TechPaper 7
Optimal Design of Spanish Navy F-110 Frigates
Combat Information Center
Gerardo González-Cela, Roberto Bellas, Javier Martínez, Ramón Touza, Rafael Carreño
Abstract
The CIC (Combat Information Center) is a naval vessel
room with unique and characteristic elements where
operators perform searching, monitoring, control,
analysis, assistance and critical decision functions. The
CIC processes all the vessel information in real time and
manages, coordinates and supervises all the actions to be
taken in the ship. The CIC layout of the last built frigates
of the Spanish Navy (F-100 series) is based on proven
design. However, the latest design trends observed
in other navies around the world, together with the
evolution of the combat scenarios towards low/medium
intensity hybrid threats, makes the Spanish Navy
wonder whether the current F-100 CIC design can be
extrapolated to the future F-110 frigates. Thus, the aim
of this paper is to provide the Spanish Navy Staff with
a decision tool that helps in determining the optimal
distribution of the future F-110 CIC. For this purpose, an
Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) was firstly developed
from experts’ criteria. In order to reduce the subjectivity
of this first model, a series of simulated evacuations
of the CIC personnel were performed according to a
statistical design of experiments. The results of these
simulations were experimentally validated and then
added to the multicriteria decision model, thus creating
a less subjective decision tool.
Introduction
Motivation and objectives
Naval ship design is a complex process involving the
integration of many subsystems into a final design which
must simultaneously meet cost and effectiveness require-
ments. Alternative ship designs cannot be built and tested
due to the cost, effort, and time involved in the design
and construction. In the current acquisition environment,
computational tools are necessary to support the design
decision-making process throughout the product develop-
ment process.[1]
NAVAL ENGINEERS JOURNAL
TECHNICAL PAPER
The work presented in this paper responds to a request
made by the Spanish Navy regarding the development of
their new F-110 frigates. One of the most relevant issues
when designing such kind of naval ships is to find the opti-
mal layout of its Combat and Information Center (CIC), as it
includes varied equipment and consoles that can be distrib-
uted in many different ways, according to multiple criteria.
Therefore, this papers aims to provide an approach that
helps the Spanish Navy to decide on the optimal layout of
their future F-110 frigates CIC. For this, the following specific
objectives have been established:
Objective 1: Applying an Analytic Hierarchy Process
(AHP) to determine the optimal layout of the F-100 frigates
CIC based on multiple criteria defined by experts in the field
Objective 2: Reducing the subjectivity of the developed
decision tool by introducing the results from a series of simu-
lations that reproduce the CIC evacuation
New generation F-110 frigates
At present, the Spanish Navy have two different types of frig-
ates in service: six units of the Santa Maria F-80 class (Figure
1), which will fulfill their estimated operative life in 2022
(35 years of service); and five units of the Álvaro de Bazán
F-100 class (Figure 2), the oldest with 14 years of service.
Within the major Spanish Navy military program for the next
decade, it is planned that all the F-80 units are replaced by
brand-new F-110 frigates.
FIGURE 1: F-80 frigate (www.armada.mde.es)
March 2018  |  No. 130-1  |  121
Optimal Design of Spanish Navy F-110 Frigates Combat Information Center
FIGURE 2. F-100 frigate (www.armada.es)
The F-110 frigates are intended to be new and complex
weapon-equipped vessels integrating advanced systems that
allow the Spanish Navy to cover operational and strategic
missions for the defense and security of the country and its
allies. However, the main novelty of the F-110 series will
consist of an integrated mast, where the communication sys-
tems, the radar, the electronic warfare and the optronics will
be located together so as to avoid rotating elements.[1]
The new F-110 frigates must also be designed to be
versatile and balanced ships in all areas of naval warfare; i.e,
they must be able to operate in both high and low-intensity
scenarios. Thus, their design should respond to the following
objectives:
■■ Capability to perform in both open-ocean and littoral coast
operations
■■ Reduced crew
■■ Minimal operation and maintenance costs
■■ High survivability (reduced probability of being detected
and notable resistance against possible damages)
■■ Balanced combat system in all war segments: AAW, ASUW,
ASW, electronic warfare, asymmetric defense
■■ Modularity and flexibility (multimission bay)
The F-110 project is currently in the conceptual design
and definition phase, where the final layout of the CIC
equipment and consoles has to be defined. One simple
solution could be adapting the CIC arrangement of the F-100
frigates to the new ship characteristics. However, after the
experience gained in more than 15 years of operational use
and taking into account the design trends observed in other
navies and the evolution of the conflict scenarios towards
low/medium intensity hybrid threats, the Spanish Navy
demands a new and more effective distribution of the equip-
ment and consoles for the CIC of the F-110 frigates. The CIC
layout must allow for an optimal command, control and
122  |  March 2018  |  No. 130-1
FIGURE 3. F102 frigate CIC (www.armada.mde.es)
communication between the different operating positions.
This is regarded as critical for the success of the operations
in which a naval vessel is involved.[1]
Combat Information Center (CIC)
The primary mission of the CIC is to provide organized col-
lection, processing, display, competent evaluation, and rapid
dissemination of pertinent tactical information and intel-
ligence to command and control stations.[2] The CIC is re-
sponsible for keeping the Commander permanently advised
of the current tactical situation and recommending the most
appropriate action to be taken. The CIC is also known as the
Operations Room, and it is present in all kind of warships.
The functions of the CIC can be summarized as follows:
■■ Gathering information from sensors in the proper vessel
and from other fleet ships.
■■ Processing and displaying information on tactic consoles,
panels or video screens (Figure 3).
■■ Evaluating the available information and proposing the
optimal operational decision.
■■ Communicating information/commands to the differ-
ent control stations and other fleet ships.The operations
within the CIC are grouped according to their combat
roles and functions. Every system specialist has their own
console to operate and control the assigned sensor or
weapon. The current design trends in the provision of the
CIC equipment can be simplified into three broad types:
■■ Command panel in the center: CENTER
■■ Command panel on one side: SIDE
■■ NASA type command panel
CIC Side type
The CIC Side type is the layout currently used in the F-100
frigates (Figure 4). This type of arrangement is characterized
NAVAL ENGINEERS JOURNAL
FIGURE 4. F-100 frigate CIC Side type (www.armada.mde.es)

