You are on page 1of 25

hit KOVAL INSTITUTION OF NAVAL ARCHITECTS I"

Jolla Meeting, Newcastle ( C:


The issue of this copy of the paper in on the express understanding that an abstract only may be published after the paper —
has been read at a Joint Evening Meeting of the Institution and The North East Coast Institution of Engineers and Shipbuilders
at Gpm in the Neville Hall, Westgate Road, Newcastle-upon-Tyne on Monday, March 9,1981.
The Institution is not, as a body, responsible for the statements made or the opinions expressed by individual authors or
speakers.
Written contributions to the discussion should reach the Secretary RINA before May 29,1981.
© 1981 The Royal Institution of Naval Architects,

Creative Ship Design


by David Andrews, B.Sc(Eng)., M.Sc., C,Eng.,R.C.N.C.*, (Member)

SUMMARY: This paper discusses the application of various design methods to ship design. From the discussion of current
design approaches it is concluded that these will not provide the tools for a radically_new ship design synthesisin the-fu—tfire:
Two steps towards-al `more creative ship design prodess are proposed. Firstly, an outline is given as to how Computer Aided
Architectural. Design ,could be applied to explore significant changes to ship internal layout and hence the total ship form.
Secondly , it is suggested from a review of new gerreralle-chniqu.--e-S-and design thee-al-es-that these could- beused to produce an
open and creative-design philosophy able to serve the ship designer in the future.

1. INTRODUCTION 2.1 The Nature of Ship Design

'Mathematics' was introduced into Design (rightly) but one Ship design is usually described with the aid of the design
of its side effects was the idea still alive that Mathematics spiralt3). Whilst this,ernphasises thesfact that the design
and Calculation could 'get it right! '— Sir Rowland Baker( 1), homes in on a specific solution and indicates the sensitivity
of the balanced solution to a change in any one of a number of
The impetus behind this paper lies in a belief that Naval features, it does not convey the openness of the design pro ,
Architects have taken the method of designing ships for cess. For this reason Fig.1 proposes a model of the ship
granted. For this reason, the paper commences with a design process in which the normal design spiral can be
consideration of the inherent complexitypf ship design and seen as a section through a gradually converging conical
the status of current ship design methods. solid. This has the advantage that the Many dialogues and
constraints on'the designer can be-Shown as fundamental
As members of the profession most directly responsible for to the process.
ship design, Naval Architects have not given it the attention
that the more specialised areas of marine technology have It is significant that Naval Architects rarely publish papers
received. This topic needs to be more widely debated so that which explicitly state the impact that many diverse influ-
we are more aware of the way we design ships. With a fuller ences can have on ship design. Recent exceptions to this ,
awareness Naval Architects will be more responsive to the are Johnson(4), describing the evolution of the US Navy's
new demands which will be imposed on ship design in the ship design organisation, and Leopold( 5), discussing innova-
rapidly changing world. For this reason, Sir Rowland Baker's tion adoption'in naval ship design. Leopold for example,
deliberately provocative statement is taken as the theme of identifies three areas requiring action to promote innovative
this paper. Without denying the need to grasp thoroughly the ideas into the design of US Naval Ships:
technicalities on which our professionalism. is grounded, this (a) an improved organisation link between general research
paper reflects Bondi's12) view,. He considers that scientists and the development/design organisations,
and engineers have to alter their mode of thought and express
themselves in a more discursive and dialectical manner. (b) improvement in the career structure and training of
Only in this way will we coherently put forward our views the . US Navy's design engineers,and .
and debate openly this vital area of our discipline; an area (c) a better balance between cost and innovation promotion
which is currently neglected because it is not readily during the design phase.
amenable to engineering mathematics.
Fig. 1 identifies three categories of constraints that im-
Thus this paper proposes an approach to a fuller exploration pinge on the design of ships, those directly and usually
and understanding of ship design, as a basis for Naval Archi- explicitly stated, those directly limiting the scope of the
tects to cope with the demands for innovative and creative designer and finally wider constraints on the environment
ship designs in the future, in which the designer functions. Table I attempts to explain'
these categories by giving typical examples of each type. It
is revealing that all three aspects sited by Leopold fall into
the second category.
2. THE LIMITATIONS OF CURRENT APPROACHES TO
SHIP DESIGN Given the basically multifunctional nature of ships, in that
they have many conflicting requirements all of . which have to
Ship design as currently practised is largely based on type be met to some degree, the designer's problem is -one of
ships and as such is governed by the nature of the existing achieving a balanced and adaptable solution. Any discussion
infrastructure required to produce ships. of the ship design process which neglects the limitations im-
posed by the constraints on the designer is unlikely to provide
a real framework for designing ships in the future.
*Currently Lecturer in Naval Architecture, University
College London; formerly Deputy Head of Concept Design, 2. 2 Sizing Ships
Forward Design Group, Ship Department, Ministry of Defence, The previous section has briefly dealt with the broad aspects
Bath. of ship design; it is necessary to now consider the ways in
CREATIVE SHIP DESIGN

INMAL REQUIREMENT
OR PREVIOUS DESIGN STAGE

REQUIREMENTS
LENGTH
(eg SPEED, PAYLOAD, STANDARDS)

BEAM
DEPTH ' COST
DRAUGHT

STRUCTURE
CONSTRAINTS
DIRECTLY ON THE DESIGN
FORN
SEAKEEPING
ELT- L.".
MANOEUVRING

CONSTRAINTS
ON THE DESIGN PROCESS
CALCULATIONS
t.1 11 ENDURANCE

POWER

CONSTRAINTS
ORIGINATING FROM . CAE.EL 2:PAC& /
THE DESIGN ENVIRONMENT
GENERAL
AREAS F5 ,7,117- 5'15 'LAYOUT
'i%•
Tfrc CF 51i15

WEIGHT — DISPLACEMENT
TO NEXT PHASE OF DESIGN
AFTER APPROVAL PROCEDURE

OVERALL PICTURE SECTION THROUGH MODEL

THE DESIGN SPIRALS DOWN SHOWING TYPICAL STEPS IN SPIRAL


THE SURFACE OF MODEL

Fig. 1. Overall Model of Ship Design Process

TABLE I. Constraints in Ship Design—Some Typical Examples


Constraints Originating from The Design
Direct Constraints on the Design Constraints on the Design Process Environment
.—
Minimise Building Time Structure of the Design Organisation Physical and,Natural environment.
Political climate
Consider foreign sales potential Relationship of the designer with ECM-Rnic Clitnate
customer
Reduce manpower on the ship Attitude of the design organisation-,. The. exact manner in which money is
to the latest design techniques . .funded
Reduce specialised manpower on Past design type ship data available The need to comply with new laws (eg
the ship , health and safety during build)
Minimise the maintenance load Countries' of origin of designer or The political necessity to support ailing
required at the ship design methods shipyards
Simplify production process in the The need or ability to buy-in talent The strategic and political necessity to
shipyard to the design team spread work round the shipyards
Fit up-to-date equipment which is ' Specialisatibri and training of design The decision to reduce direct government
being concurrently developed with team.' research '
the ship '
Minimise time in refit State Of the art in the various fields Collaboration with NATO allies on
equipment
Minimise time in port Computer.faciIities directly on tap and
their limitations
Comply with international ruleS QUality'ofr general engineering data
existirig.or likely to dome into force. direetly available:
Minimise training load to operate Research facilities directly under
ship the designers! control
The., idoeyncracies, prejudices,
rivalries, personalities of the design
team

NOTE: The above examples' are not comprehensive. They serve to illustrate the difference in the three categories of
'constraints';

2
which the specific parameters of the ship are obtained.
Whilst this sizing is undertaken in the initial stages of the
design, the outcome of the selection of the ship parameters
has the most fundamental bearing on the whole design. Naval PAYLOAD
Architects, because they deal with the total form, approach WEIGHT AND SPACE
the synthesis of a new design by assessing the size of the
projected ship as a totality long before the individual ele-
ments can be specified. This is normally done with respect INPUT SHIP PARAMETERS
to the basic geometrical parameters (Length, Beam, Depth; aLBDT CpC,,
Draught and the Form Coefficients) and in terms of balancing
mass or volume or both.
Watson and Gilfillan(6) give the generalised expressions for WEIGHT BALANCE
deadweight carriers, in terms of mass, and capacity carriers, LB TC,Cm • ZW;
in terms of volume. Historically warships were balanced,
that is required quantity equated to available quantity, in
terms of weight. Partly, but not solely because modern STABILfT1
weapons are more space demanding than weight demanding, G Mso> G Mu,
modern warships balance both weight' and' space, ie: ruy

(a) Underwater form displacement


SPACE BALANCE
Sum of the weights of the required payload and
the resultant supporting platform and systems. E

(b) Enclosed volume given from deck areas and deck heights
plus tankage POWERING
AND ENDURANCE
Sum of the volumes required for the payload and
the resultant supporting systemS.
CHANGE MARGINS'
Fig. 2 shows how the traditional design spiral is converted
with a design logic appropriate to computer computation to CHANGE CRRERIA
ACCEPTABLE
CHANGE OF PARAMETIERFSI

arrive at a ship balanced in space and weight.. CHANGE PAYLOAD

In all three cases (ie deadweight carriers, capacity carriers


and warships) the choice of appropriate form parameters. is
FINISH
given by trend curves, based on previous typical ships, and
have to comply with the observed boundary limitations due
to the traditional Naval Architectural aspects of 55 ,(eg. Fig. 2. Sequence of Steps to' AChieve :a: _Balanced Ship
Speed, Stability, Seakeeping, Strength and Style)(7). Historical
data are also used to size the mass and space requirements
for individual supporting systems. Examples 'of both the For warships, Eames and Drummonduopropose three
parameter plots and equations speCifying indiiriduarship criteria and indicate that all of them may be selected simul-
systems are given by Watson and.Gilfillan(6),for Merchant taneously. Two of the criteria maximise the payload pro-,
ships, and by Eames and Drummond0)for- warshiPa. Man- portion, either on a weight or volume basis, whilst the third
delli(9)gives an even more direct method of limited extra- criterion introduces an efficiency from a propulsive aspect.
polation from a single previous type ship. Interestingly, none of these three criteria introduce cost_
directly..Mitchell(14) for the case of Fisheries. Law Enforce-
Whilst it is important for Naval Architects to be very ment vesSels, uses cost directly for a specific ship mission,
conscious of the disposition of mass in a ship, particularly whilst Leopold and Reuter( 15), with a much more complex
in a vertical sense, we_are less accustomed ab,„,,con-.
t operational use, use an involved weighting method for.eight
with the location of the diflei-7-•ent--apace requirements factors, The factors they consider are: .
within the overall envelope, owean r 'am • o con-
slder this tram the limited aspect of the variation in space . cost, effectiVeness, flexibility, habitability, vulnerability/
as a marginal factor on the ship's weight. Normally, alloca- survivability, innovation and non obsolestence.'
tion of space in a ship design is left until the 'overall ship These are applied to'18 criteria in thecaSe of - the LHA' (115 —
size and Alain have=-been-settled:The-desir as then Navy TAIWAN Class Assaidt Ships) and to 34'Criteria for the
priCtite-his-traditional-ait-withih--theSharp-boti-n-daries of DD963 (US Navy SPRUANCE Class Destroyer's). ThiS approach
the derived Ili rni:Tfil-s-i-s-atraspe-et-which--1-8-dfs-c-ueSed in appears to be a highly objective' optimisation; but, as 'IVIandel
subsequent seal-0ns. and Chryssostornidis, point out in their,discusSion of this
method, assigning Weightings to the eight factors selected is
2. 3 Optimising the Ship's Form necessarily subjeCtive and furtherniore such a weighting
method cannot reflect -the true complexity of the ship-design •
With the advent of the electronic computer in ship design, problem. Mandel and Chryssostomidis(16) therefore consider
there have been several proposals for optimising ship forms that the decision of selecting the 'most desirable" configura-
within the technical constraints that normally apply (eg tion should be placed.with the designers rather than with -
These approaches usually optimise on the basis of cost in such an automated selection technique. It is significant that
some form. This is only achieved within the strict bounds of the latest develOpmentS"in Computer Aided 'Ship Design
a particular type ship or from historical curves for a (CASD) for both the Royal Navy( 17) and, the' US‘Nivy(1. 8) Use
narrow range of similar ships. For example, in the case of a modular suite of programs linked together with Strongly'
merchant ships, Kupras(11) and Nowachi . and Lessenich(12) interactive modes.
use the required freight rate (ie annual...oiierating and capital
costs to the shipowner per tonne ofCargo),:and the distinction The above brief summary of the basis of selecting the ship
between the different types of merchant ships can be given, parameters indicates /that such approaches are largely
by what Kupras calls, the equality and inequality constraints based on type ship data, Furthertnore,attemptStb.bptimise
on the form. Mandel and Leopold(13) propose separate opti- the selection have not provided the scope for creatitre
mum criteria for cargo ships (capacity Carriers) and tankers thesis of new ship solutions even where the new designs are
(deadweight carriers) with the cost expreased differently for reasonably direct extrapolations of current designs;:
the two categories. In this latter case, a convergent random The ship design process is becoming more exacting.par-
search technique is then applied to find the optimum. ticularly at the early stages. This is because the major

3
CREATIVE SHIP DESIGN
11111:11:RROIN MACHINERY

LIVING
INTRODUCTION
WORKING

PAYLOAD

SERVICES
2
LIMITATIONS
OF CURRENT
APPROACH

1.1 NATURE Of DIFP DESIGN 23 OPTIMISING PORN

CONSTRAINTS NEED FOR


A MORE THE TOTAL APPROACH
RADICAL TO THE FUTURE
SIMPLE EXPLORADON APPROACH SHIP DESIGN

CREATIVITY
SYNTHESISING
AND RADICAL
.LAYOUTS
DESIGN

Fig. 4. Internal Voluthe of a Destroyer Based on Baker's


33 CAAD TO SHIP
4.1 CREATIVITY
AND SYNTHESIS Stylised Concept
LAYOUTS

APPENDIX 1
Baker(23) in discussing habitability put forward .a philosophy
of 'stylised' layout, whilst Cain and Hatfield( 24) proposed a
contact diagram for proximity relationships in accommoda-
11 PITFALLS OF CAD tion areas. With the advent of computers, Hope and Carl -
43 RADICAL DESIGN THEORIES
APO STRATEGIES
son(25) outlined an application-to the specific aspect of
access design in warships., The total layout has yet to be
33 VAUOITY OF APPROACH tackled comprehensively.
TO SHIP DESIGN

4.4 A PHILOSOPHY OF DESIGN


The approach outlined in Appendix 1 is a proposal to utilise
Computer Aided Architectural Design (CAAD) techniques
of the'type discussed by March( 26) and .by Cross(27? to ,..
5 enable different ship layout configurations to be explored- in.
CONCLUSION an emerging design: The example chosen is a conventional
destroyer/frigate sized•warship.
The philosophy heliiiidthis use of CAAD to Ship layout is
Fig.3. Logic of the Paper Towards Creative Ship Design shown in Flgs.21-and is adapted from Baker's
design decisiens are increasingly complex and their cost,... stylised destroyer and shows the internal volume divided
into the different categories Of uses (eg payload, working. '
in the Widest sense, ever greater(7). Friedman(19); iri dis- • areas, living area,machinery;geryices.and liquids). FN.:5
cussing the design and development of modern warships,• takes the same Volume and recategorised it into three
exposes the Mast of conflicting requirements and constraints component parts, designated the main design areas, the
that the icaVal Staff, as the customer[and the ship designer machinery block and a residue. The logic behind this divi-
have to jointlY 'debate to. arrive'at the essential compromise'- sion is driven by a belief that the approach given-by the
in any balanced, and thus successful, design: The previous traditional volume balance equation at equation (7) in
summary on'the basis of selecting the ship-parameters Appendix 1 is wrong in assuming that all areas of the ship •••
cates that current approaches are largely dependent on type are equally valuable. Rather-the ship can be considered- as
ship data. Furthermore, attempts to optimise the: selection being described by: •
have not provided the scope for .creative synthesis of new
ship solutions. Because of the wider area over. ;which the (a) The main design areas (Vm " ), which are'Ohthe Main'
debatecin design decisions ranges and the impact of new through deckS of the ship and in the superstructure.
technologiesQ9, 2 1), it is clear,that the design ProCeSs is
becomingrnore interdisciplinary(,
The methods.and.techniques currently.,employed can not pro-, HAOR SPACES Vr.

vide the creativity and flexibility to cope-with-future ship Maga MACHINERY SPACES

design given the-ever increasing complexity of the design ,. RESIDUE V,

environment and the constraints on it. A-solution seems to


lie in acombination of
(a) an approach.tb form[ selection whith explores•the dis-
positiOn,Of.4-ade Concurrently with -forth selectiorf; and I
(b) the- expleitatiOn of new techniques and design methods.
Fig..3 indieates how these two aspects of,a new, approach to
1111111111Mmw
ship design evolve from the current methods and shows the
manner in which they are discussed in the main body of this
paper.

