1 DESIGN IN GENERAL INTRODUCTION In this book we attempt to convey an understanding of those aspects of design which are specific to submarines. However, submarine design is just one of many engineering design activities and there are general fea- tures which are common to all. Before proceeding to the specific aspects of submarine design, we consider it worthwhile in this first chapter to address the more general aspects and show how they relate to the subma- rine design task. DESIGN OBJECTIVES 1.1 Though there are many variations on what may be considered design objectives we suggest that the following three are primary in all designs and should be sustained throughout the whole design process: (a) that the product should perform the functional purpose of the customer or operator; (b) that the design should be suitable for construction within the capability of the technology and resources available; (c) that the cost should be acceptable to the customer. Though expressed as separate objectives they are interactive and may on occasion be incompatible. The circumstances within which the design takes place may lead to one or another becoming the prime objective with the others subsidiary. In some situations the performance of the design is paramount: only a design that is capable of fully performing the required function is of interest. In such circumstances the customer would have to be prepared to pay the cost of such a design and even the capital investment to create the technology and resources necessary to realise the design. Some major nations have accepted this situation for defence equipment in the past but it is less prevalent in current political circumstances. The technology and resource objective may become dominant, partic- ularly where a design is being generated for production in a country other than that of the designer. He must therefore recognise limitations in resources which do not exist in his own country or company. The produceability of the design is important both to cost and time toDESIGN OBJECTIVES 3 If an acceptable solution is to be found it is imperative that a close and continuous dialogue should exist between the designer and user or oper- ator during the initial phases of design. The designer must fully under- stand the aspirations of the operator and equally the operator must understand the implications and consequences of his requirements. 1.2 This dialogue usually leads to what is frequently referred to as ‘compromise’ in design. The authors dislike this term as it implies an end result which is ‘less good’ than it might otherwise have been. We would prefer to consider that the design is an optimum solution in the circum- stances which prevail. To illustrate this one can use the methods of set theory and diagrams. Say we plot three non coincident points A, B and C as representing three requirements of the design and their location in parametric space. About each point we draw circles to represent a degra- dation in individual performance, say of 70% (Figure 1.1). These circles may overlap each other, in which case the designer has some options on where to aim his design. He may choose the zone (A + B + C) so that each requirement is achieved at slightly better than 70%. Alternatively he may aim for the zones A + B, B + C or C + A, in which case somewhat better performance is achieved in two out of three at the expense of poorer performance in the other feature. He may also aim for very high performance in one requirement A or B or C at the expense of perfor- mance in the other two. The requirement D poses a real difficulty as it has no overlap even at 70%. 1,3. Another notion in design is associated with these three broad objectives and that is ‘interaction’, for example, the search for high capa- Fig. 1.2 Jigsaw analogy4 DESIGN IN GENERAL bility with resources and costs, usually raising their threshold. Also resource limitation will interact with performance and so will cost ceil- ings. As should become apparent in later chapters, ‘interactions’ occur in all aspects of design. For submarines they persist to very detailed levels of design so that almost every decision has far reaching implications for other features of the design; occasionally, unanticipated repercussions might act to render the whole design invalid. A good design may be considered to be like a jig-saw with all the pieces (component systems) closely interlocking to form a whole picture (Figure 1.2). If it is now imagined that one piece changes shape it will no longer fit, and so its immediately adjacent pieces have to be changed to allow it to fit. These consequent changes bring about dislocations with other pieces and this process may continue until nearly all the pieces have to be modified to achieve a new picture. More tolerant designs, such as most surface ships, would involve changes to far fewer pieces. DESIGN PROGRESSION 1.4 The design process is usually considered to start with the definition of requirements and end with a complete set of production drawings and specifications for construction. It may, however, be argued that even this is not the end of design and that it continues through building of the first vessel and subsequent trials. It is a fact that these latter stages do often result in modification to the design, the information on which is fed back to later vessels of the class and to provide data for future designs. However, for purposes of discussion we propose to consider the produc- tion information as the end point. The achievement of an end product requires a structured progression of design with definite stage and decision points on whether to proceed. This introduces the idea that the design process is one of increasing ‘Operational requirements Concept studies Size, cost, payload, performance Fea: ‘System material requirements Design for build Detailed systems, arrangements and specifications Production design Fig. 1.3. Design pyramid