because the tactical consoles are oriented towards bulkheads

(operators are located back to back) and are usually grouped
according to the activities to which they are intended; in
other words, they are grouped according to the different
warfares that are intended to fight: anti-submarine, antiair-
craft, anti-surface, electronic, etc.

CIC NASA type

FIGURE 5. DDG-1000 Zumwalt (U.S.Navy)
This innovative layout of the CIC is so named because of the
similarity with the NASA launch control rooms, where the
consoles are distributed in rows according to their special-
ized function. Thus, consoles can command extra vehicular
activity, control the spacecraft energy systems, monitor its
trajectories, and surveil astronaut’s health among others.
Most of the consoles are oriented towards one bulkhead
where a large screen displays all the available information
concerning the spacecraft.
The first American destroyer of the DDG-1000 series (also
called the Zumwalt class, Figure 5), delivered to the US
Navy in 2016, presents a CIC based on the NASA-type layout FIGURE 6. DDG-1000 NASA-type CIC (U.S.Navy)
(Figure 6). This revolutionary and effective design is com-
plemented with the most modern technologies in sensors, CIC Center Type
propulsion and armament This type of CIC layout implies the consoles are grouped
However, the US Navy is not the only armada opting for in the center of the room facing each other, in rectangular
this kind of CIC layout. The last built frigates for the Dutch shape. This is the distribution chosen by the Royal Navy for
Navy, the Zeven Provincien class, also base their CIC layout its most modern destroyers, the Type 45, HMS Daring class.
on the NASA-type. Similarly, the Italian Navy has used this CIC layout type in its
An article published in the IHS Jane’s Navy International recently built FREMM frigates.
magazine,[3] addresses how the important advances in mod-
ern warships’ technology entails an exponential increase of Methodology
the information that has to be processed in a very short lapse The work process was carried out in accordance with the
of time. Accordingly, it is reported that the tactical consoles scheme developed to achieve the objectives, and can be sum-
manufacturer Saab proposes the NASA-type layout as the marized in the following steps:
optimal distribution for a naval vessel CIC. ■■ Step 1. A hierarchical structure of evaluation criteria has

