution of Engineers and Ship-
builders in Scotland, Vol. 105, 1961–62
5.7.1 General Watson, D. G. M. and Gilfillan, A. W., “Some Ship Design Meth-
Andrews, D., “Creative Ship Design,” RINA, The Naval Archi- ods,” Transactions RINA, Vol. 119, 1955
tect, November 1981
Andrews, D., “An Integrated Approach to Ship Synthesis,” RINA,
The Naval Architect, No. 4, April 1986 5.7.2 Systems Engineering
Andrews, D., “The Management of Warship Design,” Transac- Arnold, S., Brook, P., Jackson, K. and Stevens, R., Systems Engi-
tions RINA, 1992 neering—Coping with Complexity, Prentice Hall Europe, 1998
Andrews, D., “Preliminary Warship Design,” Transactions RINA, Blanchard, Chestnut, H., Bibliography of Systems Engineering
1993 Methods, John Wiley & Sons, 1967
Bronikowski, R. J., Managing the Engineering Design Function, Duren, B. G. and Pollard, J. R., “Building Ships as a System: An
Van Nostrand Reinhold Company, Inc., New York, 1986 Approach to Total Ship Integration,” ASNE Journal, Sep-
Brower, K. S. and Walker, K. W., “Ship Design Computer Pro- tember 1997
grams—An Interpolative Technique,” ASNE Journal, May Goode, H. H. and Machol, R. E., Systems Engineering, McGraw
1986 Hill, New York, 1959
Brown, D. K., “Defining a Warship,” ASNE Journal, March 1986 Hoclberger, W. A., “Total System Ship Design in a Super-system
Brown, D. K. and Tupper, E. C., “The Naval Architecture of Sur- Framework,” ASNE Journal, May 1996
face Warships,” RINA, The Naval Architect, March 1989, p 29 Karaszewski, Z., “Application of Systems Engineering and Risk-
Clarke, H. D., “Cost Leverages in Ship Design,” ASNE Journal, based Technology in Ship Safety Criteria Determinations,”
June 1956 U.S. Coast Guard, Arlington, VA
Eames, M. C. and Drummond, T. G., “Concept Exploration—an Lake, J. G., “Unraveling the Systems Engineering Lexicon,” Pro-
Approach to Small Warship Design,” Transactions, RINA, ceedings of the International Council on Systems Engineer-
Volume 19, 1955 ing, 1996
Erichsen, S., Management of Marine Design, Butterworths, Lon- Maier, M. W. and Rechtin, E., The Art of Systems Architecting,
don, 1989 CRC Press, Boca Raton, Florida, 2000
Gallin, C., “Inventiveness in Ship Design,” Transactions, North- Proceedings of the International Council on Systems Engineer-
east Coast Institution of Engineers and Shipbuilders, Vol. 94, ing, April 5–8. 2000, Reston, VA.
1955–58
Harrington, R. L., “Economic Considerations in Shipboard De-
sign Trade-off Studies,” Marine Technology, April 1969 5.7.3 Concurrent Engineering and IPPD
Johnson, R. S., “The Changing Nature of the U.S. Navy Ship De- Clausing, D., Total Quality Development—A Step-by Step Guide
sign Process,” ASNE Journal, April 1980 to World Class Concurrent Engineering, ASME Press, 1994
Lamb, T., “A Ship Design Procedure,” Marine Technology, Oc- Cote, M. et al, “IPPD—The Concurrent Approach to Integrating
tober 1969, SNAME Ship Design, Construction and Operation,” 1995 Ship Pro-
Leopold, R., “Innovation Adoption in Naval Ship Design,” ASNE duction Symposium
Journal, December 1955 “DoD Guide to Integrated Product and Process Development (Ver-
Lyon, T., “A Calculator-Based Preliminary Ship Design Proce- sion 1.0),” Office of the Under Secretary of Defense (Acqui-
dure,” Marine Technology, Vol. 19, No. 2, April 1982, SNAME sition and Technology), June 1996
5-40 Ship Design & Construction, Volume 1

Huthwaite, B., Strategic Design: A Guide to Managing Concur- tion & Virtual Prototyping Conference, Arlington, VA, June
rent Engineering, Institute of Competitive Design, 1994 24–26, 1996 (Proceedings available in two volumes)
Keane, R. G. and Tibbitts, B. F., “A Revolution in Warship De- Boudreaux, J. S., “Naval Ships and Simulation Based Design,”
sign: Navy–Industry Integrated Product Teams (IPTs),” Transactions, SNAME, 103, 1995, pp 111–129
SNAME Ship Production Symposium, 14–16 February 1996 Jons, O. P., Ryan, J. C., and Jones, G., “Use of Virtual Environ-
“OIPT-WIPT Information Guide,” Office of the Under Secretary ments in the Design of Ships,” ASNE Naval Engineers Jour-
of Defense for Acquisition Reform, March 1996 nal, May 1994
“Rules of the Road: a Guide for Leading Successful Integrated Ross, J. M., “Integrated Ship Design and Its Role in Enhancing
Product Teams,” Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition Ship Production,” Journal of Ship Production, 11: 1, Febru-
and Technology, November 1995 ary 1995, pp 56–62

5.7.4 Integrated Design Systems/Modeling and Simulation 5.7.5 Risk Analysis

Baron, N. T. and Newcomb, J. W., “Modeling and Simulation for Karaszewski, A. J., Ayyub, B. M., and Wade, M., “Risk Analysis
Integrated Topside Design,” ASNE Journal, November 1995, and Marine Industry Standards,” 1995 Ship Production Sym-
p 29 posium
Billingsley, D. W. and Morgan, T. P., “Assembling the Modeling Walsh, S.P., “An Improved Method of Risk Analysis for the Naval
and Simulation Puzzle,” ASNE/SNAME Modeling, Simula- Ship Design Process,” MS Thesis, MIT, June 1985