A Farewell to the Design Spiral

Horst Nowacki,
Technische Universität Berlin

Invited Note Presented at the

Mini-Symposium on
Ship Design, Ship Hydrodynamics
&Maritime Safety
Athens, September 30, 2016

30 September 2016 1
Contents

1. Introduction
2. Early History of the Design Spiral
3. Innovation in Ship Design Methodology
4. Modern Concepts of Ship Design
5. Comparison Sequential vs. Concurrent
Engineering
6. Achievements and Contributions
7. Conclusions and Congratulations
References
2
1. Introduction

My note will actually combine three farewells:

 Farewell to the design spiral

(from sequential to concurrent design)
 Farewell to 20th century design methodology
(abandoning single ship viewpoint)
 Farewell to Prof. Papanikolaou after more than
30 years of research and teaching at NTUA
(1985-2016)

3
1. Introduction (cont.)

I claim the design spiral is an incomplete,

inflexible, misleading and hence obsolete paradigm
of the design process.

It ought to be replaced by a systems analysis

based, concurrent engineering, team work
oriented paradigm.

4
2. Early History of the Design Spiral: Evans (1959)

J. Harvey Evans: 1958, 1959, 1963,

[1] ,[2], [3].
„Optimized Design of Midship
Section“.
Spiral depicts sequential, cyclical
decision process . Purpose: Optimal,
low weight midship section structure.
Basis: Class rules.

At every intersection of a spoke with

a spiral a calculation task is
performed to update the structure.
Result: Low weight, feasible design.

5
2. Early History of the Design Spiral: MarAd (1965)

Murphy, Sabat, Taylor,

MarAD, 1965: „Low cost ship
design.“
Scope: Preliminary design
cycles up to reliable cost
estimate.
Sequential, cyclical approach
in rigid sequence.
Univariate systematic
variation with constraints.
Rules based.
Result: Single feasible ship
with lowest building and fuel
cost.

6
2. Early History of the Design Spiral: BSRA

Hurst, Buxton, BSRA,

1991/92.
Design spiral for
preliminary design up to
shipyard tender.
Elaborate sequence of
design steps. Basis of
software system
BRITSHIPS. Sequential,
cyclical approach with
increasing complexity.
Result: Single feasible ship
with economically reliable
tender.

7
2. Early History of the Design Spiral: SDC (1980)

Ship Design and Construction,

Kiss, Taggart (1980)
Gale, Lamb (2003)
Both editions drawn from Evans.
Sequential, cyclical approach.

Preliminary design up to contract

design. Subdivision into 4 design
phases.Result: Single feasible design
of low cost. Used in parametric design
studies.

8
2. Early History of the Design Spiral: Comparison
Design Spirals

No. Author(s) Date Criterion Scope Basis Objective

J.H. Evans Weight or Midship Class. Cheapest or

1 [1], [2], [3] 1959 Cost Section rules lightest
Structure structure

MarAd Prelim. Least cost

2 (Murphy et al.) 1965 Least Cost Design Rules ship
[4]

BSRA (Hurst, RFR, NPV, Design up

3 Buxton) 1971 Tradeoffs to tender Rules Best tenders
[5], [6]

SDC (Kiss, Prelim. Economic,

4 Gale) 1980 Cost Design Rules feasible design
[7], [8]

Papanikolaou From Basis for

5 [9] 2014 Same as in No. 4 rules to optimization
goals

9
3. Innovation in Ship Design Methodology

Innovative Elements:
• Systems Engineering (1950)
• Computer Aided Design (1965)
• Optimization (1965)
• Economization (1967)
• Parametric Design (1970)
• Discretized Analysis Tools (1980)
• Concurrent Engineering (1985)
• Probabilistic Risk Analysis (2000)
• Globalization (2000)
• Open Systems Communication (2000)
10
3. Innovation in Ship Design Methodology (cont
cont.)
.)

R = Requirements
S = Solution Space
D = Design variables
P = Parameters
M = Measure of merit
C = Constraints
The Systems Approach

11
4. Modern Concepts in Ship Design

• The Product Model

• The Process Model
• The Concurrent Engineering Approach

12
4. Modern Concepts in Ship Design: The Product Model

The Product Model contains all the data

describing the ship in its design,
production and potentially operating
phases (Life Cycle Product Model).
The Product Model is built up step by
step by synthesis actions and is
analyzed at each stage by analytical
methods. Thus it is gradually
completed.
The sequence of steps in developing the
product model is in principle arbitrary.
Whenever the information is incomplete
for performing a certain step, it must be
substituted by provisional, assumed or
approximated data. Thus the product
model is open to overlapping
concurrent engineering actions.
13
4. Modern Concepts in Ship Design: The Process Model

The Product Model ought be supplemented by a

Process Model, which describes all the activities
that lead to the completion of the product and
potentially in its operation throughout its life.