NAVAL ENGINEERS JOURNAL March 2018  |  No. 130-1  |  123

Optimal Design of Spanish Navy F-110 Frigates Combat Information Center
been modeled, in collaboration with the Navy experts, all
aspects considered relevant in the decision process have
been considered represented.
■■ Step 2. A multi-criteria analysis, named “subjective”,
was performed using the Analytic Hierarchy Process
(AHP) methodology, pairwise comparison matrices were
evaluated according to the subjective judgments of the
experts. Weights have been assigned to the established
criteria, possible alternatives have been prioritized and
NASA layout type was best valued. Afterward, a sensitivity
analysis was performed and it demonstrated the decision
robustness.
■■ Step 3. In order to improve previous step subjective
multi-criteria. A Statistical Design of Experiments (DOE)
and a computer simulation have been carried out to
investigate the influence of the three alternatives (SIDE,
CENTER, NASA) on the variable “evacuation time”.
■■ Step 4. After computer evacuation simulation, in order to
validate it, a real evacuation experiment was carried out.
Data generated by computer simulation were an adequate
approximation to the experimental framework of the
problem.
■■ Step 5. Evacuation time responses were obtained with
Pathfinder simulation software according to NATO Naval
Ship Code, showing that factors level variation did not
produce a mean “evacuation time” variation.
■■ Step 6. Data obtained in the simulation have been
incorporated to a new improved multi-criteria decision
problem, obtaining the same result as in the subjective
multi-criteria. The NASA alternative is still the best rated
and sensitivity analysis contributes to decision robustness.
The first step consisted of the development of a multicri-
teria opinion project by a team composed of an analyst and
different CIC experts in order to stablish the important and
critical criteria in the CIC layout.
In the second step, the experts made a subjective judg-
ment of the project and the analyst processed the results by
means of an Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) systematic
approach.
The third step was intended to provide objectivity to the
decision making process by performing a simulation of the
CIC personnel evacuation. This required a previous exper-
iment design that showed the influence of all the possible
layout alternatives in the evacuation time.
The fourth step consisted of the validation of the simula-
tion results.
In the fifth step, the validated simulation results were
added to the multicriteria decision tool.
124  |  March 2018  |  No. 130-1
FIGURE 7. A process diagram that summarizes the
methodology followed in the present study
Lastly, the obtained results were analyzed and global
conclusions were drawn.
Multiple criteria decision-making
Decision-making can be defined as the choice, on some basis
or criteria, of one alternative from a set of them. A decision
may need to be taken based on multiple criteria rather than
on a single criterion. This requires the assessment of various
criteria and the evaluation of alternatives based on each
criterion and then the aggregation of these evaluations to
achieve the relative ranking of the alternatives with respect
to the problem. The problem is further compounded when
there are several or more experts whose opinions need to be
incorporated in the decision-making. It is actually the lack of
adequate quantitative information that leads to dependence
on the intuition, experience and judgement of knowledge-
able persons called experts.[4]
Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP)
The AHP is based on the experience of its developer, T.L. Saaty,
while directing research projects in the US Arms Control and
Disarmament Agency. Saaty noted the lack of an easy to im-
plement methodology to enable complex decision making. The
simplicity and power of the AHP has led to its wide diffusion
across multiple domains in every part of the world.[4]
AHP provides a means of decomposing a problem into
a hierarchy of sub-problems which can more easily be
embraced and subjectively evaluated (Figure 8).Thus, the
problem is divided into a hierarchy of goal, criteria (ci),
sub-criteria (scij) and alternatives (ai).
NAVAL ENGINEERS JOURNAL