3. SYNTHESISING SHIP LAYOUTS WITH THE: AID OF


COMPUTERS. - --------------
- ----- ---- --------
3.1 Applying 'CoinPuter Aided Architectural Design
TechniqueS to Ship Layouts —- -- - ------ --- ------
----
Despite its,SignifiCance, the layout of 'ships ha's received
very little attention in the discussion of ship design. Fig. 5. Proposed Division of Ship Internal Spaces
4
CREATIVE SHIP DESIGN

They are the working and living areas of the ship and ship parameters. This virtually implies the use of an inter-
give a particular design its own characteristic. active CAD system. It is foreseen that for a given layout
configuration, all the ship configuration considerations would
(b) The main machinery block (Vmcv) including the down- be separately produced for assessment and the selection
takes and uptakes passing through vm . made by the designer. In this way different layout configura-
(c) The residue (VRes) made up of the peripheral spaces tions could be explored and assessed by the designer whilst
which are fitted out to prOvide for auxiliary uses. refining the form parameters and the size of the ship. The
reader is referred to Appendix 1 for a derivation of the
Thus the total ship volume VTotai is given by expressions which combine the CAAD approach with the
traditional aspects of Naval Architecture (eg 55).
VT ot al = 7171 vmcy es (1)
(d) The envelope of basically the underwater form (A) 3. 2 The Pitfalls of Computer Aided Design
necessary to support the weight balance of equation (6) It is necessary to- mention two important considerations in
in Appendix 1 consistent with the usual Naval Architec- applying computer methods to design before discussing-the
ture constraints in S . validity of such an approach to ship layout. The first aspect
This demarcation concentrates the ship designer's attention is the specific problem of value, the second is the wider
on the main design areas (57m). The layout can now be .. design impact of the man-machine interface.
optimised, (if such a thing is ,definable and realisable) with- March(26) contrasts two apprOaches using the numerical
lout overbalancing the envelope. ,CAAD techniques would power of computers in architectural design; that propounded
give the ship designer the ability to explore, in the early by Alexander(28), which is based on producing 'a unique
stages of the design, many layouts of the main design areas 'pattern' or structure for a given set of 'conflicts' or inter-
and to break away from paSt practice.' Such an approach related requirements, and that associated-'with Archei4 29),
may even show that there are benefits in substantially utilising methods from operational research and 'akin
altering main ship dimensions to get a better internal con-- theories. The latter approach requireth weightings to be
-figuration. This is in marked Contrast to the current given to different aspects with the inherent difficulties in
approach. Here the designer is always penalised fbr -any' subjective assessment this requires. March as a prpponent
increase, especially in length and displacement`, regardless of this school develops, a design theory-which tries to
as to whether the utility of the configuration isbetter,pre- encompass the necessary flexibility and breadth for prac-
cisely because a comparative laYdut assessment is not ,' tical designs so that the designer is not blinded by,sim-
performed.CAADfecliniqUes enable many'laYoUtS to be plistic numerical optimisation. The pattern approach avoids
produced for such a comparative evaluation; , this pitfall but is dpen to just as great a critiCiSin. in'that
The application of CAAD techniques to the layout of ships it assumes a unique pattern and therefore therleSism solu-
cannot be a simple translation. CAAD.ortly gives an assess- tion will be produced without involving eValuatiOn.
ment of a possible architectUrarlayoUtl.in.ternis of cirehla.' Consideration of evaluation leads to the question of inter-
tion—circulation being the term used by, architects to active computer systems and off-line, usually batch
describe the product of the distance and'hUniber of journeys processing, systems. Cross(27) records that overall costs
performed between giVen rooms or,buildings in'a layout: in CAAD applications for these two approaches. are the same,
Considering the many compartments in_the,Mairi design .„ but users strongly dislike the off-line approach.' The inter-
area of a ship, there are many relationships,governing the active approach enables the designei to consider a wide
initial location of the various compartments. For this range of alternatives quickly and evaluate 'them using bOtti '
reason a more ,generalised expression is preposed in " the machine analysis and his oirri experience. 'Thus a CAM)
Appendix 1 at equation (4). This'covers such Ship' Configura- method can be made to avoid a 'single 'optimiSed' or •lunique-
tion considerations as: pattern' as well as the dangers of weighting or of neglecting
(i) Circulation like considerations in the relative positions 'soft' factors less amenable to quantification. This. control:
of compartments. For example, transfer of personnel in is only possible if the CAD system is so designed.
different states such as action states, meal times, sea .. Cross' goes on to discuss the wider impact of CAD in archi-Y.
routines, harbour routine; specific evolutions such as NBCD tectural deSign and from a comprehensive analysis, the
evolutions, replenishment evolutions, maintenance routines. - following major conclusions are pertinent:
(ii) Information relationships such as the adjacent location (a) Effects on the individual designer, nclude a higher.
of Operations rooms and computer spaces, galleys and degree of stress, reduction of design staff, increase in low
dining halls, maintenance spaces and operational equipment. level tedious data tasks and intensification of Work' rate (an
(Ha Between services requirements such as conversion example of'a 1900% increase in the rate cif decisiOn 'Making
machinery and radar offices, fan chambers and supplied is quoted).
spaces, general services to compartments from passageWays (b) Effects on the design process include increasing the
or service ducts such as chilled water, general electrical, preliminary and 'post-design' (in use) phases of design,
supplies, fresh and salt water systemS. decreasing the levels of managenieiat of design,intrOductiOn
(iv) Access considerations. Lobbies and passageways . of computer rather than design specialists, moves towards
ought to be considered as compartments in the main design centralised design and more 'generalist' designerS,
• ,
area, so that the relationship of the passageways with the This section has 'not intended to convey a Luddite attitude to
other compartments in the main design area and the boun- computer methods in design, but rather to state the inherent .
daries to it (eg the machinery block, the residue spaces and pitfalls. The scale' of the impact of CAD has to be.appreci-.
the weatherdeck) can be explored. Hope and Carlson(2 s) ated if designers are to get the best from its use. Provided -
mention personnel routing, stores routes, damage control the limitations of CAD methods are clearly understood;_:
parties and upkeep routes. In addition, construction and computers are powerful aids to the designer in considering
production considerations could be introduced here. a wider, not narrower, range of design solutions.The : _-
An obvious approach to obtain an 'optimum,' configuration designer will only control this most potent tool if he can
would be to combine all these considerations for each likely explore with freedom,• interact and make the design decisiOns
layout configuration. Certainly computer techniques could whilst fully comprehending the limitations of the particular
deal with this; however this is considered unwise because computer,system.
of the dangers mentioned above regarding the optimisation'
3.3 The Validity of a CAAD Based Approach to Ship Design
of the broad parameters of a ship design. Only if the use of
weighting factors is kept limited can the design be made The example used to illustrate the approach of exploring the
amenable to sensitivity exploration and adjustment of the configuration of ship layout, is that of'a small warship which

5
CREATIVE SHIP DESIGN

has for this purpose the advantages of reasonable size and 4. CREATIVITY AND RADICAL DESIGN THERMS
a large number of compartments within the main design 4. 1 Creativity and Synthesis
area. For this approach to be useful to Naval Architects as
a whole and not just the destroyer and frigate designer, the The early part of this paper suggested that optimisation 7
general applicability of this approach must be considered. approaches to ship design based on economic considerations
could not provide the basis for creating the flexible designs
The virtue of the approach will be realised where the main required in an increasingly complex design environment.
design spaces are a large portion of the ship and have a Section 3 proposed an application of Computer Aided
large number of conflicting considerations in determining Architectural Design to ship layout to enable a wider ex-
their relative positions. Merchant ship designers are more ploration of ship layout through interactive use of the
likely to find such an approach useful for vessels such as computer. This will help in the decision process in the
ro-ro, mixed cargo, passenger, ferry and special-to-purpose early stages of design but it still leaves the broader ques-
vessels. For ships with single cargoes such as bulk car- tion as to how new forms can be synthesised.
riers and possibly container ships the approach would only
be applicable to the superstructure area. Larger warships Synthesis is the fundamental, unique and distinguishing
would fit the destroyer/frigate approach as would sub- element in design that marks it out from other human
marines, allowing for their specific design balance rather endeavours. Given that design itself is hard to define,_
than the surface warship balance described in Section 2.2. attempts at defining this most elusive element of the design
For the current generation of unconventional craft, this process are either generalised catalogues of all the neces-
approach is too sophisticated both because of their size and sary features of a good synthesis or attempts at insight of
their lack of the multifunctional characteristic of displace- the kind Jones(30) proposes: 'Synthesis is putting the pieces
ment ships. However the larger craft foreseen by Lecr- together in a new way'.
pold( 20), especiallylarge SWATHS, present excellent appli- In trying to grasp the concept of synthesis, writers have
cations since they are likely to have fewer and squarer deck concentrated on the peripheral aspects which are considered
envelopes than conventional displacement vessels. to foster creativity and invention. Gregory(31) provides a
As already indicated the proposed approach has further taxonomy of theories or mechanisms of creative behaviour
classified either.as intellectual, motivational or based on
limitations and constraints on it in addition to those inherent
chance. ThiS classification provides little insight into the
in the architectural application. Before the method can be
essential nature of creativity. Bailey(32) concentrates on
more than a research tool, further investigation is required
the environment required to foster creativity or rather that
on the following aspects:
to sustain invention. In doing so, he addresses aspects of
(a) In a ship design, the weight and space balance is gener- procedure, strategy, economic stimulation and education.
ally of overriding importance. Although some spaces are Whilst these are all important as environmental factors'
more important than others (hence the distinction of the they provide marginal clues to the nature of synthesis.
main design areas), all the spaces on the'ship make it grow. Jones ',description of synthesis does describe the recon
This approach is a clear technique for exploring the effect figuring of a set of component parts but it does not recognise
of the total removal from the ship of some spaces (eg ships the other equal facet, namely appreciation of the totality of '
offices). the newly created form. It is this facet which is the Most
(b) There is no simple yardstick for optimising the main demanding in synthesis and the one which Naval Architects
design area. Passing mention was made of, construction/ (more than most engineers) are imbued with an understand-
production considerations under the heading of access. In ing. Nevertheless, like all engineering diSciplines NaVal
reality, this is a much broader aspect which is too often Architecture emphasiSes the more mathematically amenable
neglected by designers. It could be usefully explored by,this aspects of analysis and evaluation. In this; engineering
approach. reflects the inherent cultural difficulty for the western:
scientific mind, with its analytic or atomistic philosophy,
(c) The approa:ch, by posing questions on the criteria, con- when confronted by the essentially wholistic or Gestaltan
siderations and 'weightings', imposes a greater responsi- nature of Synthesis. Design theorists recognise that for
bility on the designer in the formative stages of the design. designers to cope with the innovative designs required in
For example, whether certain compartments are essential the future, new design methods must be found. These
and whether the smallest possible ship is the 'best' or the methods have to open up the creative stages of the design
'cheapest' ship are typical questions to which the designer process and break it out of the currently highly structured
will be more positively exposed. analytic methodology.
(d) As with any CAD technique, the broader design issues
arise. Typical questions are those of the man/machine 4.2 Technology Led Innovation
interface and the impact of CAD on the design organisation
To further emphasise the need for substantially new methods
as well as the manner in which the designer practices his
in design, it is revealing to speculate on the likely broader
profession.
design environment in'whiCh future ship designers will live
The proposal has the advantage that the mind of the designer and work and into which their designs will have to integrate.
can be'focused on the main areas of the ship upon which the
design will succeed or flounder. It provides an ability to Technical forecasting or futurology is unfortunately little
explore, at the earlieSt stage, significantly different options removed from chance'methodS of prediction, yet modern
approaches such as the Rand " Corporation 's use of' the Delphi ..
in the configuration and to assess the features of the ship •
that are really altered by different layouts. Many .of the technique do give insight into probable technologidal develop=
ments. Jencks(33)haS used these projections of several
features in ship design that have been traditionally accepted
possible futures to show how the separate traditions in
will be open to new questioning. As just one example, the
advantages and disadvantages of large superstructures architecture may thus develop: He considers architecture in
the following categories and predicts particular design
versus small or minimal superstructures could be explored
developments:
including the layout benefits of each approach.
(a) Unselfconscious architecture, based on the vernacular,
This approach is only a first step, it does not fully address
the probleth of synthesising new forms. For this reason, as adhoc and largely uninfluenced by architects. This is pro-
stated at the end of Section 2, a wider course of action has jected into the use of components provided by mass produc-
to be considered if ship designers are going to cope with the tion but individually assembled.
changing design environment and the pace of technology led (b) Activist architecture, directed by social and political
changes. The wider course of action suggested is consider- awareness. Architecture would be pushed towards becom-
ation of the radically new design theories that are now ing responsive to mass needs handled through local
being proposed in the general area of design. autonomy.

6
CREATIVE SHIP DESIGN

(c) Selfconscious architecture, driven by bureaucratic I would now like to turn to consideration of the design
principles. This would lead to a highly organised and methods that might assist designers to create the ships
structured society with a central planned megalopolis. of the future,
(d) Logical architecture, based on engineering and clear
functional requirements. Developments in space exploration 4. 3 Radical Design Theories and Strategies for Ship
technology would drive architecture in a like manner. Design of the Future
(e) Idealist architecture, based on rational, functionally Table III at Appendix 2. lists a range of approaches to
expressive, 'modern' architecture is likely to lead to design and new 'tools of thought', together with the manner
aesthetically meaningful and aware architecture. in which they may be of use to ship designers in the future.
(I) Intuitive architecture is grounded in the avant-garde These, or similar 'tools', will be adopted by designers in
and seeks radical material, as apposed to social, solutions. the future to deal with the increasing complexity of the
This is the most creative area providing ideas for other design problem and provide the spur to create radically
'traditions' to develop. new solutions. Three major categories have been used:
These possible paths for development in 'design style' have (a) Creative design methods and strategies, both for
associated material developments, some of which are listed analysing given problems and for providing new solu-
in Table II, Given this degree of progression in the wider tions.
environment, it is clear that new ships will be radically
(b) New techniques both in mathematics and wider
different from those presently envisaged. They will be disciplines.
different because of the technology, the environment in which
they will function and the manner in which they will be de- (c) Radical Design' Solutions.
signed, manufactured and operated. A more parochial Creative design methods are already being used to open-out
projection as far as ship designers are concerned is pro- the exploratory stages of design and to foster creative and
vided by Leopold's(2 0) view of the next century. innovative solutions to design problems. Most of the .
methods listed are intended to be used by a design team',,
that is diVersely multi-disciplined: Thus these methods" ,
TABLE II, Some Projected Developments in Architectural assume a design environment that encourages rather than
Design dampens an open approach to new ideas. .Engineering design-
ers brought up in the established disciplines will only benefit
A. Architecture from Such methods if they are- prepared to enter into`the
debate on the Unconventional, unPredictable,non-standard
Mobile homes — already 209 of new houses in USA solutions thus Created. This requires an ability diso-usi
are mobile within such a team the ideas of.other members and to
Environmental bubbles — shelter, food, energy, television, explain one's own viewpoint to thoseWith widely differing .
provided in small inflatable, backgroundS and prejudiCes. GiVen that the major design
domes decisions are made early in the design process, ship design,
ers must be educated for this open debate.
Catalogue assembled — the individual selects the com-
homes ponents he or she requires In listing new mathematical techniques and emerging discie
plines which may impinge on the'designer, it is appreciated-
Megastructures — vast systematic cities that busy designers cannot become familiar with all the
Adaptable buildings — enclosed structure, interior potential techniques available; However, the design-com-
easily changed for new functions munity must be aware of the tools which may assist clearer
decision making, foster more creative design environments
Mechanised cities — extendable structures, moveable and enable the designer to control, rather than be'cOntrolled
pneumatic skins, adjustable by the man-machine interface. To give a more specific
floors and walls, service robots example of ;the manner in which, say,, the case of catastrophe
Biomorphic architecture — based on organic forms, growing theory could prove useful, consider its ability to model Step
chemical structures changes in ship design. The ship design spiral will not
ng what may be
exhibit a linear increase in ship size followi
Floating structures to exploit the sea—inspired by an inherently unstable design decision: Typical examples of
marine biological structures such decisions are the impact of new DVICO- proPosals for
product carriers and the addition of VSTOL aircraft facilities
B. Systems on a helicopter carrier. Sucirdecisions on a given design do
not incrementally modify a given design, rather they prodiice
Telechiric devices sophiSticated manipulative significant Step,changes tO different design solttions
devices leading 16 robotS manner very. like the mathematical description afforded by
.
Exoskeleton — integration of machines with men catastrophe theory. .
leading to complete Cyborgs The inclusion of radical social critics 'of current design
(part man part machin0 ethics seems a luxury to an.engineer concerned with getting
Mood and visual — generated by visual and aural his project right. Such propagandists have focused attention
environments projectors on the interactions within and interdependence of the various
components of the environment.-:They have.also raised the
Fuel cells and energy question of the moral basis,of design, One cannot deprecate
packs the low status of professional engineers yet say 'It's not
Spray on structures my part of ship, I only design .what Pm told to design'., If
design means anything, it must have a sense of human right -
Pneumatic structures flees. However, it is not only in regard to a moral stance on,
design that designers can learn from the socially committed
C. Design vanguard of the design fraternity: .Possibly because they .
desire to open up possibilities and look at long term goals
Centralised managerial approach more radically, the design ideas. of men like Papanek(34)
Holographic design exhibit an inventiveness that ought to be emulated.
Design by computer light pen Even at the time of writing, the listat Table III is far from
complete and is simply intended to show the range of 'tools'