The Process Model is formulated in terms of the

network of activities in the product lifecycle or at
least to its delivery. This activity model is
expressed by a set of transactions and events.

14
4. Modern Concepts in Ship Design
Design:: Concurrent Engineering
On the other hand parallel work on related
design phases requires close control of
mutual dependencies, careful coordination
and good team work. Such close control
causes extra efforts and cost. Thus labor cost
may not diminish.
In Concurrent Engineering
the activities of several team
members may deal with
several overlapping phases
simultaneously and need not
await the completion of the
preceding phases. See
Figure. Whenever infor-
mation from other phases is
missing, it may be
substituted by provisional
assumptions and approxi-
mations. This saves time
toward earlier completion.
Earlier product delivery is a
competitive advantage.
15
5. Comparison of Sequential vs. Concurrent Engineering

Trends in Ship Design Methodology (ca. 1970-2016)

Subject Approach ca. 1970 Modern approach

Paradigm Design spiral paradigm Systems paradigm

Sequence Consecutive steps Overlapping design phases

Design process Sequential engineering Concurrent engineering

Responsibilities Single persons, one after Several persons in design

another team

Regulatory basis Rule based design New IMO approach

Design logic Rule based design Goal based design (IMO)

16
5. Comparison of Sequential vs. Concurrent Engineering (cont
(cont.)
.)

Trends in Ship Design Methodology (ca. 1970-2016)

Subject Approach ca. 1970 Modern approach

Decision basis Semi-empirical Rational

Uncertainty Deterministic model Probabilistic model

Treatment

Treatment of Several univariate passes Multivariate continuum

Parameters

Solution search Trial and error Optimization with

constraints

Criteria Single objective function Multiple measures of merit

and multiple constraints and constraints

Scope of goals Favorable tender by builder Owner’s life cycle cost

17
6. Achievements and Contributions
Ship design in the past three or four decades has experienced
many new achievements. Prof. Papanikolaou and his team at
NTUA have made significant contributions to most of them.
To mention only a few top areas of innovation:
In design methodology:
 Economic efficiency (quantification)
 Safety and risk assessment (probabilistic models)
 Rationality (measures of merit, cause and effect)
 Optimality (unified format, multimodality, MCO)
 Versatility (greater scope and depth, many new ship types)
 Accounting for environmental safety
 Risk Based Ship Design
18
6. Achievements and Contributions (cont.)

In computer technology:
 Integration (neutral interfaces)
 Open communication (data sharing and exchange)
 Longevity (neutral archiving)
 Man-machine interaction (simulation, visualization)
 Process management (modeling of time depen-
dence, queueing models, process optimization)
 Life cycle services (Product Lifecycle Management)
 Probabilistic modeling of risks and uncertainties
 Simulation and queueing theory
19
Literature
1. J. Harvey Evans: “A Structural Analysis and Design Integration with Application to
the Midship Section Characteristics of Transversely Framed Ships”, Trans. SNAME, vol. 66,
1958.
2. J. Harvey Evans: ”Basic Design Concepts“, J. American Society of Naval Engineers,
1959.
3. J. Harvey Evans, D. Khoushy: “Optimimal Design of Midship Section”, Trans.
SNAME, 1963.
4. R. Murphy, D.J. Sabat, R.J. Taylor: “Least Cost Ship Characteristics by Computer
Techniques”, Marine Technology, SNAME, April 1965,
5. R. Hurst: “Advanced Techniques in Ship Design and Construction”, Lloyd’s List,
December 1971.
6. Ian L. Buxton: “Engineering Economics and Ship Design”, British Ship Research
Association, Wallsend, 2nd ed., 1976.
7. Ronald K. Kiss: “Mission Analysis and Basic Design”, 1st ch. in Robert Taggart, ed.,
“Ship Design and Construction”, SNAME, New York, 1980.
8. Peter A. Gale: “The Ship Design Process”, Ch. 5 in Thomas Lamb, ed.: “Ship Design
and Construction”, SNAME, Jersey City, NJ, 2003.
9. Apostolos D. Papanikolaou: “Ship Design”, Springer Science + Business Media,
Dordrecht Heidelberg New York London, 2014.
20
7. Conclusions and Congratulations

Ship design in the course of five decades of computer

use has become more rational, more systematic and
analytical, more transparent in its justifications.
The quality and safety of the product ship have
benefitted from this.
Ships have remained a foundation of global trade and
of worldwide standards of living.
Much work lies ahead of us. The past record of
marine design and Computer Aided Ship Design
encourages us to look confidently ahead at future
challenges to be faced.
21
7. Congratulations

Today we are together here to

express our gratitude and
appreciation to Prof.
Papanikolaou, also on behalf
of his colleagues, team mates
and students, for his personal
contributions and his strong
commitment to ship design!
Congratulations and thank Computer Aided
you, Apostolos! Flower (Bézier)

22
23