FIGURE 8. AHP hierarchy
AHP establishes an n n pairwise comparison matrix A =
(aij) where experts’ judgement are quantified. Judgements
must be consistent, so it requires that if aij = k, then aji =
1/k. Also, aii = 1 in the diagonal elements of A. In order to
rank the decision alternatives, determination of the relative
weights is required. It can be determined by normalizing A
into a new matrix N = (wij) where wij =aij /aij. The relative
weights are computed as the row average. Then, A is consis-
tent if A·w=n·w. AHP computes the consistency ratio (CR) as
CR = CI/RI, where CI is the consistency index of A and RI is
the random consistency of A.[5]
Hierarchical design requires experience and a deep
knowledge of the problem. Data are collected from experts
or decision-makers in a pairwise comparison of alternatives
on a qualitative Saaty scale.[6] The AHP produces weight
values for each alternative based on the judged importance
of one alternative over another with respect to a common
criterion. Several applications of AHP to ship combat systems
design can be found in the literature.[7]
To implement the AHP methodology a software tool de-
veloped for the Spanish Navy has been used: ADLA, acronym
of Action Lines Decision Aid.
Design of Experiments (DOE)
The statistical design of experiments (DOE) is an efficient
procedure for planning experiments so that the data ob-
tained can be analyzed to yield valid and objective conclu-
sions. DOE allows the user to identify the factors which any
type of process depends and to know the way in which these
influence on it.[8]
Several DOE models can be identified:
■■ Fixed-effects model: the designer decide specific levels to
be experienced, so the conclusions can only be extrapolat-
ed to those levels.
■■ Random effects model: levels are randomly selected, i.e.
the values of the levels are a random sample of a popula-
tion levels.
■■ Balanced model: all samples are of equal size.
NAVAL ENGINEERS JOURNAL
Unbalanced model: sample sizes are different
■■
For this work, we have chosen a balanced fixed-effects
model.
NATO Naval Ship Code (NSC). Ch.7 “Escape,
Evacuation and Rescue”
The best way of improving safety at sea is by developing
international regulations that are followed by all shipping
nations. The International Convention for the Safety of Life
at Sea (SOLAS) is the most important of all treaties dealing
with maritime safety for civilian vessels.[9]
The NATO Naval Ship Code (NSC) was developed with
the aim to provide a framework for a naval surface ship safe-
ty management system based on and benchmarked against
International Maritime Organization (IMO) conventions and
resolutions that embraces the majority of ships operated by
navies. The Code follows the same approach for goal-based
standards as has been developed in the IMO until today.
Chapter VII. Regulation 16 Escape Routes and Escape
Exits states: “Escape routes and escape exits shall enable
the movement of embarked persons from any compartment
within the ship to the muster stations (if provided) and
evacuation stations as quickly and as safely as reasonably
practicable”. “Allow for safe and easy movement of em-
barked persons”, taking into account:
■■ The anticipated number, physical characteristics and distri-
bution of embarked persons, including the possibility that
some injured personnel may be transported by stretchers.
■■ The size, location, function and risks of individual com-
partments on board.
■■ The clothing and personal protective equipment that may
be worn or carried (e.g. firefighting outfits, Emergency
Escape Breathing Devices, life-jackets or personal thermal
protection suits.
Routine escape, evacuation and rescue procedures must
be established to ensure effective escape, evacuation and
rescue performance, except for inspection, maintenance and
training.
After designing and establishing escape routes, proce-
dures and evacuation equipment, it must be demonstrated
that the ship can be evacuated in less time than the maxi-
mum established by the NSC.
IMO and NSC guidelines require crew ships evacua-
tion to be assessed by computational means during the
design phase to provide information on the duration of
evacuation, crew flows throughout the ship and to iden-
tify and, as far as practicable, eliminate areas of conges-
tion. Regulation specifies a minimum of four passenger
March 2018  |  No. 130-1  |  125
Optimal Design of Spanish Navy F-110 Frigates Combat Information Center

Criteria Subcriteria Sub-Subcriteria

Disseminat.Info.56.8%
Sit. Awareness
Eval.&Decision 33.4%
25.0%
Command Comms.(INT) 9.8%
& Control Command 50.3%
87.5% Coordination 24.0%
Action 75.0%
Control 16.6%
Comms.(I+E) 9.1%
Free Mob.
Oper.7.3%
Mobility & Free Mob.Shift
Accessibility 38.6%
12.5% Evacuation 44.5%
Maintainability
9.7%
FIGURE 9. Triangular mesh
TABLE 1. Criteria and subcriteria weighing
evacuation cases to be considered. Two cases modelling
Command & Control Mobility &Accessibility
full passenger ship evacuation during the day and at night. 87.50% 12.50%
The other two cases involving just one of the main vertical Side
11.45% 49.12%
fire zones but assuming that only 50% of the stairways are (16.16%)
available or that an additional 50% of the passengers from Center
41.15% 33.66%
a neighboring zone are forced to move into the zone to (40.21%)
proceed to the assembly point during the day and at night. NASA
47.40% 17.22%
Model tests, numerical analysis, calculation, simulation or (43.63%)

other methods are to be used to determine the margin of
buoyancy, stability, ship attitude and the ability for persons
onboard to evacuate following extreme threat damage or
extreme flooding.
Evacuation computer simulation modelling:
Pathfinder and PyroSim software
Among the available evacuation simulation programs,
several were considered, and Pathfinder was chosen. This is
the software developed by Thunderhead Engineering[10] that
has great graphical 2D and 3D capability and enables the
integration with PyroSim fire modelling software.[11] Both
are user graphical tools based on well proved Fire Dynamics
Simulator (FDS) and EVAC developed by the National Insti-
tute of Standards and Technology (NIST) of U.S. Department
of Commerce.[12]
Advance evacuation modelling software is based on the
Social Force Model (SFM) of Prof. Dirk Helbing, where
pedestrian are represented as circles with a radius of their
shoulder width. Driving force is assigned to define the
motivation of agents to move towards the destination with a
desired speed. Social forces make agents interact with each
other and obstacles that are within their interaction range
along their path to the destination with identical priority.
It is considered that each obstacle has a repulsive potential
TABLE 2. Subjective multicriteria (ADLA)
field around it and the strength is inversely proportional to
the distance from it.
The model complies with the guidelines for validation
proposed by the International Maritime Organization (IMO)
at MSC / Circ. 1238.
CIC modelling with Pathfinder software
The motion environment is defined by a triangular mesh as
shows Figure 9 drawn to match the actual dimensions of a
model. This motion mesh can be entered manually or au-
tomatically from imported data (i.e. from the PyroSim FDS
geometry).
Walls and other obstructions don’t generate triangle mesh
so occupants cannot move in it. Door exits are located at
mesh edges, as seen in green color in Figure 9.
Crew speed on corridors must be established according to
IMO or to experiment data. Speed on stairs is reduced as a
function of the slope of the proper stairs.
Each occupant is defined by their position within the
compartment, their profile (height, speed, avatar, etc.), and
by their behavior, which considers instruction sequences; i.e.
occupants may stay in their places for a certain lapse of time
and then proceed to an elevator or a door exit.