7
CREATIVE SHIP DESIGN

being produced. Some of these have• already been discussed to be in a case by case manner. Therefore desigLers havr to
by Rawson(35) in -considering the nature of marine transport be both open minded and constructively critical, to- the new
design and in a sense, this section is broadening the debate technologies and the new methods being produced. Finally,
that author commenced. the designer, in using any design theory, has to be fully aware
of the existence of the essential constraints on the design
It is suggested that these tools may in the future provide the
ship designer with assistance, inspiration and the ability to process.
talk to the increasing number of disciplines involved in ship
design. As with CAD methods, the ship designer. Must be a
critical convert to any of these new approaches. In order 5. CONCLUSION
that designers can havea firm framework to understand
such wider techniques and methods, Table III concludes with This paper has speculated on the future of ship design and
the question of a design philosophy. It is fitting that the' how radically new designs can be created.
topic of creativity and radical design theories should end Two interrelated steps have been suggested. The first in-
with a discussion of this fundamental subject. volves a specific application of Computer Aided Architec-
tural Design techniques to ship layout. It is intended that
4.4 A Philosophy of Design this proposal will be pursued and radically new configura-
tions and their impact on the total ship design explored. The
Both in discussing the application of computers to design second stimulus to creative ship design is more open..By
and radical design theories, it is clear that the current listing some of the possible techniques to deal with the wider
understanding of the nature of design is inadequate.' This is design tasks in the future, it has been concluded that a com-
in marked contrast to the depth of study into the essential prehensive design philosophy ought to be pursued. Such a
nature of the empirical sciences. Following PoPPer ,s(36) philosophy needs to be open and responsive to new creative
seminal work, a growing series of philosophers( 37) have
techniques whilst conscious of the real constraints in design.
shown that the practibe of scientific discovery is'very much This paper has therefore been put forward as a first step to .
a part of thebroad-hurnan discourse. In this analysis these encourage this awareness and foster a debate on how creative
philosophers have been supported by eminentlaractition- ship designs can be achieved in the future.
ers(2, 38) who consider that such a demistification of the
scientific method makes.science.a coherent endeavour both
in the social: nature of the.: process and its social impact;
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
It is just as important that the nature of engineering deeign
is subjected to philosophical enquiry. Design is.a separate The author would like to acknowledge the encouragement and
field of eirdeavdur,Parnliel but distinct frOmernpirical'. advice he has received particularly from Mr K.J.Ra.wson,
science and with a separate rationale. The achievement Of now Chief Naval Architect, formerly Head of Forward Design,
a philosophY of design might contribute significantly, to Ship Department, Bath.
raising the status of engineering designerS SO that theyjare
seen to be more thin just second rate. Seientists, both in The author takes complete responsibility for the views
expressed in this paper which are in no way attributable to
society's and their own eyes`. Whilst the seardh for an
any other person or organisation.
adequate theory of the 'engineering design process cannot.-be
the basic,task practicing engineering designers, we ought
to encourage it; for such an endea.vour may help forge an
educational approach more able to foster future-engineering' REFERENCES
designers and provide real insights into the manner in which
new forms can be synthesised. . 1. Baker, Sir Rowland.: Private Communication, 1971,
Thisenquiry will net be a SiMple task, for engineering 2. Bondi, Sir Hermann.: 5th Gerald Walters Lecture, Bath.
design, both in its creative aspect of syntbesis and:its direbt University, 1976.
applicability to society, has more in common with the so- 3. Rawson, K. J. and Tupper, E.: 'Basic Ship Theory'.
called humanities than thepiii,'q sCiencee. NaVal ardhi'tects Longmans, 1968.
as the creators of ship8;which are as near a totally man
made environment as engineering is capable ought to be at 4. Johnson, Et.S.: ',The Changing Nature of the US Navy
the forefront of this debate alongside the arChitectS'. Ship Design Process'. US Naval Engineers Journal,
March(26), in discussing nrehitectural 'design, rejects April '1980. "-
Popper's philosOphy in favour of the ideas on'productive 5. Leopold, R.: 'Innovation Adoption in Naval Ship Design'.
reasoning, propounded by Pierde, to ideal with the aspect of US Naval Engineers Journal, Dec 1977.
synthesiS. It is the same problem that C6'ss identified in -
CAD syStems, namelY_their inability to deal with these 6. Watson, D. G. M. and Gilfillan, A. W.: 'Some Ship Design
'magical' aspects of design. March produCee a pDL- Methods '. Trans RINA; Vol: 119, 1977.
(prodirction/deduction/hichiotion) model of the rational 7. Brown, D. K. and Andrews, D. J.: 'The Design of Cheap
design process and applies this to a mathematical expres- Warships': PrObeedinas of International Naval Tech-
sion of decision theory. This forrnalises the process in nology Expo 80, Rotterdam, June 1980.
terms of maximising the expected utility of a design. Such
an approach still` leavesunanswered the problem of utility , 8. Eames, M. C. and DrUmmond, T. G.: 'Concept Explora-
and the associated question 'of valtiefor the many disparate :- tion—an Approach to Small Warship Design'. Trans. '
factors in any given design. This aspect has already been RINA, Vol. 119, 1977.
mentioned with respect tb optimising ship designs and to 9. Mandelli, A.: 'Comparative Methods for Preliminary
weighting factors in CASD.- Furthermore, March's approach Design'. Shipping World and Shipbuilder, Jan 1968.
ignores the significant.aspect.of constraints on the design=
and the design - environment. The approach does attempt an 10. Howell, J. S. and Graham, C."Marginal Weight Factors
insight into the design process and,-because of its archi- for Surface Combatant Ships'. 13th Annual Technical.
tectural bias, is 'highly relevant to ship design: However, Symposium, ASNE 1976.
in omitting the impact of the-three levels of constraints 11. Kupras, L. K.: 'Optimisation Method and Parametric
given in Fig. 1 and Table I, it cannot bedonsidered a wholly - Study in Precontracted Ship Design'. International
satisfactory model for the process of ship design. Shipbuilding Progress No 261, MaY 1976,
In conclusion, whilst radical methods and techniques are 12. Nowachi, H. and Lessenich, J.: 'Synthesis Model for the
likely to be applied more in design; until a comprehensive Preliminary Design of Ships'. Schiff and Hafen 28, Dec
philosophy of design is developed, this application will have 1976, No 12.
8
cthe EATIVE SHIP DESIGN

13. Mandel, P. and Leopold, R.: 'Optimisation Methods APPENDIX 1


Applied to Ship Design'. Trans. SNAME, Vol 74,1966.
Circulation in architectural layouts is defined as
14. Mitchell, T.R.: 'Hydrofoils for the Fisheries Law
Enforcement Mission of the US Coast Guard'. US Dept Circulation = d1 Aij (2)
of Transportation, July 1975. where
15. Leopold, R. and Reuter, W.: 'Three Winning Designs: dii is the distance between any two rooms
FDL, LHA,DD963-Method and Selected Features'.
Trans. SNAME, 1971. and Ai
j the degree of association bet een them
16. Mandel, P. and Chryssostomidis, C.: 'A Design Methodo- and
logy for Ships and Other Complex Systems'. Philso A.-
ij has been expanded to
Trans. of Royal Society, Series A, Vol 273,1972-3.
17. Holmes, S. J.: 'The Application and Development of ij = t•• u• + t-- u j
Computer Systems for Warship Design', RINA Spring
Meetings, April, 1980. and hence the representative cost of a given layout is given
as:
18 Carlson, C. M., Johnson, R. A. and Helming, F. W.:
'Computer Aids for Ship Design, Integration and Control': + t ji up di j (3)
US Naval Engineers Journal, April, 1980. = .
19. Friedman,N,: 'Modern Warship Design and Develop- where
ment', Conway Maritime Press, 1979. t-j = number of daily return trips from the activity r
20. Leopold, R.: 'Surface Warships for the Early 21st assigned to location i to that assigned to
Century'. American Enterprise Institute for Public location j
Policy Research, October 1977. ui = cost per second of the time of the activity at
location i
21. Daniel, R. J.: 'Warship Design-New Concepts and New
Technology'. Parsons Memorial Lecture 1976. Trans. n = number of activities and loCationS.
NECIES, Vol. 77,1977.
If equation (3) for architectural layouts is now considered
22. Nautical Institute: 'ShipSystems-the Impact of for ship layouts, there are many considerations .other than
Change'-Joint Conference with RINA, I MarE, Sealife just circulation. Transfer considerations,information
Programme at City University, London 1979. relationships, between service requirements and access
23. Baker, R.: 'Habitability in Ships,of the Royal Canadian considerations are discussed in Section 3.1 of the main
Navy '. Trans. SNAME, 1956. , - paper. These and other considerations mean that the single
equation (3) is replaced by a larger number of equations of
24. Cain, J. G. D. and Hatfield, M. R.: 'New Concepts in the the generalised form:
Design of Shipboar&Accommodation and Working m
Spaces'. Trans. RINA,,Vol:121,1979. Ri = E E (17-ij (4)
J.,y sij.
25. Hope, J. P. and Carlson, C. M.: 'Naval Ship Access j:=1
Design'. US Naval Engineers Journal, April 1978. where
26. March, L.: 'The Architecture of Form'. C.U.P., 1976. R1 = The measure of the relationship between two
compartments i and j for a given considera.-:
27. Cross, N.: 'The Automated Architect: Human and tion 1
Machine Roles in Design'. Pion Limited, 1977.
= The frequency (eg daily usage) of the
28. Alexander, C.: 'A City is not a Tree'. Design, February transfer between i and j for the given
1966. consideration 1 '

29. Archer, L. Bruce.: 'Systematic Method for Designers'. ir ji = The frequency (eg daily usage) of; the
Council of Industrial Design, 1965. transfer between j and i for the given
consideration 1 -
30. Jones, J. Christopher.: 'Design Methods'. Wiley Inter-
science. = The 'weighting' factors of the importance of
compartments i and j tolthe giVen consideral
31. Gregory, S. A.: 'Creativity and Innovation in Erig neering', don 1
Butterworths, 1972. = The separatidn (ideally both horizontal and
32. Bailey, R. L.: 'Disciplined Creativity for Engineers '. -Vertical) of compartments i andj in the
Ann Arbor Science Publisher Inc, 1978. proposed configuration.,,
33. Jencks, C.: 'Architecture 2000-Predictions and Methods'. The total consideration of a given layout of the Main design
Studio Vista, 1971, areas (Vm) will b'e the product of all the considerations
Ri Rk Rn
34. Papanek, V.: 'Design for the Real World'. Paladin, 1974.
ie R T RK
35. Rawson, K. J.: 'Maritime System Design Methodology'.
Symposium on Advances in Marine Technology,
However, as discussed in Section 3.1, this product would
Trondheim, 1979.
require a 'weighting' of very disparate considerations and
36. Popper,K.R.: 'Logic of Scientific Discovery'. Hutchin- is not therefore recommended. Rather RT should be left as
son, 1959. separate evaluations for the separate considerations; the
overall merit of 'a given configuration of Vim- to be left to
37. Magee, B.: 'Men of Ideas-Part 12-The Philosophy of the designer not the machine. Hence Vm is given by the
Science'. BBC, 1978. n values of.R i, Rn
38. Medawar, R.: Review of 'Problems of Scientific Revolu-
tion'. The Spectator, August 9,1975. vm < = [R i , 0] (5)
9
CREATIVE SHIP DESIGN

But this must be consistent with the definition V Do as part Converting 'Totalto the sum of the volume of the underwater
of the Total Ship Volume VTotal shown in Fig. 5 and given form A, plus the main hull above the design waterline to the
by equation (1) at Section 3.1. weatherdeck and the superstructure V„

ie 'Total = + Cfl LB(D — T) VSS


VTotal = Vmcy 'Iles (1) Cp Cm LBT + Cf 1 LB(D — T) Vss (8)
Consider now the case of a surface warship, the balancing of where Cf 1 is a corrected waterplane coefficient to account
weight and space mentioned in Section 2, 2 can be expressed for the increase in the waterplane from design waterline to
in somewhat simplistically symbolic form as follows: weather deck.
8 Hence from equations (1) and (8)
A= LBT C = (6)
i=i V = C C LBT + Cf l LB(D — T)
m P m
.v E A ph, = v. (7) + VSS
— Vmcy
ey— V R e s (9)
i=i
Thus the desired ship design is given by Vm from the
ie Underwater form displacement equations of the form of equation (4) but consistent with
equation (9) where
= Sum of the weights of the required payload and
resulting supporting platform and systems Vmcy is obtained from form and machinery package
considerations
and enclosed volume given by deck areas
Vss from stability considerations and margin
= Sum of volumes required for payload and ship philosophy
'systems' m
where © R es 'Res

C p = Prismatic Coefficient ie sum of all the required volumes (vpes) of the


Cm = Midship Section Coefficient 'residue' requirements
and C Cm , LB T, D , Cf 1 are given from initial iterations
wl = Individual, group weight
on the form for the normal Naval Architectural considera-
A = Deep displacement. tions of 55 (eg stability, speed, seakeeping, strength and
style) plus such aspects as dimensional limitations due to
V = Total. enclosed volume upper deck disposition etc and the weight balance of equa-
tion (6) for the required performance.
A n = Area of a deck
Equations of the form of equation (4) together with equation
h p = Corresponding deck height (9) enable the ship designer to explore wider configurations.
Thus the impact of new layouts on the overall ship design
yr = Individual volume can be analysed.

APPENDIX 2

TABLE III, Creative Design Methods, New Techniques, Radical Design Solutions

A. Creative Design Methods Possible Manner of Use in Ship Design Summary Sources
A. 1 Methods for Problem Analysis
FDM — Fundamental Design A structured approach to logically arrive at an 'optimu a chett (A)
Method solution to a particular design problem. -.
PABLA — Problem Analysis by . A step by step interrogation of the needs to critically S.A.Gregory (B)
Logical Approach analyse the supposed requirements.
AIDA — Analysis of Interconnected A systematic technique for synthesis to deal with S.A.Gregory
Design Areas, interdependencies.
K-T — Keptner and Tregoe's This method was used in NASA's Apollo fire investi- S.A.Gregory
Method of Problem Solving gation, An interrogative yes-no approach, useful in
dealing with specific problems.
A. 2 Creative Stimuli
Brainstorming Free thinking. Most useful in the early concept S. A. Gregory
stage to avoid radical solutions being overlooked.
. ,
Synetics; Group activity with independent experts so that S. A. Gregory
Unusual analogies can be explored. Again useful
for the concept stage.
Lateral Thinking A technique for the individual designer to think more De Bono (C)
widely,
Ideas on Intuition A creative individual's very open view of the system Buckmaster
approach which focuses attention on the wider impact Fuller (D)
of design decisions.
10
CREATIVE SHIP DESIGN

TABLE III—cont'd

Bionics Study of plant structures and animal structures and Gerardin (E)
mechanisms can reveal insights to design problems
especially when radical change is needed.
Design Strategy A logical catalogue of available design techniques Jones (F)
to enable the designer to choose the most appropriate
at a given time.