126  |  March 2018  |  No. 130-1 NAVAL ENGINEERS JOURNAL


General Results
This section addresses the way the multicriteria decision
problem was approached, the CIC evacuation modelling and
the DOEs carried out to optimize it.
Subjective Multicriteria
The subjective multi-criteria tool was developed following
the AHP methodology and with the kind support of two
expert officers, responsible for the direction of the concep-
tual design, definition and decision phases of the new F-110
frigates. Both officers have broad experience as a frigate
commander and attended a Tactical Officer course. As a
result of several meetings and revisions with those officers,
the multicriteria hierarchy model shown in Figure 10 was
obtained. This model includes two criteria (Command &
Control, Mobility & Accessibility), six subcriteria (where
Evacuation is included), seven sub-subcriteria and three
alternatives (CIC optional layouts). Five pairwise compari-
son matrices for the criteria weights assignment and eleven
pairwise comparison matrices for the alternative valuations
assignment were produced.
FIGURE 10. Subjective multicriteria hierarchy model
NAVAL ENGINEERS JOURNAL
Prior to filling comparison matrices, three alternatives
layout effectiveness must be considered at saturation duties
periods (real combat scenarios) or in casualty modes opera-
tion (without internal communications, consoles, etc.).
A datasheet table with sixteen matrices was drawn up
and sent to the expert officers for filling according to the
Saaty scale, which was simply restricted to odd numbers.
Once the answer was received, subjective opinions and
consolidated matrices were loaded into the ADLA AHP
software program. Weighting of criteria set results are shown
in Table 1.
In the global assessment of the alternatives, NASA-type
appears to be the best evaluated with 43.63% followed by
CENTER-type with 40.21%. Table 2 shows intermediate
calculations performed to evaluate the final valuation of the
alternatives. Criteria with their weights appear in the first
row of the table. Weights of contribution to the different
alternatives are displayed below criteria.
As seen in Table 2, Command & Control criterion (weight
87.5%) contributes with 47.4% to NASA alternative, 6
points more than CENTER alternative. This difference allows
NASA-type to overcome 16.44% contribution points of the
March 2018  |  No. 130-1  |  127
Optimal Design of Spanish Navy F-110 Frigates Combat Information Center
FIGURE 11. Bar chart for dynamic sensitivity analysis
FIGURE 12. Bar chart with weighing reassignment
Mobility & Accessibility criterion in favor of the CENTER
alternative. The SIDE alternative has considerably lower
values than the others.
Sensitivity Analysis
NASA-type layout was valued with less than 4 points over
the CENTER-type, so a sensitivity analysis is needed to
check whether these results are sufficiently robust or, by
contrast, they may be affected by slight changes in the input
data or in the decision maker’s subjectivity. Although expert
decision makers do not usually change valuations, it is
necessary to analyze how their weights impact in the final
model decision.
As shown in Figure 11 and Figure 12, experts must
increase Mobility & Accessibility vs Command & Control
weight in pairwise matrix until difference between them
is reduced to 44.94% (72.47% - 27.53%) in order to
switch decision in favor to CENTER type. Criteria change
is so high and unlikely that proves the robustness of
decision made.
On the other hand, SIDE alternative needs to change
weighting more than 53% in favor of Mobility &
Accessibility criteria.
128  |  March 2018  |  No. 130-1
Improving subjective multi-criteria: Statistical
Design of Experiments (DOE)
In order to improve the subjective multicriteria model
discussed in the previous section, a study on the evacuation
subcriteria has been performed. A model of statistical design
of experiments (DOE) for three types of CIC has been elab-
orated and implemented on evacuation modelling software.
Note the DOE is validated by both naval experts and it is the
same for all three types of CICs.
From the multiple factors that may affect the variable
“time of evacuation of a given compartment,” this work
focuses on those related to the location of the equipment
(obstructions for the purpose of evacuation) and doors of Es-
capes. Any other external factors unrelated to the CIC layout
were discarded.
Currently, although there is a preliminary design of the
CIC equipment layout, it is not yet definitive, but neverthe-
less, The DOE performed in this work aimed at:
■■ Understanding how factor level variations influence evac-
uation time.
■■ Knowing the evacuation times difference between CIC
types.
Thus, a full multifactorial two-factor DOE with three lev-
els (32) was designed, as seen in Table 3, nine experiments
for each type of CIC (27 in total) were performed.
Factors selected were: number of corridors (0, 1, 2) and
number of escape doors (3, 4, 5). The meaning of number of
corridors is free spaces between console groups.
Sample size of simulations for each experiment has been
set at ten. A priori, it is not easy to estimate the sample
size, therefore it is advisable to overestimate it, but given
the important time consuming required by simulations, a
statistical analysis was applied to know the number of rep-
licates necessary to estimate the population mean within a
confidence interval.
Computer modelling
PyroSim software[11] has been used to design and draw
different types of CIC with their factor variations. Pathfinder
CIC type Factors Levels
0
Corridors 1
2
NASA
3 ladder, Stbd, ForePs
Doors 4 ladder, Stbd, ForePs, Ps
5 ladder, Stbd, ForePs, Ps, ForeStbd
TABLE 3. DOE factor and levels for NASA CIC
NAVAL ENGINEERS JOURNAL
FIGURE 13. CENTER CIC layout (Pathfinder)
software[10] has been used to perform DOE simulations as
seen in Figure 13.
Pathfinder software is deterministic in terms of results,
i.e.: for given variables of the agents and same compartment
layout, the evacuation time is constant. Therefore, the fol-
lowing generic behavior was configured to give the needed
stochasticity:
■■ Evacuation speed: uniform distribution [2.04 m/s to 2.17
m/s] based on Spanish Navy drills.
■■ Door choice: uniform distribution [15% to 100%], mea-
sures agent decision level to go to the nearest door. In case
of a bottleneck (more than 4 individuals per square meter)
if the randomness of the distribution assigns 15%, the agent
will go to another door with a probability of 85%, while if
100% is assigned, the agent will wait at bottleneck.
■■ Initial delay: Normal distribution (20, 6) [minimum 10
seconds; maximum 60 seconds]. This variable assigns
a delay time to each agent before the evacuation be-
gins. It simulates equipment destruction that CIC crew
must do before start to evacuate and watertight doors
opening time.
Before each simulation, “Randomize” command is activat-
ed so new values are assigned to variables and stochasticity
is achieved. Results were satisfactory, since there were no
bottlenecks of more than 10% of the evacuation time in any
of the 27 simulations, as required by IMO Msc 1238.[13]
Usually, the experiments of evacuation are simulated with
heterogeneous groups (different ages, capacities or move-
ment limitations) that contribute to long evacuation times.
For these cases an asymmetric distribution like lognormal is
the best choice to simulate egress times.[14] In our exper-
iment, crew knows the ship perfectly and has the correct
training required through regular ship evacuation drills.
NAVAL ENGINEERS JOURNAL
FIGURE 14. Egress time distributions[14]
Therefore, it is considered that normal distribution fits best
the egress times for this simulation. Figure 14 shows lognor-
mal distribution and normal distribution curves.
A hypothesis test was performed on results achieved to
evaluate if there were significant differences between the
sample population mean (ANOVA Contrast), proving that the
null hypothesis was not rejected in favor of the alternative
with a significance level of 0.05) see Table 4. This means
that there is not statistical evidence that the factors variation
designed within the DOE simulation produce different mean
population egress times i.e. factors variation do not affect
the egress time.
Although the NASA type gives the longest egress time of
the three analyzed CIC types, the difference is less than one
second and therefore can be considered as not significant.
Validation of the simulation with real experiment
This validation consisted of verifying that simulation models
assume an adequate approximation of reality. For that, real
evacuation experiments were performed on two of the CIC
best evaluated in the multicriteria subjective decision model:
CENTER04 and NASA04.
Experiments were made in the Spanish Naval Academy
with 40 midshipmen (Figure 15). The perimeter dimensions
and the tables’ layout were as close as possible to the CIC
room dimensions and consoles layout.
Error (s)
CIC Egress time (s) 95% confidence level
Side 37.05 0.50
Center 37.75 0.56
NASA 37.86 0.54
TABLE 4. Simulated egress time (Pathfinder)
March 2018  |  No. 130-1  |  129
Optimal Design of Spanish Navy F-110 Frigates Combat Information Center
FIGURE 15. CENTER CIC experiment
Error (s)
CIC Egress time (s) 95% confidence level
Center 35.95 2.73
NASA 37.70 3.11
TABLE 5. Experiments egress times
For each CIC type, 6 events were done, every midship-
men had a different delay time that varied for each event.
These delay times were generated from a normal distri-
bution (20, 6) [min 10; max 60], same way as made with
Pathfinder software.
Table 5 shows the obtained results, e.g. the average of the
6 events and the error with 95% confidence level.
A hypothesis test was performed on these results and
those obtained by software simulation, resulting in null
hypothesis H0 of equal means not rejected. At a significance
level of 0.05 there was insufficient statistical evidence to
assume that the mean of experiments was different from the
mean of computer simulation.
Results showed there was no bottleneck for more than
10% of the total evacuation time as required by IMO
Msc 1238.
A last experiment called “blind evacuation” was per-
formed for each type of CIC layout, simulating the presence
of smoke or a possible power failure and the loss of illumi-
nation inside the compartment. The same initial wait time
of 10 seconds was set for all occupants. The obtained egress
time was 50.64 sec. for CENTER and 45.88 sec. for NASA.
From the DOE real experimentation two main conclusions
can be drawn:
■■ The simulation model developed in the Pathfinder is vali-
dated as an adequate approximation to the experimental
framework of the problem.
■■ The blind evacuation was quite smooth and fast. These
blind experiments were the last to be completed, and
probably this contributed to the improvement of the
130  |  March 2018  |  No. 130-1
FIGURE 16. Global assessments according to the
improved multicriteria
occupant’s orientation, which is very close to the reality
of a ship. The CIC staff knows the compartment and is
perfectly trained from drill evacuations.
Improved Multicriteria
With the time obtained in the Pathfinder simulation, a new
improved multicriteria was processes by the ADLA software.
Subjective experts’ decisions data in the pairwise compar-
ison matrix of the alternatives to the evacuation subcriteria
in the initial model, were replaced by the evacuation times
of the three CIC layouts simulated by Pathfinder software.
These times were performed using a linear utility func-
tion, in which 100% of utility was determined for evacuation
times below 20 seconds (it is estimated that there would be
no decrease in that evacuation time), and 0% of utility was
determined for times greater than 60 seconds (times are
based on real data). Due to the high percentage of casualties
that may occur, more than one minute of evacuation time is
considered unacceptable.
The results obtained from an alternatives’ assessment of the
improved multicriteria can be seen in Figure 16, which shows
that NASA alternative to be the best evaluated with 44.75%.
The intermediate calculations made to evaluate the final
alternatives assessment are shown in Table 6.
The first row shows the criteria with their weights, which
do not vary from the subjective multi-criteria. In columns,
below criteria, are theirs contributions to the different
alternatives COMMAND & CONTROL has not been modified.
On the other hand, the contribution of the MOBILITY & AC-
CESSIBILITY criterion has varied: NASA alternative has been
NAVAL ENGINEERS JOURNAL
 Command & Control Mobility&Accessibility
87.5% 12.5%
Side
11.45% 45.78%
15.74%