B. New Techniques

B. 1 New Mathematical Applications


Fuzzy Sets A possible way of reconciling disparate quantities to Malik (G)
provide a better weighting for optimisation techniques.
Catastrophe Theory A possible way of modelling sudden changes in ship design Zeeman (H)
as a particular new aspect establishes a design solution.
Network Theory An explanation of counter-intuitive behaviour in systems Brainin &
which could deal with the complexity of the constraints Huseyin (I)
in ship design.
Entropy The energy approach could be extended from structural Waddington (J)
design to be used as a yardstick for optimality of designs.
Information Theory May give insight into communications in a wider design Shannon &
environment for marine technology in the future. Weaver (K)
Games Theory Could be used to assess much more effectively those Waddington
ship characteristics that matter and are worth con-
siderable R & D effort to improve.
Modelling Theories Due to the power of the computer, mathematical Echen que (L)
models of the behaviour of urban structures (eg towns)
may be utilised to describe the operation of a ship.
B.2 New Disciplines
Cybenetics An approach to the man-intelligent machine interface Wiener (M)
of which all designers using future CAD methods will
need to be aware,
Semantics /Linguistics A better understanding of the basics of communication Chomsky (N)
will be essential to talk to multidisciplinary design
teams.
Systemic Analysis A broader view of systems theory that tries to allow Beischon (0)
for the less readily analytical aspects, it may prove a
powerful means of understanding both designs and the
design process.
Perception Greater insights into perception may enable ship , R. L. Gregory (P)
designers to produce more visually effective designs
and convey design intent more coherently.
Group Dynamics Understanding of group behaviour will enable fuller Blumberg &
benefit to be obtained from the wider multidisciplinary Golembrewski (Q)
design teams.

C. Radical Design Solutions

Social Critics Such critics foster a more critical design approach Schumacher (R)
by considering the wider impact of new design solutions. Ellul (S)
Alternative Technology Radical ideas could counter the ever growing pressure Dickson (T)
for complexity thus simplifying future designs.
Socially Responsive Design Such radical approaches to design could revolutionise Papanek (U)
design education and hence design organisations.
New Architectural Theories An approach to a theory of architectural totality Norberg-Schultz (V)
which emphasises the social, psychological and
cultural elements in spatial design in addition to the
more materially obvious aspects.
An approach which comprehends.a massive urban world Doxiades (W)
city highly structured and incorporating all forms of
transportation,
This approach calls for a wholistic approach to Smith (X)
architectural/urban design to break out of sub-
specialisation.
Philosophy of Design An attempt to link CAAD to decision theory and a March (Y)
Bayesian approach to design which may provide a
useful start point to a philosophy of design
embracing ship design—(see Section 4.4),

11
CREATIVE SHIP DESIGN

SOURCE RE FE RE NCES M. Wiener, N.: 'The Human Use of Human Beings'. Sphere
Books 1968.
A. Matchelt, E. and Briggs, A. H.: 'Practical Design Based Chomsky, N.: 'Language and Mind'. Harcourt Brace
on Method FDM' in 'The Design Method'. Ed S.A. N.
Jovanovich 1968.
Gregory, Butterworths 1966.
B. Reference 31. 0. Beischon, J.: 'Systems Behaviour'. Harper Row 1972.
C. De Bono, E.: 'Lateral Thinking—a Text Book in Creativ- P. Gregory, R. L.: 'Eye and Brain'. World University
ity'. Ward Lock Educational 1970. Library 1966.
D. Buckmaster Fuller, R.: 'Intuition'. Doubleday & Co Inc Q. Blumberg, A. and Golembrewski, R. T.: 'Learning and
NY 1972. Change in Groups'. Penguin 1976.
E. Gerardin, L.: 'Bionics' Weidenfeld & Nicholson 1968. R. Schumacher, E. F.: 'Small is Beautiful'. Sphere. 1974.
F. Reference 30.
S. Ellul, J.: 'The Technological Society'. Vintage Books.
G. Malik, R.: 'Fuzzy Thinking'. New Scientist 18 October Random NY 1964.
1973.
T. Dickson, D.: 'Alternative Technology'. Fontana 1974.
H. Zeeman, E. C.: 'Catastrophe Theory'. Scientific
American April 1976. U. Reference 34.
I. Branin, F. H. and Huseyin, K.: 'Problem Analysis in V. Norberg-Schulz, C.: 'Existence, Space and Architecture '.
Science and Engineering'. Academic Press 1977. Praeger NY 1971.
J. Waddington, C. H.: 'Tools for Thought'. Paladin 1977. W. Doxiades, C.: 'Architecture in Transition'. Hutchinson
K. Shannon, C. E. and Weaver, W.: 'The Mathematical 1965.
Theory of Communication'. University of Illinois Press
X. Smith, P. F.: 'The Dynamics of Urbanism'. Hutchinson
1962.
1974.
L. Echenique, M.: 'Models: a discussion' in 'Urban Space
and Structure'. Ed Martin and March, C.U.P. 1972. Y. Reference 26.

PRINTED By Unwin Brothers Limited


THE GRESHAM PRESS OLD WOKING SURREY ENGLAND

Produced by 'Uneoprint'
A member of the Staples Printing Group
CREATIVE SHIP DESIGN

SOURCE RE FEPP,NCES applicability of the systems and techniques he is proposing


to the merchant field where speed in design is at a premium
A. Ivlatchett, E, and Briggs, A. H.: 'Practical Design Based if the shipbuilder is to gain orders in the very competitive
on Method FDM' in 'The Design Method'. Ed S.A. market? Another comment from the author which seems to
Gregory, Butterworths 1966. suggest his occupation with warship design is the reference
to space considerations. Space is not so vital in the merchant
B. Reference 31.
vessel since the options in its distribution are so limited,
C. De Bono, E.: 'Lateral Thinking—a Text Book in Creativ- There is not much point in referring specifically to the
ity'. Ward Lock Educational 1970. superstructure as requiring sophisticated treatment since
on the average merchant vessel of any size its importance
D. Buckrnaster Fuller, R.: 'Intuition'. Doubleday & Co Inc is relatively small.
NY 1972,
The next aspect on which I would question the author is cost.
Gerardin, L.: 'Bionics' Weidenfeld ,P2 Nicholson 1968. Will his suggested techniques not tend to increase the cost
F. Reference 30. of the design exercise? I agree, however, that it can be
proved quite often that some greater expenditure at the de-
G. Malik, R.: 'Fuzzy Thinking'. New Scientist 18 October sign stage, in itself minor in relation to overall ship cost
1973.
particularly if a series is being built, can produce lasting
H. Zeeman, E C.: 'Catastrophe Theory', Scientific benefits of much greater scale throughout the life of the
American April 1976, vessel.
Branin, F, H. and Ruseyin, K.: 'Problem Analysis in Then I would ask the author to comment on the type of de-
Science and Engineering', Academic Press 1977. signer and the organisation which might be required to best
utilise the new techniques.
J. Waddington, C. H.: 'Tools for Thought'. Paladin 1977.
Does he see a greater move to centralising design effort
K, Shannon, C. E. and Weaver, W.: 'The Mathematical which has already been a feature in some countries with the
Theory of Communication'. University of Illinois Press computer aided design approach? This again may be accom-
1962, plished more readily in the warship area than in the merchant
L. Echenique, M.: 'Models: a discussion' in 'Urban Space area with its scattered and relatively small yards throughout
and Structure', Ed Martin and March, C.U.P. 1972. UK.
M. Wiener, N.: 'The Human Use of Human Beings'. Sphere As to the author's view on the need to recognise the con-
Books 1968. straints on the design, its process and environment, I suggest
there could be a danger in becoming over-occupied with
N. Chomsky, N.: 'Language and Mind'. Harcourt Brace these. It is not difficult to add even more examples to the
Jovanovich 1968. constraints listed in Table I until the designer becomes
0. Beischon, J.: 'Systems Behaviour'. Harper Row 1972, weighed down with this negative attitude—and in this area
there seems to be as many, or more, constraints in warship
P. Gregory, R. L.: 'Eye and Brain', World University as in merchant design. However, I suspect the author is
Library 1966. saying that the ways of finding successful solutions and
Q. Blumberg, A, and Golembrewski, R. T.: 'Learning and avenues out of the 'Constraint-jacket' are assisted by the
Change in Groups'. Penguin 1976, new techniques of which he is reminding us. But in this
connection I observe again the difference in the way success
R. Schumacher, B.F.: 'Small is Beautiful'. Sphere 1974. is measured. In the merchant design area it has become
S. Ellul, J.: 'The Technological Society'. Vintage Books. usual to talk of the present worth of the finished vessel or
Random NY 1964. the required freight rate associated with various design
alternatives. How does the warship designer measure his
T. Dickson, D.: 'Alternative Technology'. Fontana 1974. success? Or does the less easily defined measure of success
U. Reference 34. in warship building lend encouragement to the wider and
more diffuse approach which some might see in the proposi-
V. Norberg-Schulz, C.: 'Existence, Space and Architecture'. tions here put forward?
Praeger NY 1971.
Coming to Table III which lists creative design methods,
W. Doxiades, C.: 'Architecture in Transition', Hutchinson techniques and solutions, I note with some alarm that even
1965. this is said to be far from complete. There is indeed enough
X. Smith, P. F.: 'The Dynamics of Urbanism'. Hutchinson already toa make one ask how and where they can be actually
1974. applied. Although there is a certain fascination in absorbing
the great range of techniques described, can the author be
Y. Reference 26. more specific in illustrating their application to our current
design requirements? Can he select say, one method, one
technique and one solution and show us how they might be
used to benefit what we do? At the moment the only example
DISCUSSION is to cite the recent IMCO requirements for product or other
tankers as a case for applying decision making in accordance
M. Meek, B.Sc. (Fellow): I am not sure that I like this with catastrophe theory. Can we therefore look to the author
paper. It is not because of the great number of names and soon for the second step towards better awareness of crea-
references used, nor is it because of the jargon employed. tive ship design? He says in his last sentence that the paper
It is because the author, through his paper, makes me realise presents only the first step; the second step would be to
that I am something of a traditional naval architect who is actually implement the opening words of his summary 'to
being brought to realise that there is a wide world of new discuss the applications of various design methods'.
thinking beyond his own little orbit, which should be better
understood. And this wider world is one where intuitive de- Meantime we are indebted to the author for coming to this
sign and more creative thinking are the keys to enhanced Joint Meeting in the North East and so rightly facing us with
performance. the need to introduce new and creative thinking in our design
work.
Nevertheless I have a feeling that the author's approach is
somewhat warship-oriented. What is being proposed seems Mr K.J.Rawson,R.C.N.C. (Fellow): Mr _Andrews has
to involve a longer time scale than is normally associated succeeded in disturbing our self-satisfaction in ship design.
with merchant ship design. Can the author give a view on the He has been less successful in directing our efforts to the

458
CREATIVE SHIP DESIGN

most pfofitable endeavours, except in one technique outlined There is another interesting difference between equations
in Appendix I concerned with trip frequency optimisation (a) and (b) in that the position of weight matters relatively
which we have indeed neglected. As one who has dabbled in little in a modern warship since the engines and weapon
design philosophy, I have much sympathy with the author. spaces are no longer significantly more dense than other
However, when you are faced with a vast array of virtue items. Spaces do have a strong positional requirement and
from which to make a choice, you are inclined to burst into there is usually a positional relationship with other spaces,
tears. As Frosch remarked after 10 years of infusion of e.g. the galley should be on 2 deck and should also be next to
space scientists into the US Navy design process 'What we the dining halls. To some extent, one may treat equation (a)
need is systems engineering of systems engineering'. as akin to a scalar equation while (b) resembles a vector
equation, and for this reason it is usually easier to make
It is possible to narrow the field and thereby render it more
comprehensible. If design is regarded as creative endeavour preliminary estimates on a weight basis even for a ship
which is space controlled. Such an approach needs some
directed towards the achievement of an objective, then a de-
signer must begin with an objective. The objective must be experience and considerable data to ensure that the space
is about right when the time comes to adhieve a balance.
bounded by features which can be manipulated by the de-
signer when they are variables or cannot be changed, when The problems of architecture discussed in Section 3.3 are
they are constraints. This at least provides a framework to very real. An approach which the author and I developed
which this panoply of techniques may be applied. Often, the together was to allocate to each compartment a preferred
ship designer is so tightly embraced by his objective and As and one or two acceptable alternative locations, comparing
boundaries that conventional techniques will suffice. Single areas required and available on a deck by deck basis.
role merchant ships designed to a required freight rate may Though this still left many options, the number of possibili-
be typical. The philosophies as distinct from the techniques ties was finite and, once the major blocks, operations spaces,
touched upon by the author are more applicable to trans- galley, had been fixed there were usually few choices left.
portation systems whose boundaries can be manipulated.
The question of access raised in Section 3.1 leads to an
Here there is great scope for some fundamental new thought
interesting conflict. The layout of the ship should be such
given broad boundaries and, indeed, the motivation expressed
that the need for passageways etc is minimised while at the
by an objective. I believe that, of the creative behaviour
categorizations expressed by Gregory, only the motivational same time, the size of necessary passages should be
one is applicable to transportation systems, while Leopold's generous. Large passageways ease installation and reduce
maintenance times.
eight factors demonstrate the breadth of the objective for
military systems upon which their effectiveness is judged. As the author says, trend curves are necessary in the early
I know of no single satisfactory figure of merit for such phases of design but they must be used with considerable
systems. caution. For example, a well known trend curve shows the
I have enjoyed Mr Andrews' teasing very much, somewhat optimum prismatic coefficient for various speeds and the
trend of results for older destroyers fits this curve well.
akin to the brainstorming that he mentions. He has displayed
Such ships were designed for top speed performance and
a remarkable breadth of reading and will, I hope, continue to
progress in this important field. I congratulate him on this this curve has little relevance when choosing a form for
important start. good endurance. Trend curves do not allow for technical
development but are still invaluable for a quick check on the
Mr D. K. Brown, M.Eng., R.C.N.C. (Fellow): It is my belief, results of a computer based design; the new design does not
which I know is shared by the author, that the whole ethos of have to be on the curve but an explanation will be called for
the profession of naval architecture rests on the design of if it is more than one standard deviation off the line.
ships. It is therefore strange that so little attention has been In attempting to optimise the design it is essential to know
paid to the design process itself; there are papers on tech- and understand the task for which the ship is to be designed.
nique, on how to choose prismatic coefficient etc, but almost For a warship, this is not easy as most will be required to
none on designing, and hence this paper is very welcome. undertake several different roles of varying importance.
I am a little concerned that the author seems occasionally to Furthermore, the history of two world wars shows that the
imply that design is almost a mechanical process. The great actual job of a warship is often very different from that en-
designer is likely to leap lightly from loop to loop of the de- visaged when it was designed. One can attempt a rigorous
sign spiral (Fig. 1) and will carry forward a study which is solution using a decision matrix with weighting on the Ackoff/
unbalanced until quite late in the process. This this intuitive Churchman hypothesis (39) or as proposed by Rawson (40).
leap frogging which makes it almost impossible to draw a Such approaches are usually most revealing, particularly
network diagram of the conceptual stage of design. My own with respect to the designer's own prejudices, and can guide
attempts to do so have almost proved that logical ship design a decision, though one must never allow a mechanistic
is impossible. The author does make a somewhat related approach to give a single figure of merit.
point at the bottom of Table I under the idiosyncracies etc A different level of decision-making is referred to in Section
of the design team, I would add intuition to his list of quali- 3. 2(a) though it may be that the enormous increase in
ties and, as a manager, try to ensure that the design team decision-making in CASD is more apparent than real. A
included both an intuitive thinker and a methodical man with design decision to base the new structure on that of a pre-
an eye for detail. Composition of the design team needs an vious ship implies a multitude of decisions which merely
appropriate mix of personalities as well as of specialisations. become more explicit in CASD. A more serious problem is
My only serious quarrel with the author is in Section 2.2— that the range of solutions thrown up by CASD will swamp
Sizing Ships. I accept equation (a) which is Archimedes' the customer's power of choice.
Principle but equation (b) should be an inequality. In discussing design theories and strategies, I would have
Space available % space required expected some mention of futurology. The early studies for
the WHITBY class frigates were carried out in 1944 and
There is a minimum space but no maximum if the advantages their derivatives, the LE_ANDERS will probably be in service
of increasing size outweigh any extra cost. It is helpful at 50 years later. A time span of 35-40 years from concept to
this stage of the design to think of the ship as made of rubber scrap is normal and the designer must do his inadequate
which can stretch but not compress. I do not like the use of best to think ahead that far. This is a real problem which
volume as a measure of space. Volume is appropriate for does not go away if ignored. Future predictions are probably
fuel tanks but for mess decks, operational spaces etc the best approached by drawing limits on what will not happen-
correct measure of space is usually deck area. This is an e.g. oil is most unlikely to get more abundant or cheaper.
important distinction because to increase the internal volume One can build up a number of such constraints, and, bearing
of a ship it is usually easiest and cheapest to increase the in mind that the laws of nature do not change, a cloudy image
depth which will do little to increase deck area. of the future can be formed. It is also worth bearing in mind

459
cR 171 4 P T)17 P,TC,

that coLservative pressures always get stronger as the de- Heads right forward. Not one of these examples could be
sign develops and hence the, initial concept should he biased claimed as unique solutions.
to the novel. Sir Rowland Baker (41) has suggested that a new
ship should be 25% novelty, 75% well proven practice. My proposals were never sealed with any approval. They
ended my career as a designer, but I still see the paradox in
Guidance can also be obtained from a critical review of the view of the innovative designer. Innovate from a firm
history as many of the philosophical problems of techno- base, if you have a good scheme, stick with it, and innovate
logical innovation recur, even though with different detailed by eliminating variables.
aspects (42). The concept of exponential growth has been
dropped in recent years and while approaches such as the With this philosophy, innovation in design tends to come from
logistic curve (43) seem limited in forecasting, they can be of external changes in requirements. The designer himSelf is
value in understanding past trends. To see history, past, inhibited, even frustrated, but if all is innovation the likely
present and future as a continuing process is an essential result is chaos.
way of thought for the creative designer and for the informed The most significant change in warships since steam was the
customer. advent of nuclear power, yet NAUTILUS was in most respects
a conventional submarine, and Admiral Rickover himself
opposed the subsequent innovation of the ALBACORE form.
REFERENCES It seems that Mr Andrews is saying that a design computer
can be used to re-evaluate lay out changes in the same way
39. Kaufmann, A.: The Science of Decision Making, World that historically mathematics was used to take technical
University Library, 1968, p 74. features out of design discussions. If this is done using the
40. Rawson, K. J.: 'Towards Economic Warship Acquisition computer as a design tool, like the calculator, which the
and Ownership'. Trans. RINA, Vol. 115, 1973. customer never sees, it may be a necessary and desirable
step, but it does introduce a new series of variables.
41. Baker, Sir Rowland: discussion of Some problems in
the Construction of Warships Today' by P. Gisserot. It may be that such a scheme will reduce the mystique in
Trans. RINA, Vol. 101, 1959. Arrangement plans just as Mathematics did for Naval Archi-
tectural and Engineering techniques.
42. Brown, D. K.: 'British' Battleship Design 1840-1904'.
Interdisciplinary Sciences Review, March 1981. We shall, however, be left with a paradox. The interest of the
customer in the layout, although it may never be specifically
43. McPherson: 'Ship Systems and Change'. Symposium on expressed as Speed, Armament, Safety and possibly other
The Impact of Change. Nautical Institute/RINA, 1979. requisites, is much more testing. If a design fails because
it explodes, capsizes,breaks up, or sinks, that designer may
Sir Rowland Baker, 0.13.,E.,R.C.N.C. (Fellow) (read by the come to feel, if he is still alive, that there was something
Secretary, R.I.N.A.): My desire to encourage the author is wrong with the concept or the Sums. He may feel quite
very great, but not great enough to persuade me to read all abashed, but the user will not. The phrase, 'What is wrong
the references. Anything which can be observed to increase with our ships' will just make heroes out of ordinary mor-
the competence of the designer will increase his prestige tals, there is not any possibility of curative action. But if
and the respect in which he is held, so there is a powerful the layout fails (that is, not liked) factorial N complaints will
argument to favour discussion of the design process. propagate, for the customer or his agents have to live with
the arrangement day in and day out, perhaps for years, and if
My overall attitude.to Ship Design was a reaction to my they so live, even making do, a failure in this field is bound,
realisation of its complexity; it led to appreciation of Rules, at least, to erode respect and destroy all confidence, whereas
of the need to eliminate variables, reduction in the scope of an ultimate technical failure, even if terminal, is only an
innovation and that unique solutions were unlikely. Against episode.
this view the designer has to offer the customer a single
proposal. Such a solution will only stick if the customer is Sadly too, where mathematics led to material or configura-
desperate or if he has total respect for the integrity and tion changes, in spite of some resistance these innovations
competence of the designer. were soon accepted as standard (e.g. no one really wanted to
go back back to wood), but if computerised layouts lead to
Mathematics, or the ability to solve the technical aspects, novelties, these may be rejected for this reason alone.
gave a great boost to this respect. (The customer no longer
had to worry as to whether the ship would sink, capsize,break Is it right? must be answered by the designers alone. Use
up, stop, or not steer). Unfortunately the success of this ele- will give confirmation. No approval by mathematics, com-
ment on the prestige of the designer tended to obscure the puter, customer, or anyone else can absolve the designer
importance of arrangement. from his responsibility for justification by trial.

My 1956 proposed Stylised Layout derived from the belief


that the Achilles heel of the designer lay in just this, anyone, Mr M. J. Westlake, R.C.N.C. (Member): As an ex-Head of the
customer or contributor could look at a design and say Concept Design Section in MOD, Bath, I found Mr Andrews'
'Wouldn't it be better if we moved compartment X to a new paper most interesting; however creativity comes from the
position'. This could not be gainsaid, since the arrangements mind and this point should perhaps have been more empha-
were subjective, There were no sums to cover this and so no sised in the paper.
way of saying 'The Sums say No'. No computer—so having, as With this thought as a starting point I suggest that the fourth
a designer, eliminated variables, factorial N possible varia- section should have come first as it provides the references
tions could be introduced in a flash. Moreover the more to the techniques and analogues that can stimulate the mind
conscientious the customer or observer, the greater the to bring forward the creative ideas which may be worth
likelihood of disaster. pursuing.
The Stylised Layout was a ploy to get authority, on the argu- Experience has shown that ideas involving radical changes
ment that whilst a layout could not be promoted 'as proven in concept are met with suspicion by the customer unless
by the Sums', as were the technical factors, it could, and they are supported with sufficient information to emphasise
should, at least it part, be accepted on the basis of custom or the benefits. The third section of the paper describes the
pattern, tools now available which should enable the gaps in the logic
of the idea to be fully explored.
I believed that I was expressing in words recognition of facts
that had been accepted, sometimes to my dismay, e.g. that the Using these techniques and tools the designer or design team
funnel should occupy the best part of the ship, that the will at last have the means to combat many of the constraints
Admiral's quarters should be right aft, and the Seamans' listed which have stifled the creative spirit in the past.

460
CREATIVE SHIP DESK--N
As an example, one idea considered in the early 70s during market research nature for exploring the opportunities in
the 'Future Light Frigate' studies was whether the concept research in the light of the needs of design, and vice versa,
adopted elsewhere for mass feeding utilising micro-wave for the benefit of both and the end product. That demands a
ovens, pre-packed meals individually selected from dis- meeting of minds with understanding of both research and
pensers supplied from pre-packed, lifted on board, freezer design. The necessary movement of staff to achieve that in
containers, could provide major benefits in manpower saving, an organisation seems nowadays to be more not less impeded
cost and internal layout. If CAAD had been available then, by divisions between those classed as engineers (or naval
much more could have been done to put against the natural architects) and those classed as scientists. Neither is the
aversion to changing this most traditional aspect of life at meeting of minds helped by the generally creative cast of
sea. mind of designers and the analytical style of scientists. This
I therefore welcome this paper with its multitude of is a big problem in the creative and profitable use of science
references and recommend its philosophy to the designers which has been and still is affecting Britain acutely.
of our future ships. The author stresses the need for design to explore all
possible worthwhile innovations to meet the requirements.
Mr IC.G.FuLford,B.Sc. (Fellow): Firstly, it is a pleasure to But, by symmetry, is it not equally important that those
have a paper which does not require paragraph by paragraph formulating requirements also explore all worthwhile inno-
comment—not because I agree with what is said—in many vations in meeting their needs? It is all too commonly the
cases I do not—but because the real value of the paper is in case for the requirement to be more or less for 'what we
the climate it creates, that of a re-assertion of the impor- had last time, but better'. New conceptual methods are
tance of creation in design. needed to identify worthwhile innovative requirements and to
Most designers do indeed take the design process for think through their consequences. If such methods had
eranted so they should be interested to see their, often existed, would we have suffered that craze for high rise
erratic, thoughts dignified as philosophy. flats, or labour saving devices which, dangerously, leave
people with the more boring parts of their occupations (and
Though nothing in the paper is really new, for it can be those include operating ships)?
argued that any good design must inevitably have been pro-
duced by methods including elements of most of the proposed The author rightly stresses the need for designers to be able
design systems, they will rarely be formally acknowledged. to influence a team and obtain consent for their ideas. One
has to say, however, tnat the training of most engineers today
The paper should strengthen the intuitive and synthetic side does too little to develop those capacities: nor do those who
of design—especially in the quarters where acronyms and choose to become engineers generally shine naturally in that
categorisations confer respectability—and will help to direction, more than, say, administrators, and therefore stand
counterpoise the increasingly powerful analytical historical in less need to have those arts developed in them. Indeed
data based systems which though very useful must not be the very opposite is the case.
Used uncritically as even the best are unable unaided to 'get
it right'. Design methods of the kinds discussed by the author could
well reduce the number of creative designers needed in the
It does no harm to re-affirm the survival of the 'black art' future, with the following consequences:
in design.
(a) Engineers and architects will be less experienced in
The designer, faced with the innate, but probably justifiable, design.
conservatism of the customer has the problem of demon-
strating the worth of any innovation. The old systems, which (b) Creative, interactive design will be less understood.
did not produce it, if used as the basis for judgement will (c) Sound and useful design philosophy will be less available
probably lead to the rejection of the innovation and thus the to be imparted in education.
concept of 'Perception' should be a 'front line' weapon in the At the same time by present trends, the layman's demands
designer's armoury. This leads to the speculation as to
whether the first new recruit to the multi-discipline design on designers will be heavier, raising moral issues in any
group should be an advertising man or a psychologist. design decision affecting, as they nearly all do, people, their
lives and the manner and style of their work or leisure. The
The appreciation that a good design is more than the sum of Reith Lectures last year showed how the medical profession
its parts must be the premise upon which any design philo- has already been affected. The responsibility of designers
sophy is based but should it be taught? for the safety of their products has yet to be fathomed.
Just as the study of aesthetics and philosophy of art is said These factors seem likely to put creative designers into a
to be ruinous of the creative artistic talent so also ship de- difficult position in society, and I would like to suggest that
signers should beware lest the too self-conscious contem- these questions, implicit in this paper, call for action now by
plation of their naval architecture and design methods professional and educational institutions.
prevents them from designing ships.
Mr F. B. Tebbutt, B.Sc. (Fellow): Having listened with great
This caveat aside, a valuable and thought provoldng paper. interest to the paper and the verbal contributions I am led
A vote of thanks to the author. proposed by Mr R. J. Daniel, to ponder on the relation of the author's philosophies to the
0.]3.E., R. C .N. C., F.Eng., (Vice -Chairman of Council, RINA), task of the designer in the conventional merchant ship field.
was carried with acclamation. Here there is less opportunity for creative basic design
unless one is fortunate enough to be engaged in a project for
a new type of vessel. This, however, should not debar the
WRITTEN DISCUSSION application of innovative techniques even if only in areas of
detail.
Mr J.F.Coates, 0.B.E., M.A. (Fellow): This able paper deals One can only envy the system which enables the military
with design in the large, which is neither easily nor often designer to undertake the design as a project separate from
discussed. The author has a message not only for ship de- the pressures of immediate tendering.
signers but for all creative engineers and architects, even
for artists. Whilst in respect of cargo vessels, the designer's task may
seem more in the nature of adaptation and development than
Leopold has called for better organisational links between true creative design, he is very lucky if he is allowed weeks,
research and design. Certainly those that I have Seen and rather days, to complete design and tendering. Except in a
have tried to operate have not been much more than a market few enlightened cases, the designer is tied to the present
between the two sides for virtually readymade wares on a commercial practice where the owner expects almost instant
take-it-or-leave-it basis. What is needed is a link of a response to his enquiry. This is clearly likely to be detri-
461
CREATIVE DESIGN

mental to the technical excellence of the product. One would Mr C.N. Palmer, B.Sc.(Eng.), M.Sc., M.P.A.: Having studied
therefore welcome a closer liaison with the customer during Naval Architecture with the author before resigning from the
design with ample time allowed for the development of the RCNC to work. in America on energy and environmental
project. The alternative approach is the development of a issues, I was heartened to read this paper which tries to in-
standard design with time sufficient for complete develop- ject imagination, creativity and breadth into the subject of
ment prior to initial marketing. The object in either case ship design.
must be firstly to achieve sufficient time to ensure the pro-
These are the very qualities which are needed tc attract high
duction of an optimum design, but the merchant designer is
calibre people into the naval architecture profession and to
always very conscious of the price tag on the bottom of the
curb the serious erosion of its status.
tender because if this is too high, the technical merits may
never receive a fair assessment from the customer. In the I hope the issues addressed will be debated widely among
case of innovative features, these must be of proven economic professional naval architects, for the profession should view
value and not of such a nature as to give rise to doubts in the this paper as a pioneering effort to explore an important
areas of reliability or maintenance. area and as a great opportunity to inject vitality, ingenuity
Whilst progress in design may seem less significant in the and values into professional discussions. An uncritical em-
commercial than the military field, the past few decades have bracing of the paper's ideas would not, of course, be useful
but an indiscriminate rejection would be a wasted oppor-
seen more rapid advances in technical development than in
tunity.
any previous period. The future application of the author's
broader design philosophies will undoubtedly lead to im- I strongly urge the author to expand his paper to include
proving the rate of advance in the next generation. more discussion of the following issues:
(i) What impact, if any, does working in the public sector
Mr C. V. Betts, M.A., M.Phil., R.C.N.C. (Fellow): I would like (as opposed to working for a private firm) have on the
to comment on the latter, more philosophical, part of this creativity of ship designers?
thought-provoking paper. The author is right to stress that (ii) Based on the ideas in this paper, what steps should be
while computer aids give the opportunity for far more com- taken to attract young people to the naval architecture
prehensive investigation of alternatives, such aids do not in profession who have the capacity to grow beyond what is
themselves lead to more creative design. Computers will publicly seen as the engineer stereotype: unimaginative,
only become part of the direct creative process if and when predictable, and unable to handle anything beyond
that process itself becomes properly understood and capable assigned technical projects?
of being programmed. We do indeed need a philosophy of
design before coherent progress can be made in that direc- (iii) Do other countries do a better or worse job than Great
tion (whether such progress is desirable is a different Britain when it comes to creative ship design?
philosophical question). However, I differ in one respect (iv) Is there anything naval architects can learn from the
from the author's views on the nature of design as described design practices and attitudes of other design profes-
in Section 4.4. I doubt that engineering design has more in sionals in the areas of bridges, houses, aircraft, towns,
common with the humanities than with science, though it does etc.?
overlap both cultures. Artistic creativity is concerned far
more with aesthetic than with functional aims (which is not (v) What are the potential tradeoffs if naval architects were
to imply that aesthetic and functional aims are unrelated). to spend more time on CAAD techniques and radical
Aesthetics are indeed one important aspect of engineering design theories? Specialisation in structures and hydro-
design, but the latter is, I believe, more akin to that part of dynamics can only be sacrificed so much before prob-
the scientific method which involves synthesising from known lems of basic competence set in. Yet specialisation is
or supposed facts (read 'design requirements/constraints') already occurring to an extraordinary degree. What are
to form a functional theory ('design concept') which is then the costs and benefits of naval architects being less
tested ('analysed') and adjusted accordingly. specialised and more broadly based?
(vi) I would appreciate more elaboration on the ultimate
A related consideration is whether creative engineering de- purpose of developing new tools for a radically new ship
sign should necessarily always be 'innovatory' in the sense design synthesis. Former US Health Secretary Joseph
of making radical departures from previous practice, as the Califano had a poster on his office wall with a quotation
author seems to imply from time to time. In artistic fields from Thoreau: 'It is not enough to be busy... he question
innovation is often seen as an end in itself, whereas in is what are we busy about?' It is a question people do not
engineering design the stimulus for major innovation is more ask themselves enough. More 'cost-effective ship de-
usually a novel initial design requirement than individual sign' may be a satisfactory answer.
flair applied in the normal design process. I do accept that
design requirements and solution interact, and that 'invention' Let me finish by congratulating the author again for his
can sometimes lead to successful solutions looking for de- creative, original and thought-provoking paper. He is exert-
sign requirements not yet explicitly formulated—e.g. the ing a pull on the naval architectural profession that can only
hovercraft. Nevertheless, a major constraint inhibiting strengthen and enrich it.
innovation in engineering design—but not usually in art—is
necessary caution in the face of high technical/programme/
financial risk. Engineering innovation is, therefore, often
deliberately avoided—for better or worse—unless the poten- Mr R. J. Tirard,B.Sc. (Fellow): I question the use of the word
tial benefits are very clear and significant. The very need 'Form'. As this is a paper on naval architecture it would be
to achieve a design compromise among many disparate re- better if he kept to the established usage, namely denoting the
quirements and to avoid too 'highly tuned' a design can also underwater shape of the hull. Other words such as 'concept',
be inhibiting. 'Arrangement' and so on could be substituted where neces-
sary. (He even uses it in different contexts in the same
In a sense, the above comments boil down to saying that the sentence).
engineering designer has less freedom than the artist and
that this must inevitably inhibit the engineer's practical The author has used the symbol 'inverted Delta' somewhat
thinking. I would therefore agree with the author that indiscriminately to mean both area and volume. Again the
engineering education should strive to be 'open' and stimu- established use of the symbol is to denote 'volume of dis-
lating to the imagination in order to counteract any tendency placement' and he could use a plain V for volume and A for
to stultification because of this. In particular, one must area where appropriate (I would not quibble either with M for
always remember that breakthroughs usually require some- mass or \V for weight where these also read across to Delta,
one to 'challenge the constraints'. displacement).