Center
41.15% 28.00%
39.50%

NASA
47.40% 26.22%
44.75%

TABLE 6. Improved multicriteria matrix (ADLA)

FIGURE 19. Best alternatives compared CENTER vs NASA

of the evacuation times, the decision resulting from the

improved multicriteria is insured, as shown in Figure 17
and Figure 18.
FIGURE 17. Subjective multicriteria reassignment The comparisons between the two best-valued alterna-
tives in the two multicriteria (CENTER vs NASA) are shown
in Figure 19. It can be observed that the application of ob-
jectivity in the evacuation subcriteria favors the NASA type
alternative, since it reduces the subjective advantage that the
experts had assigned to the alternative CENTER.

FIGURE 18. Improved multicriteria reassignment
reinforced reaching a higher contribution, 26.22%, versus
the 17.22% obtained with the subjective multicriteria.
Comparative analysis between subjective and
improved multicriteria
The NASA layout was valued as the best alternative in both
cases. Subjective multicriteria valued it 3.4 points above the
CENTER alternative, whereas the improved multicriteria
gave it 6.2 points more.
The main difference between the two multicriteria mod-
els is the robustness of the decision. Although the subjec-
tive multicriteria was quite robust, applying the objectivity
Conclusions
This work has been intended to be an aid to the decision
that the Staff of the Spanish Navy must adopt for the F-110
frigates optimum CIC layout.
Among the layout alternatives, taking into account cri-
teria provided by the experts, the best valued layout is the
NASA type.
Therefore the following results have been achieved for
the three objectives:
Objective 1: Application of multicriteria decision-making
technique for choosing the best CIC equipment layout. It has
been possible to carry out the AHP methodology with the
indispensable participation of experts with extensive experi-
ence in ships. These experts are also directly responsible for
the decision.
Objective 2: To reduce subjectivity to the designed mul-
ticriteria analysis. It has been possible to perform evacuation
time computer simulation on a statistical DOE and has been
validated through real experimentation.