462
CR PA TIV F. .SHIP DESIGN

(Member): It is no easy task more mundane tasks, allowing him more time to think ration-
to comment on a paper so cogitative, comprehensive and pro- ally and permitting many more design options to be con-
vocative, and the author is to be heartily congratulated on sidered. There seem to be clear dangers here:
providing such an abundance of stimulating ideas.
(a) The availability of options is a mixed blessing, because
I was much taken by the quotation at the head of the paper. unless each can be carefully considered and the less
Sir Rowland Baker's words would appear to be searingly attractive options eliminated, there must be a danger
obvious, and vet there is still the notion abroad that not only that the number of options multiplies as the design
can computers calculate, discriminate and synthesize, they evolves with the result that all sense of direction in the
can somehow create as well. Discussion of misconceptions design will be lost. The designer is left wandering
of this kind (Ref. 44) prompts me to suggest that, for naval around a maze hoping that in due course he may stumble
ships at least, the author has omitted an important constraint upon the 'solution', assuming he can recognise it when
from the third column of Table I, namely, 'The innumeracy of he sees it. This may not seem a very credible argument,
the decision maker' (with acknowledgement to Ref.40). It has but the paper tells us of a 1900% increase in the rate of
to be the designer's difficult duty to ensure that politicians decision making with an associated increase in stress
and Naval Staffs are properly informed of the far reaching when using interactive CAD systems. Clearly, this sort
implications of their decisions on the quality of ship designs of level could not be sustained over long periods. The
for which they are ultimately responsible. When the Naval designer will be under constant pressure to make de-
Architect is for instance bound to the 'pernicious doctrine of cisions in response to relentless interrogation by the
minimum procurement cost' (Brown in Ref. 40), there seems computer. Surely there is a danger that the designer
little point in tinkering first with the philosophy of the design will become mesmerised by the apparently bewildering
process itself, much as this may be eventually required. freedom of choice available to him, and will become in-
creasingly flippant in his decision making with the
Continuing the point, if the naval designer is confined in a
result that the design will evolve on an increasingly ad
strait-jacket of unrealistic constraints and arbitrary changes
in design requirements (however well-meant), it is not sur- hoc basis.
prising that misinformed but influential commentators pro- (b) Cptimisation methods are mentioned. These are all very
claim that navies can get better value for money from well, but precise definition of constraints and optimisa-
off-the-shelf commercial designs (Ref. 45). tion criteria are required. These relationships will be
well established in some cases, but in other cases will
Turning now to the author's extremely interesting thoughts
involve subjective judgements. The designer may not be
on creativity and radical design theories, he appears to
aware of these subjective elements built into the 'soft-
suggest in Section 4.2 that 'new ships will be radically
ware' and of the possible implications of this. This
different from those presently envisaged' because of techno-
situation would be aggravated by the usual tendency,
logical developments of the nature predicted by Jencks.
noted elsewhere, to introduce more computer profes-
Future ships may well be vastly different, but I do not think
sionals as opposed to professional Engineers/Naval
a causal relationship necessarily exists as proposed here,
Architects.
because Naval Architects are not subject to the kinds of
social and political pressures applied to their brethren on (c) In the early stages of a design, much use is made of
land. There are in any case inherent dangers in attempting 'type ship' data. This situation is not new, but if the
to predict specific design developments, as any disciple of data are used blindly then the result must surely be a
Popper would be well aware! scaled up or down version of the type ship; hardly a
novel or creative solution.
Architecture, even when characterised as 'aesthetically
meaningful and aware' (whatever that means—Section 4.2), As well as involving calculations, design is also to some
is still regarded as capable of exhibiting visual appeal—how- extent a disciplined activity having a definable sequence of
ever often such an expectation is disappointed in practice. events. Perhaps, therefore, some consideration could be
With ships, however, such considerations appear to have long given to applying computers as an aid to design management
since disappeared (Ref. 46), and we see too often the painfully using, for example, networking techniques.
evident results of 'design by committee', with all the pejora-
tive overtones that phrase implies. Does the author see any Finally, perhaps the author would like to comment on some
improvement in the situation? specific questions which arise from his Table I:

Finally. I must refer to the sequence of design steps in (1) Is design likely to become an increasingly specialist
Fig. 2. The final step is not surprisingly labelled 'Finish', activity involving only a proportion of Naval Architects,
but are we assumed to be so far down the road of obfuscation or is it reasonable that any professionally competent
that the first step cannot be labelled 'Start'? Naval Architect should be able to take part? II the
former is true, how should we go about identifying those
having a particular aptitude for design, bearing in mind
REFERENCES that skill in engineering mathematics may tend to be
less important for the designer than in the past?
44. Levin, B.: 'Chess yes, sonnets no...' The Times, 2 April
1981. (ii) As regards effective communication with the 'customer',
is there not a danger that if design comes to be regarded
45. Moore, J.: 'The Navy We Need?' The Listener, 8 January as a specialist activity with its associated jargonese (as
1981. illustrated by this paper), that this would in itself create
46. Roach, J. C. and Meier, H. A.: 'Visual Effectiveness in a gulf between designer and customer?
Modern Warship Design'. US Naval Engineers Journal,
(iii) The paper has been concerned largely with the design of
December 1979.
warships, but what of the weapons systems, which accord-
Mr A.R.McIntosh, M.Sc., R.C.N.C. (Member): This paper by ing to recent statements by the Secretary of State for
David Andrews has been enjoyable to read because it makes Defence are to be afforded more emphasis in future de-
a welcome change from those papers which confine them- signs. Surely a rational and creative design of warship
selves to engineering mathematics. It serves to demonstrate must include the design of the weapon as well as that of
how difficult it can be to discuss design, and it is a pity that the platform.
it could not have been longer to allow more of the ideas to be (iv) What sort of design organisation is likely to be .con-
developed, but perhaps the author's intention was to stimulate ducive to the development of a creative design team,
discussion. alternatively what are the circumstances to be avoided?
The author urges caution in the use of CAD; nevertheless, the Mr G. H. Fuller, R.C.N.C. (Fellow): The author has thrown
impression given is that CAD will relieve the designer of the down a strong challenge to define the word Architect—histor -

463
CREATIVE SHIP DESIGN

icalh the 'Chief Builder'. He attempts, along with Town SP eLC I f,Ia ..cr t
Planners and many Land Architects of the last 50 years, to
construct a Scientific explanation of a process which may
well be an art. SOLO' icN

The good architects of the past whose products we admire in SOLUTION


our environment, were rarely great scientists or engineers; PUTLJP,E
they knew their materials, their environment, the market and 5 C.L.E.rr Or,
how to obtain support from engineers, scientists, surveyors
and the many other auxiliaries to architecture. Indeed, it
behoves us who work in Bath to look around us and reflect on
the Georgian concept of the 'whole man' who has vision and
understanding. For the Naval Architect the amalgam of man I H Nier,PF,
and his ocean environment on the one hand and a product fit
2 th,PP.Ova=.
for the purpose on the other leads to the concept of the
marriage of seamanship and seaworthiness which gives the
RS NA P..aPIrac
operator the profitable product he needs. As with the Land
Architect, it can be the product of a mechanical synthesis, a Fig, 6,
structure without vision. So I suggest Sir Rowland Baker's
statement is not provocative, it recognises the visualisation
of the solution to the requirement which is then supported based on experience. In naval architecture we steadily im -
and abetted by mathematics and calculation. It is this vision prove our design by seeking and finding new solutions in the
which knows when to evolve a design from a type ship,when attribute space. The new solutions are in the neighbourhood
to innovate and when to invent—each has its place. of the solution arrived at by historical mapping. When an
improved solution has been found we revise our mapping.
Most engineering is analytic and this is satisfactory for The revised mapping is new in relation to the original start-
many mechanical and electrical design requirements whose ing point of the design, but 'historical' in relation to the next
internal chaos can be packaged by the industrial designer, improved design that will be found in the future. The ideal
but design on a grand scale, bridges, dams, cathedrals and solution exists but is—in naval architecture as in other
ships must have that element of the 'whole man'. In today's fields—probably never found.
jargon we would say 'the systems approach with top down
design'. This has to be supported by every scientific aid but One of our common phrases is 'to find a creative solution'.
never losing sight of economical outcome in that most This may be considered to be the same as finding an im-
stochastic environment, the ocean. And we must never forget proved or possibly optimal mapping.
that 'success' in American mythology is the man who beat As far as I can see the methods and the ideas mentioned by
all his competitors by creating the better mousetrap—he did the author fall in two categories. One category includes all
not need to invent new methods of killing mice nor employ a tools that stimulate creativity i.e. our power to find correct
scientist to create new mice which may be easier to kill! mappings; the other category consists of tools that strengthen
our ability to find an improved design when an 'historical'
We should certainly try to understand what makes a designer
mapping has led us to a starting point in the attribute space.
into a good designer, not least to produce the correct educa-
Most of the so-called 'design techniques' fall in the latter
tive support—now the author's field, but we must be careful
category. They assume a known design as starting point and
not to create a pseudo science when we are actually in the help us to make improvements or maybe innovations. In
world of art—may I suggest the debate is open and hope that
most cases this is done by forcing us to follow some kind of
this is a precursor to a deeper study of the subject. Perhaps
systematic approach.
the 'chief builders' should have a 'drinking party' or in the
Greek, the Architects have a symposium. It might be worth while to discuss whether we should con-
centrate on creativity or a systematic approach in our
further work with design in naval architecture. Both ships
Professor S. Erichsen, Ph.D. (Member): This is a paper that and transportation systems of which ships are a part, are
ought to be fundamental for the further development of de- very complex systems and the task of designing them no less
sign in the marine field. One must hope that it will create complex. When we fail in design it is in most cases due to
discussions among naval architects about the role of design. lack of an overview or of a systematic approach and not so
much due to lack of creativity. It may therefore seem that
There is a need to establish design in the marine field as a
our first task in developing the discipline of design in naval
science in itself, and to strengthen the rank and file of de-
architecture would be to obtain a greater understanding of
signers. lip to now design has been considered an ingredient
the need for a systematic approach and an increased use of
in the fields of hydrostatics, structures, hydrodynamics etc.
systematic design methods.
and it has not been cultured as a science.
The author's treatment of his subject is in the style of a
What then is design when applied to naval architecture? In designer i.e. a person who coordinates the creation of a large
most cases it is, at least in principle, a straight forward job system and tries to keep an eye on everything. This is a
where the task is to combine known components into a system good opening approach to a fundamental discussion of further
that will satisfy certain requirements. The design spiral and development of design in the marine field, but the field of
similar illustrations demonstrate a balancing of resources, design as presented to us by the author thus becomes so all-
not real iterations, as rightly mentioned by the author. Itera- embracing that a natural reaction may be a wish to, stay out
tions in design would mean reverting to the starting point, of it in order not to get lost in the wilderness. For further
re-evaluating and possibly changing design objectives, bound- work we have to narrow down to specific, limited subjects
aries and possibly even design strategy, and then starting which could be promising for further research. Our first
anew. Perhaps the design spiral has made naval architects goal must be to find out which these subjects are.
believe that they are performing real iterations, thus pre-
venting us from dealing with design as a real iterative
process. If this is correct, it is bad, because if we are forced
to consider design as an iterative, open process, we are also
forced to become more open minded. REFERENCE

Yoshikawa (4 ) explains design as a mapping from afunction 47. Yoshikawa, H.: 'General Design Theory and its Applica-
or 'specification' space into an attribute space, see Fig. 6. tion to Categorization of Ship Design'. Advances in
The author indicates that this mapping is 'historical' i.e. Marine Technology, Trondheim, 1979.