NAVAL ENGINEERS JOURNAL March 2018  |  No. 130-1  |  131

Optimal Design of Spanish Navy F-110 Frigates Combat Information Center
AUTHOR BIOGRAPHIES
GERARDO GONZÁLEZ-CELA, is a researcher at Spanish Navy
Operational Military Research Cabinet (Gabinete de Investigación
Militar Operativa Armada-GIMO), Spanish Navy Commander,
Master in Decision Engineering at Alcalá de Henares University,
Madrid. gerarcela@fn.mde.es
ROBERTO BELLAS is a teaching assistant at Spanish Naval
Academy, researcher in marine fire prevention and evacuation
system designing and modeling, with 20 years’ experience in
marine fire prevention system designing and commissioning, Msc
in Industrial Engineering at Vigo University. rbellas@cud.uvigo.es
JAVIER MARTÍNEZ is an assistant professor at Spanish Naval
Academy, researcher in machine learning, algorithms and
statistic, Phd in Mathematical Engineering at Vigo University.
javier.martinez@cud.uvigo.es
REFERENCES
[1] C. A. Whitcomb, “Naval Ship Design Philosophy
Implementation,” Nav. Eng. J., vol. 110, no. 1, pp. 49–63, Jan.
1998.
[2] “CIC Operations Specialist Training Course.” Center for Surface
Combat Systems (CSCS), Dahlgren, VA, 2010.
[3] “IHS Jane’s Navy International - Digital, Online and Print
Magazine | IHS Jane’s 360.” [Online]. Available: http://www.
janes.com/magazines/ihs-janes-navy-international. [Accessed:
12-Mar-2017].
[4] N. Bushan and K. Rai, Strategic Decision Making Applying the
Analytic Hierarchy Process, IX. Springer New York, 204AD.
[5] T. L. Saaty, “How to make a decision: the analytic hierarchy
process,” Eur. J. Oper. Res., vol. 48, no. 1, pp. 9–26, 1990.
[6] T. L. Saaty, Decision making for leaders : the analytic hierarchy
process for decisions in a complex world. RWS Publications,
1995.
[7] J. G. Michaeli, G. Hou, D. Cornett, and A. Nelson, “Application
of the Analytic Hierarchy Process for Topside Combat System
Integration onto Surface Combatants.”
132  |  March 2018  |  No. 130-1
RAMÓN TOUZA is a teaching assistant at Spanish Naval Academy,
Spanish Navy Commander. Master in Advance Data Analysis and
Modeling Building at Complutense University, Madrid, Master
in Decision Engineering at Rey Juan Carlos University, Madrid.
rtougil@fn.mde.es
RAFAEL CARREÑO is a teaching assistant at Spanish Naval
Academy, researcher in models and techniques for project eval-
uation under risk, Msc in Industrial Engineering at Vigo University.
rafael.carrenno@cud.uvigo.es
[8] L. J. Freeman, “9/10/2012-1 Implementing Design and
Analysis of Experiments in the U.S. Department of Defense
Testing Communit,” in European Network for Business and
Industrial Statistics, 2012.
[9] International Maritime Organization, “SOLAS, The
International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea,
Consolidated Edition.” International Maritime Organization,
London, 2014.
[10] Thunderhead Engineering, “Pathfinder Technical Reference.”
New York, p. 180, 2017.
[11] Thunderhead Engineering, “PyroSim User Manual.” New York,
USA, 2017.
[12] K. McGrattan, S. Hostikka, R. McDermott, J. Floyd, C.
Weinscheck, and K. Overholt, “FDS Technical Reference Guide.
Volume 1: Technical Reference Guide.” NIST National Institute
of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, p. 175, 2016.
[13] IMO, “IMO MSC/Circ.1238 ‘Guidelines For Evacuation Analyses
for New and Existing Passenger Ships,’” London, 2007.
[14] T. Meyer-König, P. Valanto, and D. Povel, “Implementing
Ship Motion in AENEAS — Model Development and First
Results,” in Pedestrian and Evacuation Dynamics 2005, Berlin,
Heidelberg: Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 2007, pp. 429–441.
NAVAL ENGINEERS JOURNAL