464

a 11,171-14TTITI .3 711.1T T II c .
CREATIVE SHIP DESIGN

AT_11-2.011'S REPL7 they have played-down this wholistic aspect of visualising


the totality.
Opening Comments
Constraints in Ship Design
I have resisted the temptation to debate every one of the
many very pertinent comments on ship design that have been Messrs Coates, Palmer and Jackson give three excellent
made by so many designers who have risen to the challenge. examples where the wider aspects of the environment, in
For the sake of brevity I will restrict myself to answering, which the ship designer operates, can have profound impact
as briefly as I can, the specific questions directed at me. I on the designer's ability to produce a design that is, hope-
hope that the contributors will forgive me for only addition- fully, coherent, if far from creative. Mr Coates, as one would
ally commenting when I violently disagree and will take any expect of him, draws a general lesson from his example of
specific lack of comment not for dismissal but rather agree- the unsatisfactory interface of the designer and the research
ment. scientist. It is a point which I would echo in considering the
various comments on the education of designers. Mr
On the applicability of the paper, Messrs Meek and Tebbutt Palmer's question on public sector versus private sector
question the paper's value to merchant ship designers. design organisations is a very involved one and is clearly
Whilst admitting that, given my own design experience, I have dependent on the country and the ships in question. It is
largely used warship examples, it was my desire to produce clear to me that many of the constraints I have exampled in
a paper discussing ship design as an entity. Both these columns 2 and 3 of Table I will differ substantially for the
eminent designers of merchant ships particularly identify two types of organisation. To take the current situation for
the need to design merchant ships quickly. This has tradi- warship design in the UK, one sees that the classification of
tionally inhibited a full exploration of possible alternatives. public sector ranges from in-house Ministry design to
Even so, as Mr Tebbutt remarks there have been some major publically owned semi-autonomous and formerly private
advances in merchant ship size (e.g.VLCCs) and configura- shipyard design teams. The US Navy experience has been
tion (e.g. LNG, container ships). Thus I would argue innova- coherently explained by Leopold ( 5°), an eminent Naval Archi-
tion has occurred and will continue; additionally, emerging tect who headed both private and in-house ship design
Computer Aided Design techniques will enable a fuller ex- organisations. Mr Jackson's example of the innumeracy of
ploration even at the precontract design phase. These two the decision maker is a nice case that touches on the political
considerations suggest to me that the need to understand the and funding constraints. Whilst one feels that innumeracy
nature of ship design is just as relevant to merchant ships. might still be a problem, it would not be half the problem it
Finally on the distinction between merchant ship and warship currently is in defence circles if the designer could speak
design I would suggest this is a false distinction as there are directly with the decision-maker—presuming that individual
some specialist merchant type ships (e.g.The Royal Navy's was identifiable....
new Seabed Operations Vessel( 48) ), which in terms of design
complexity are more sophisticated than many simple extrapo- Mr Meek takes the to task on being over occupied with con-
lations of proven warship designs. In some respect, service straints. This may be the warship designer's scars showing
ships (i.e. those that perform other than a transportation through again; however, my main object in giving the con-
role) are in their design problem nearer the sophisticated straints more emphasis in, for example, Fig.1 was to
warship. Should these two contributors remain unconvinced, counteract a common view that they are immutable and so
I would fall back on the hope expressed by Rawson (4 9) that should be disregarded. I consider that firstly, they should be
the two spheres of defence and trade can interchange views acknowledged and moderated where possible. Secondly, any
to mutual profit. design philosophy to be of use must incorporate them in its
fabric.
Mr McIntosh suggests that for warship design to be creative
the design of the weapon(s) as well as the platform must be Sizing Ships
addressed. Clearly for a warship, weapons, which include
sensors, command, control and communications systems as Mr Brown detects an implication in the paper that ship de-
well as weapon delivery systems, are highly relevant to the sign is an almost mechanical process. Having undertaken
total package. Such equipment, rather like most of the ship's many concept designs under his direction I am very certain
equipment, is not unique to a given ship design. From the nothing is further from the truth. I believe this mechanistic
ship designer's stance, looking at the totality of the design, description is the consequence once one tries to describe
weapons are just a part of the total ship design problem of what is a highly personal and intuitive process. Such an im-
integrating all the components into a coherent effective plication is heightened by my deliberate use of a computer-
entity. The current argument on emphasising weapons at the like sequence of steps in balancing the ship design (Fig. 2).
expense of the platform is, like all such statements, highly This well exemplifies how computer aided design almost
simplistic. If the customer wants to use his sophisticated inevitably forces the designer to simplify the design process.
weapons he needs sophisticated platforms, be that sophistica- It does have the advantage of forcing one to sit down and
tion for signature (e.g. noise, MCM), seakeeping, availability/ produce a description. However, this poses the danger that
endurance, survivability or operator effectiveness. any description will be a gross simplification and not a uni-
versally good one. Mr Jackson further berates me for
Mr Westlake questions the order of the topics discussed in degenerating into 'Computer speak' by using 'initialise'
the paper. As can be seen from Fig. 3, I consider it sensible rather than 'start' in Fig. 2. I accept the admonishment and
to start with the current status of ship design. My two linked leave the error as a warning to others.
proposals (Sections 3 and 4) take their cues from my per-
ception of the inadequacies of the present methods and are Whilst I appreciate Mr Brown's desire to have an inequality
presented in order of increased generality. One could start in equation (b) of Section 2.2,I consider this reflects prac-
with the range of 'tools' as Mr Westlake suggests; however tice rather than a truly balanced spatial design. In tackling
I consider this is a more appropriate approach for a specific the weight breakdown, Naval Architects readily minimise
exposition of the application of a particular tool rather than any design growth; however space is a more nebulus quantity
what this paper attempts—a proposal to consider the range and a less adequate quantity with which desigi control can
of possible tools available. be exercised. Thus I believe the spatial data base is far
from precise and the inequality Mr Brown proposes arises
Finally, by way of introductory remarks I welcome Mr from this rather than a conscious effort to have spare space,
Fuller's contention that my use of Sir Rowland Baker's The aim should be an equality between the space available
statement at the head of my paper is not provocative. As and the space required, having consciously imposed adequate
with many of Sir Rowland's pithy remarks, behind the initial and coherently disposed space margins.' Incidentally the in-
shock is a profundity worth pondering. To take Mr Fuller's equality after equation (9) shows where any imbalance in
interpretation of the visualisation of the solution it seems to space achieved to space required ought to occur; that is the
me that since Naval Architects are essentially numerate main spaces (vm ) must be tautly designed.

465
CREATIVE SHIP DESIGN"

Mr McIntosh identifies the inability of the ship designer to


produce a novel or 'creative' solution given reliance on a
specific type ship. This is clearly the case if a specific type
ship is used; however this approach is wrong (not just from
PAYLOAD
the innovative stance) unless the designer's (and customer's)
aim is that the new solution will be no more than a very WEIGHT AND SPACE

simple step up from the type ship. Rigid adherence to a


specific type ship predisposes almost every design decision.
Historical data are clearly a necessity for commencing the INPUT SHIP PARAMETERS

design but even at a detailed level it is preferable to use data 4:LBDTC,Cm

from several separate designs. In this way design decisions


are more likely to be consciously made and the likelihood 4,›
that a fuller exploration of a range of possibilities in ship WEIGHT BALANCE

parameters, configurations, margins etc will be considered, LB T 7_,


provides the chance that an open or 'creative' solution will
emerge.
STABILITY
Measures of Merit G
rn
Mr Meek wonders how the warship designer measures his
success. In the present climate one might be forgiven for
coNFtGu6ittori-
suggesting success is to have one's design built! The con- .
clusion of Sir Rowland Baker's contribution is far more Er4u941ri<119)

direct in that he states the success of a warship design can


only be proved by a 'baptism of fire'. On the more analytical
level, Mr Rawson answers Mr Meek's question by reinforcing POWERMIG

the comments at Section 2.3 criticising the optimisation of AND ENDURANCE

warship design from weighting the eight factors listed in the


second paragraph. In saying there can be no single measure CHANGE MARDI
of merit for such systems, Mr Rawson supports my contention CHANGE CRITERIA CHANGE OF PARAHETERIS)
that configurational needs have to similarly avoid optimisa- ACCEPTABLE
CHANGE PAYLOAD
tion of disperate quantities. It is interesting that the limita-
tions of global optimisation are not confined to warship
design. MacCallum (51), in discussing a simulation technique
for service vessels, admits that his approach breaks down
when the vessel provides 'a variety of services', that is to
say the ship is multifunctional. Fig. 7. The Example of Ship Size Determination (Fig. 2)
I would like to discuss Mr McIntosh's comments on optimisa- Modified to Integrate the Selection of the Configura-
tion along with other comments on CAD below, as I think this tion of Main Design Areas Vm given in Fig. 5
is more appropriate.
characteristics. Thus Fig. 7 shows, in terms of the simpli-
Synthesising Ship Layout fied sequences of steps given in Fig. 2, how the balancing of
a ship design would then be modified.
The proposal I put forward in Section 3.1 and Appendix I has
been criticised in several respects; by Mr Meek who con- Mr Brown chides me for talking of space solely in terms of
siders that space is not so important for merchant ship volume and Mr Tirard questions my use of V for enclosed
design, by Mr Brown who gives two practical reasons why volume. In putting forward a generalised argument, one has
space is a blunt weapon for preliminary design (i.e.form to steer between too simple an exposition and losing the
selection) and by Messrs Tirard and Brown who question my essential message in a mass of qualifications and caveats.
terminology and symbology. I nevertheless take heart from For example, equation (7) meets Mr Brown's point as volume
Sir Rowland Baker's clear belief in the premise and the fact is mainly given by area x deckheight; however, it is still a
that he concentrates on the impact such an approach would simplification in that tanks and certain spaces are inade-
make on the prosecution of a ship design. quately considered. Turning to Mr Tirard's admonishment
on my usage of form, I am afraid I am unrepentant. It is true
As far as merchant ship design is concerned as I consider at that arrangement, form, structure etc have precise meanings
the beginning of Section 3.3, the technique would be most in Naval Architecture; however English, unlike a computer
useful for particular merchant ship designs (e.g. ro-ro, language, is imprecise and complex ideas such as those
service vessels). It would seem that these ships, though not addressing spatial synthesis often benefit from the fact that
physically large, are in their overall synthesis, if anything, key words have different nuances. In the wider design field,
more complex than, say, VLCCs. Mr Brown's point that it is form and structure are better terms to describe the wider
easier to base preliminary ship design on weight rather than meaning of configuration and arrangement as they compre-
space follows on from my response to his questioning of the hend not just internal disposition but the resultant overall
space balance equation i.e. the current inadequacy of spatial shape in spatial and functional terms.
data bases. It might be possible for us to agree on a good
British compromise and consider density to be the true de- I particularly thank Sir Rowland Baker for his exposition on
sign parameter for size determination. All that then remains his design philosophy on layout which bore fruit so clearly
is to somehow combine Archimedes and Mr Brown's sugges- in his ST. LAITR.ENT design. Taking Sir Rowland's 25
ted vectorial approach. Turning to Mr Brown's comment maximum novelty rule (quoted by Mr Brown), his comment
that once several major compartments are fixed (e.g. opera- that layout novelties may be rejected just for being novel,
tions room, galley) the number of choices for the 'satellite' leads one to avoid presenting the customer with novelty per
spaces become very few, this is clearly the case if one does se. With the approach I suggest integrated into the ship
not have a CAAD type system to enable wider alternatives to selection process, the designer can explore significant con-
be explored. However, my major contention is that such figurational changes and see their overall impact. He may
alternatives ought to be explored, both (a) for a deeper under- just obtain insight and confirmation of past practice. If so.
standing as to what particular configurational solutions this will at least strengthen his design conviction. On the
contribute to the total ship design solution and (b) to use the other hand real benefits to the customer may be shown by
configuration of the major areas (Vm) as an equal factor in exploring aspects such as aft machinery, the removal of
the overall determination of the ship's size and its form ship's offices, design for production or, say, the prepackaged
466
CREATIVE SHIP DESIGI,T

food proposal instanced by Mr Westlake. These sorts of in- the designer's options. One might say that the output of CAD
vestigations over and above an exploration of the desirable systems needs the sort of attention in post processing sys-
configuration looked at from the many considerations con- tems that is being provided for sophisticated Finite Element
sidered in (i) to (iv) in Section 3.1, are typical of the sort of Analysis systems. That is easily said but it is far harder to
innovation or inventiveness addressed by Galan (52). The full ensure that the presentation of design output data does not
proposal extends the impact of such investigations by in- introduce further subjective filters between the designer and
corporating their effect into the overall ship design rather his real design problem. This is one of the main motivations
than being considered piecemeal. behind the paper's call for a more open exploration of the
nature of ship synthesis and the need for a philosophy that
Sir Rowland Baker's conclusion, that CAD may remove
faces up to the new means of design.
layout discussion from the dialogue between designer and
customer, depends on how firm a basis the designer's Mr McIntosh's second point seems to support my concern on
selected configuration is founded. Given the various con- optimisation. It was precisely this concern which made me
siderations .suggested in (i) to (iv) of Section 3.1, not all of limit the proposed CAAD application detailed in Appendix 2
which are the operator's direct concern, there are a lot of to separate evaluations of the configurational considerations
new questions to be explored, as the Sealife Project (24) found listed in Section 3.1 (1) to (iv). I similarly doubt the virtue
in their somewhat different exercise. These questions are of investigations to obtain precise definitions of the con-
questions of general applicability rather than those needing straints and of optimisation criteria, certainly in the case of
to be addressed ab initio for each new design. Returning to multifunctional ships. This seems one area where, having
Sir Rowland's surmise that, on a given design, layout evalua- recognised the constraints, selection of a good solution can
tion could be removed from an endless impasse, I see the best be made by the designer, not the software.
possibility that with layout incorporated into the overall size
and form selection the ship designer would be in a far less Synthesis
assailable position when subjected to Sir Rowland's 'con-
scientious customer or observer' suggesting subsequent Mr Westlake feels I should give more emphasis to the fact
that creativity comes from the mind, whilst Mr Fulford
improvements.
appears to imply either I have or ought to have re-affirmed
the survival of the 'black art' in design. I think I know the
Computer Aided Ship Design
point Mr Westlake is making and perhaps in attempting to
Two of the comments raised by Messrs Fulford and Tebbutt, discuss the nature of synthesis, as with my response to Mr
from the merchant ship designer's viewpoint, are I believe Brown on sizing ships, my description of creativity is too
best responded to from the aspect of CASD. The former very analytical. This is counterpoised by Mr Fulford's belief in
generously credits the paper as a counterpoise to the in- the 'black art'. Certainly our current understanding of syn-
creasingly powerful analytical historically based data thesising ships seems little removed from this latter
systems. The essential power of the CAD system to handle description, but I would hope the fuller exploration I pro-
the specifically analytical is more a fault of exploiting the pose—a creative synthesis—will keep it an art but a conscious
easiest facilities in computer techniques than a fundamental one.
limitation. One of the objects of the strictures in Section 3.2
Mr Palmer questions whether other countries are more
is to muster the ship design community behind a demand for
creative in ship design, Given that creativity is hard to de-
CASD systems to support the innovative and synthetic, not
fine, it is indicative in the field of marine technology that the
stifle it. In mitigation of the current capabilities of CASD,
development of one of the latest innovations, that of SWATH,
both the alternatives Mr Tebbutt suggests to counter the
is being made in Japan exploiting the earlier US Navy test
almost instantaneous response merchant ship owners de-
vessel. It raises yet again a British malaise, where good
mand, namely closer liaison with the customers and standard
technical ideas are produced or in this example well appre-
designs, are made much more possible with interactive CAD
ciated, but the entrepreneurial infrastructure does not exist
systems. Despite Mr Meek's comment on numerous UK
to exploit. Engineering design relies very much on the
merchant shipyards, I believe CAD will lead to the centralisa-
engineering production of the fruits of its labours if it is to
tion of design offices with the latest CASD systems if British
be other than another service industry. In our case, once
Shipbuilders is to compete in the intensive world market for
design is remote from a physical product it is likely to be
commercial orders.
little more than invention and a lot less than engineering.
Mr Palmer at his point (v) asks some extremely pertinent
questions on how the Naval Architecture profession is going Mr Betts makes two very pertinent points, that innovation in
to come to terms with CAAD (and radical design theories). engineering design must be in response to real need and that
The questions he raises seem to me already provoked by the engineering designer has less freedom than the artist.
CASD. CASD, especially as it becomes highly interactive, is There are two aspects to innovation. As far as technical
forcing ship designers to be ever more broadly based. This features are concerned Mr Betts is right in echoing Sir
means that developments in the component disciplines (hydro- Rowland Baker's '25% novelty rule', unless one is talking of
dynamics, structures, dynamics) which follow the conventional a step change such as SWATH or hovercraft. However, there
technical trend of increasing subspeciaiisation is also innovation in the design solution, either through con-
surface propeller theorists, nonlinear finite element analysts, figurational exploration and/or reinterpretation of require-
linear hydroelasticity theorists) have to be translated to ments by the designer providing evidence for the customer
those members of the profession directly in ship design, if to question his starting point. Both these aspects are essen-
they are not to be mere operators of black box systems. tial to pursue for, in the warship field as Leopold(5) clearly
There seems to be no choice, despite Mr Palmer's inference; states, to keep ahead of the opposition the materiel of a Navy
the ship designer will have to be ever more broadly based. must innovate. In response to Mr Betts' second point, clearly
If not the naval architect will be relegated in the ship design the task of the designer is not that of the artist but I think
process to a 'hull' specialist (i.e.limited to S4 ) and overall there is in the creativity of engineering design a kindred
design coordination, integration and direction will be sub- aspect. I have placed some emphasis on this aspect, partly
sumed by someone else—the system analyst, the 'profes- to identify the creative element in synthesising 'design on a
sional' design manager or the operations research specialist. grand scale', to use Mr Fuller's excellent phrase, but also to
counteract in engineering design the neglect of that which
Mr McIntosh raises two further pitfalls inherent in CAD. seems inexplicable and not readily amenable to mathematics.
Firstly, the mass of options that the computer can produce
may mesmerise the designer into ad hoc design selection.
Innovation
It seems more likely to me that either a very mechanistic
means of decision making will be employed (i.e. 'black box' Mr Brown is surprised that I did act include futurology
optimisation) or that the particular limitations (i.e. con- amongst the many techniques and methods listed in Table III.
straints) of specific CAD systems will artificially restrict This is partly because of my main object in producing Table III,

467
CREATIVE SHIP DESIGN

TABLE IV Some possible developments in Marine Technology adapted from Jencks' Scheme( 33) to indicate the range in which
Future Ship Design will be bounded

Jencks' Categories Land Based Developments Marine Equivalents

1, Unselfconscious Environment Bubble 'Assemble Your Own. Ship'


Architecture Eames' catalogue assembled home
2. Activist Architecture Adaptable interior configurations Moduled Outfitting
(Price, Jungmann)
(In the limit adaptable/extensible Hull)
3, Self-conscious Architecture Centrally planned megalopolis Fully automated Ship as part of a highly
(Dioxades) specific and optimised transport system
4. Logical Architecture Systematic Design leading to Highly technological Solutions to specific
technological (space exploration like) requirements
solutions (NASA) e,g, 20000 tonne SES Carrier
US Navy Large SWATH proposal
5, Idealist Architecture Functionally expressive architects' Individual tailor made prestige designs
architecture (Stirling) e.g. Luxury cruise liners
Underwater resorts
6, Intuitive Architecture Radical material solutions Radical material and configuration Solutions
e.g. Biomorphic (Soleri) e.g. HYSWAS
Quasi Marine Structures (Cousteau) Pneumatic Structures
Exoskeleton (Archigram) Wing Sail (Herbert)

Biomorphically
oriented
Designs
Ecologically

which I discuss later, but also because in Section 4.2, in customers, such that an ugly ship 'without frills' is seen as
trying to discuss the manner in which design 'on a grand the minimum cost solution. Without entering a long though
scale' might change, I used Jencks' analysis. This analysis desirable debate on the falseness of this belief (53), I welcome
for architectural design development largely uses the Delphi the resurgence of interest in the visual appearance of
technique for technical forecasting or, to be fair to Jencks, s hips (4 6, 5 4) and hope the examples in Ref. 7 show this is not
provides a framework for possible manners in which design incompatible with 'cheap ship' solutions.
might develop.
This brings me directly to Mr Jackson's inference from my
use of Jencks' argument that future ships will. follow Jencks' Radical Design Tools
prediction. Firstly, Jencks in a long and sustained analysis,
to which Section 4.2 of this paper does little justice, identi- Comments on my proposal to exploit the wide range of
fies six discernable elements in architecture each of which methods and techniques now available were of two sorts.
might pull future architecture in a different manner. He does Messrs Meek, Rawson, Fulford and Coates question the de-
not, to meet Mr Jackson's Popperian invocation, predict that sirability of listing so many techniques and categories,
all the developments he discusses will occur but that some whilst Messrs Fulford, Palmer and Jackson highlight specific
amalgam of them is likely. I therefore drew on this example, inadequacies in the current practice of ship design. This
as to how major artifacts in society might develop, to suggest latter stance suggests further fields in which the designer
that there were similar strands and hence a range of possible must obtain expertise. To, the former critics I would respond
developments in ship design. Table IV lists some analogous that my major object in the list in Table HI was to show
developments in marine technology obtained by simple adap- there were a considerable number of possible tools to assist
tation of Jencks' categories. I fully take Mr Jackson's point ship designers in coping with future design complexity. I
that Naval Architects are not subject to exactly the same further suggested that they could be considered in the cate-
pressures as architects of buildings but I hope he will accept gories I produced, despite Mr Fulford's strictures, as relevant
that we are certainly subject to politico-economic pressures to different aspects of the design problem. I had hoped the
and to social factors both in how we design and what we de- central column in Table III briefly indicated where each
sign. My object in Section 4.2 was not to predict (despite technique might be of use. In addition the second, third and
Table IV) but just to suggest, by analogy with architectural fourth paragraphs of Section 4.3 gave one or two specific
design, that in the future there would be significantly new instances. However, the greater depth rightly asked for by
Mr Meek probably needs a detailed set of articles, if not
forms of 'ships' and thus ship designers must ensure they
formal papers. Mr Rawson identifies that I have not given
have creative and adaptable design tools and techniques.
the hard pressed designer a clear indication of the most
Mr Jackson further chides me on 'aesthetically meaningful profitable tools. To some extent that is the task of a philo-
and aware architecture'. Whilst this statement is best justi- sophy of design; however,I think opening up the size deter-
fied by Ref. 33, crudely this development in architecture is mination to include spatial configuration will lead to a deeper
seen as the one which is highly intellectual in the sense that insight into the nature of ship design and then the most
it recognises the complexity of the functions a building per- appropriate tools will select themselves. This should not
forms within a specific environment and tries to provide a mean, despite Mr Coates' suggestion, that ship designers as
harmonious and coherent material realisation. This does a group become less creative or even just a few, who have
mean more than simple visual appearance; however, taking mastered particular techniques, become more creative.
Mr Jackson's point on the visual appeal there have been some Rather, the whole approach to ship design should be more
dreadful examples of ships designed by committee and by open and designers become prepared to use new techniques
(rather than aided by) computer. Even so, one has to recog- rather than restricting themselves to the sort of computer
nise that there is an inverted or anti-aesthetic belief both in oriented models of ship design which are unnecessarily
some mechanistically orientated ship designers and some simplistic.

468

,saz.vaat3_ 11,,. t,
CREATIVE SHIP DESIGN

I take Mr Palmer's question on learning from other pro- with the customer and the operator. It would also help the
s Iessions Lo be rhetorical and Mr Fulford's point on selling naval architect as the ship designing professional to remain
the design together with Mr Jackson's example of mis- in control of the design despite the ever growing number of
informed commentators shows yet another less than scientific professions involved in designing ships—production engi-
but vitally important area which designers neglect at their neers, marine, electrical, systems engineers, accountants,
peril. This again touches on the somewhat purist inclination system analysts, ergonomists, financial, legal, medical,
of engineers that I addressed in response to Mr Jackson's marketing and transport experts and specialist operatOrs
point on appearance above. However, my own puritanism and (e.g. divers, pilots, minewarfare, ASW, offshore). Slightly
moral qualms lead me to reject Mr Fulford's suggestion of more pointedly, Mr Jackson says why bother if the customer
the advertising executive getting any nearer design decision is obsessed with minimum cost. In such a climate the argu-
making. I see a strong need for occupational psychologists ment I have just used is probably even more valid. With a
or ergonomists in identifying aspects of layout and many a better understanding, the designer will have more conviction
ship designer might wish for a tame psychologist to provide in arguing with the customer the implications of such edicts.
insight into the viscissitudes of some customers! Without As I said in Section 4. 3 the designer cannot abrogate re-
rising to Mr Jackson's specific bait on off-the-shelf designs, sponsibility to the customers—but he must become more
which I have addressed elsewhere (55), it does raise the im- discursive and dialectical(2). I hope Ref. 7 indicates how this
portant point that ship designers must be involved in public sort of popularising to the wider community can be attempted.
debates. It is a problem with the engineering profession that
I welcome Mr Betts' support of a need for a philosophy of
we shun such public debates and then wonder why our public design, although programming the creative process seems
image is, at best, backroom boys with the profile Mr Palmer far from sensible; however, he picks me up on the link
describes. It is clear from the example that Mr Jackson
engineering design has with the humanities. In stressing the
quotes (45) that those outside ship design currently believe link I was specifically addressing just the creative aspects
designing ships is just simple formulae and shibboleths and of synthesis and the direct application of the product of de-
it is only through understanding the nature of ship design sign to a need in society. Again in counterbalancing the
better that we can authoritatively counter such influential prevailing technical element in engineering I appear to have
ignorance. denegrated it. As with Sir Rowland Baker's opening state-
ment I strongly uphold the scientific element in engineering—
Philosophy it is just not the whole picture. To take the debate on the
two cultures further, scientific method is largely concerned
Design En L'ir 012177 e72t with falsification of current theories by structured experi-
Mr Meek questions the need for the more sophisticated ments (36) and occasional revolutions (37). Except that it is
approach to design the paper proposes, both on the grounds explaining the physical world, the practice of science is far
of cost and the need for an inevitably sophisticatedly trained less mechanistic than is popularly supposed. Thus the
designer and open design environment. When one thinks of science-humanities dichotomy is blurred, whilst engineering
the effort currently devoted to the more mathematically differs from both in that it is not discovery but creating a
amenable aspects of ship design it does seem, to use the artifact to meet a need. Furthermore, the 'hard' technical
systems jargon, that we suboptimise our use of design re- aspects of Naval Architecture in the designer's tool kit (e.g.
sources. If one leaves aside the relatively unsophisticated S5) would be rejected as non scientific by any pure scientist
types of merchant ships, which one could argue the developed and the less technically pure aspects of design must be seen
world is unlikely to build in the future, then the sophisticated as owing even less to that method of enquiry.
end of the market will be won by those ship design and build- Mr Coates counters my stress on exploring innovations with
ing infrastructures which have devoted resources to powerful the equally important exploration of requirements. This
and, I would argue, creative organisations. partly answers Mr Meek's earlier point on cost of design.
I see an open and aware ship designer as one who realises
What one means by a creative design organisation is a ques-
that his primary task at the early stages of a design is to
tion posed by Mr McIntosh and it really requires yet another
have a dialogue with the customer; for it is then that the
paper to answer adequately. A simple answer would be to
major decisions, for both parties, are made. CASD is
say that it is a design organisation which has a measure of
autonomy and this probably implies, for specific designs, a already helping this process and the wider exploration I
propose would further strengthen the ship designer in this
matrix organisation. Clearly, any such organisation must
maintain a very high standard of intellectual intake plus a task.
fostering of the awareness of new ideas and the desire to I am delighted to have the eminent overseas support of
have a receptive, yet critical, attitude to innovation. Such Professor Erichsen for a more open minded approach to
considerations mean that as part of the consideration of the ship design and I take his description of my treatment of the
constraints in any comprehensive philosophy of design, the subject as a compliment. I am a little concerned at his
management of design, in a wider sense than that referred to emphasis on a systematic approach. I agree that systematic
by Mr McIntosh, must be addressed if slavish adherence to design methods would certainly help in establishing a recog-
simplistic design control techniques is not to suppress the nised discipline of ship design within the profession of naval
creative. architecture. Important as that is, we have to be on our
guard that a systematic approach does not reduce design to
Ship Design Aspects a rigid closed process requiring Mr Rawson's 'systems
The more specific comments on a philosophy of ship design analysis of systems analysis' and thereby destroying the
are generally sceptical of the possibility (Messrs Fulford, intuitive leap frogging Mr Brown holds dear. This danger is,
Betts, Jackson, McIntosh and Fuller) or suggest aspects that if anything, magnified by current CASD systems even when
are considered more important (Mr Coates and Professor they are interactive. However, using systematic design
Erichsen). Mr Fulford's.warning on over contemplation of methods within an overall open minded philosophy appears
design methods, Mr Mcintosh's on design jargon and Mr an excellent framework to use to progress, I would hope that
Fuller's on the dangers of pseudo science are all aspects to opening up the design selection to include configuration will
be carefully watched in developing a coherent framework or moderate the difficulty by exposing the importance in design
philosophy. Whilst it is possible to go overboard, and both selection of the less simply amenable aspects of ship design.
jargon for jargon's sake or deliberately fabricating a methodo-
logy would be highly counterproductive, we have got to under- Education
stand better the nature of ship design. In so understanding Although I did not specifically address this aspect in the
the synthesis of ships, better ships should be designed and paper, there are several direct questions, by Messrs Fulford,
the profession would have more belief in itself. This would Palmer and Fuller, on how design can be fostered through
be translated into more authority and stature both in dealing education and several good instances by Messrs Brown,

469
CREATIVE SH/P DESIGN

ates and Betts upon which I would like to comment. Mr naval architect does not end up designing ships he is not a
Fulford raises the age old question as to whether design true naval architect without the basic knowledge of and
should he taught. Although the paper was written from my insight into ship design.
proper discipline as a designer, my recent secondment to
Mr Coates and Mr Palmer raise major moral issues for
teach ship design to graduate engineers has made me more designers. With increasing public pressure on engineering
convinced both of the need for and the difficulty of teaching
designers, the sensible response by the designer is to have
ship design. The need seems to be even greater nowadays
a better understanding and hence authority for his design
since students are well versed in computers and finding decisions. When the designer is clearly responsible he will
themselves immediately on qualifying in positions of design have to ensure he addresses the moral issues. Thus, to
responsibility in front of a VDU. Whilst design techniques answer Mr Palmer, the aim of any ship design and hence the
can be taught, design can only be indirectly appreciated use of new tools is, taking Mr Rawson's point, to meet a need
through the simulation of design exercises. This is one area or better still, from a dialogue with the customers, refine
where a wider exploration of the nature of ship synthesis the needs and design the ship to meet them, The aim of a
may be very useful in trying to foster the good designers radically new approach to synthesis must therefore depend
Mr Fuller rightly asks education to produce. on the specific objective(s). However, I feel cost effective-
Mr Palmer hits a very important nail on the head in asking ness begs an enormous question and opens up the whole aspect
what steps need to be taken to attract (and retain) young of the constraints on the design process, Perhaps the only
talent into the profession. To some extent this parallels answer lies in Sir Rowland Baker's clear insistence that no
Mr /vIcIntosh's question on design organisations and is also tool or other party can absolve the designer from ultimate
answered in part by my response to Mr Jackson on engineers responsibility for his design. That being the case, having got
being more prepared to publically articulate professional the responsibility, the need to obtain a better understanding
ideas to a wider audience. In many respects, naval architec- and, coincidentally, earn the right to full authority is already
ture—the ship profession—ought to find it easy to project a crystal clear,
strong public image, which brings me back to education. If So where do we go from here? I thank Mr Fulford for his
ship design is tackled in the manner I propose and has a assurance that I have succeeded, however modestly, in
coherent philosophy to it, it can become an equal component creating a climate asserting the importance of creativity in
discipline with hydrodynamics and structures to arm future ship design. However, Professor Erichsen pin-points the
naval architects. need to identify those specific aspects of design that ought to
I would wholeheartedly endorse both Mr Coates' and Mr be addressed. Just taking up Professor Erichsen on his
Betts' suggestions that the training of engineers needs to unease at the scope of the problem I presented, it is essential
develop the aspects Bondi (2) mentioned and that engineering that we do not lose sight of the total picture and Table HI was
education should be open and teach the young engineer to be just an indication of the wide range of potential tools we
creative. To paraphrase Sir Rowland Baker again, it is no might need to call on to tackle a more scientific approach to
use having a technically superb design and not be able to design. Thus any scheme to address limited aspects must
project it into the wider environment with coherence and not prejudice the need to have a creative open design frame-
conviction. A greater understanding of ship design would work that allows for a true overall synthesis.
also give the designer authority with that conviction. The
Mr Fuller's suggestion of a symposium shows a designer's
aim of an open education is difficult to maintain when there
foresight in that Professor Erichsen is the prime mover in
is so much technical knowledge to inculcate and there is the
the proposal to follow the 1982 RLNA Spring Meetings with the
risk that the demands of the latter will leave insufficient
first International Marine Systems Design Conference
time to let the student appreciate for him or herself the
essential nature of design. Yet if anything, fundamental (IMSDC), The main objective of this paper was to commence
understanding of S5 and knowledge of analytical techniques a debate in the Institution on ship design and I think from the
will be more important for the future CAD based ship de- response here it succeeded in this. The IIVLSDC is the ideal
signers. This is because the designer requires a stronger forum to continue the discussion on design, but for this
technical base if he is to have the judgement to 'eyeball' enterprise to succeed, those in the field must continue to
results so that the man, not the machine, controls the design. contribute to the debate.

Given that designs take so long to produce, whilst experience By way of finally concluding my response to the discussion
is so vital to designers and is increasingly hard to obtain I want to very warmly thank all those who rose to the
directly,I think that Mr Brown's championing of a critical challenge presented by the paper, namely to debate this very
review of history is of growing relevance to the education of difficult but cardinal aspect of our profession. I hope they
and the Institution, which had the courage to accept what I
ship designers of the future, As Mr Brown is well aware,
in the field of ship design the public, the operators and even, admit is an unorthodox paper, feel that the resultant debate
unfortunately, many ship designers are ignorant of the has properly started a hopefully profitable discussion of the
material evidence which can readily dismiss many technical wider aspects of ship design. I am especially obliged to those
myths—e.g. the Royal Navy in the Nineteenth Century did not eminent practitioners of the art of ship design who added
foster technical innovation (43). authority to the discussion. In particular I would like to
mention Sir Rowland Baker, whose inimical insight into ship
design will I hope inspire naval architects to finally give ship
design, despite the immense philosophical problems of syn-
Concluding Remarks thesis and the multitude of constraints, a coherent basis.
This lengthy response to the very fine discussion that the
paper provoked must end by commenting on some of the
more far reaching and general questions the contributors
REFERENCES
posed to me.
Mr McIntosh asks whether ship design is likely to become 48. Symons, P. J.R. and Sadden, J. A.: 'The Design of the
an increasingly specialist activity, possibly dominated by Seabed Operations Vessel', Paper No. 4, RINA Spring
computer specialists, Whilst I have already strongly argued Meetings April 1981.
for design to become an equal component discipline within
49. Rawson, K. J.: 'The Potential for Exchanges between
the profession, I think it would be wrong to think that a ship
Trade and Defence in Maritime Developments'. Proceed -
designer can be a specialist in the technical sense. Ship
ings of Conference 'Ships in the Mid 1980's,'. Royal
design by its very nature is an amalgam of all the compo- Society, Sept, 1974.
nents of naval architecture plus a few more professions. So
it is rather the knowledge that ship design is putting the 50. Leopold,R.: 'Should the Navy Design its own Ships'.
whole entity together that needs more emphasis. Even if a US Naval Institute Proceedings, 1976.

470

You might also like