Wednesday, July 22, 2009
Monday, July 20, 2009
Sunday, July 19, 2009
ship design-basic level
BASIC DESIGN
We carry out 4-6 basic design tasks for different types of vessels every year.
Again an unbeatable track record. The big volume, references, combined with
high quality end products, built ships, gives us a good starting point for any
kind of basic design task.
Basic design prepared by Deltamarin is a good tool for the Shipowner to
reach the intended vessel configuration even when working with a less
experienced shipyard. The basic design package includes all the required
design disciplines:
General part
Model tests
Design criteria
Hull classification
Hull outfitting
Interior
HVAC
Machinery
Auxiliary machinery
Electrical
Procurement
We carry out 4-6 basic design tasks for different types of vessels every year.
Again an unbeatable track record. The big volume, references, combined with
high quality end products, built ships, gives us a good starting point for any
kind of basic design task.
Basic design prepared by Deltamarin is a good tool for the Shipowner to
reach the intended vessel configuration even when working with a less
experienced shipyard. The basic design package includes all the required
design disciplines:
General part
Model tests
Design criteria
Hull classification
Hull outfitting
Interior
HVAC
Machinery
Auxiliary machinery
Electrical
Procurement
Critical Significance of Human Factors in Ship Design
Critical Significance of Human Factors in Ship Design
homas G. Dobie, M.D., Ph.D., FRAeS
Director, National Biodynamics Laboratory
University of New Orleans
Proceedings of the 2003 RVOC Meeting, 8 – 10 October, 2003
Large Lakes Observatory, University of Minnesota
ABSTRACT
There is a critical need for a human factors input whenever technology and people
interact. When systems are functioning well, few seem to appreciate that this smooth
operation is largely due to the prior thought and effort that has gone into optimizing the
human factors element; when disaster strikes, however, there is a sudden demand for
immediate rectification. As the ship design evolves and crew sizes diminish, even greater
emphasis should be placed upon the man/machine interaction in order to ensure safety
and efficiency during both routine and emergency operations. Severe ship motions limit
the human ability to operate command and control and communication systems,
navigate, perform routine maintenance and prepare food. In an emergency, such
operations as refueling at sea and damage control can be severely hampered. The
human being is susceptible to degraded performance in a number of ways. There are the
purely physical limitations on both gross and fine motor skills imposed by the adverse
effects of heavy seas. The former physical limitations include standing, walking, and
carrying out operational and maintenance tasks that include major whole-body
movements required to perform these types of operations. Fine motor skills include such
fine movements as delicate control adjustments and computer operations. Knowledge of
the sea/hull interaction and its potentially deleterious effect on the physical activities of
crewmembers can provide valuable information for improved ship and equipment design
as well as establishing guidelines for efficient heavy weather operations. In addition,
ship motion can cause significant mental degradation leading to overall performance
decrement and increased potential for injury. Motion sickness is an example of this type
of malady. Seasickness is the most common cause of motion sickness and can have a
profoundly adverse effect on human performance. There is also the sopite syndrome, a
human response to provocative motion characterized by drowsiness and mood changes.
It is not yet clear whether this is due to boredom, inactivity and loss of concentration or
the result of the effects of provocative motion. Whatever, this soporific response can lead
to inefficiency and accident proneness, that is not so readily identifiable by the sufferer
or a supervisor. These motion responses are highly relevant to the RVOC research ship
situation. Not only because of the plans to reduce the number of crewmembers, but also
because a number of the research or academic team members may have little or no
recent experience at sea, particularly in heavy weather. Attention to onboard habitability
issues and fostering a high level of morale among crewmembers are also very important
factors in support of crew retention, particularly in modern ships with smaller numbers
of crewmembers. The author will address these issues and make recommendations to
improve the incorporation of the human element in future ships.
homas G. Dobie, M.D., Ph.D., FRAeS
Director, National Biodynamics Laboratory
University of New Orleans
Proceedings of the 2003 RVOC Meeting, 8 – 10 October, 2003
Large Lakes Observatory, University of Minnesota
ABSTRACT
There is a critical need for a human factors input whenever technology and people
interact. When systems are functioning well, few seem to appreciate that this smooth
operation is largely due to the prior thought and effort that has gone into optimizing the
human factors element; when disaster strikes, however, there is a sudden demand for
immediate rectification. As the ship design evolves and crew sizes diminish, even greater
emphasis should be placed upon the man/machine interaction in order to ensure safety
and efficiency during both routine and emergency operations. Severe ship motions limit
the human ability to operate command and control and communication systems,
navigate, perform routine maintenance and prepare food. In an emergency, such
operations as refueling at sea and damage control can be severely hampered. The
human being is susceptible to degraded performance in a number of ways. There are the
purely physical limitations on both gross and fine motor skills imposed by the adverse
effects of heavy seas. The former physical limitations include standing, walking, and
carrying out operational and maintenance tasks that include major whole-body
movements required to perform these types of operations. Fine motor skills include such
fine movements as delicate control adjustments and computer operations. Knowledge of
the sea/hull interaction and its potentially deleterious effect on the physical activities of
crewmembers can provide valuable information for improved ship and equipment design
as well as establishing guidelines for efficient heavy weather operations. In addition,
ship motion can cause significant mental degradation leading to overall performance
decrement and increased potential for injury. Motion sickness is an example of this type
of malady. Seasickness is the most common cause of motion sickness and can have a
profoundly adverse effect on human performance. There is also the sopite syndrome, a
human response to provocative motion characterized by drowsiness and mood changes.
It is not yet clear whether this is due to boredom, inactivity and loss of concentration or
the result of the effects of provocative motion. Whatever, this soporific response can lead
to inefficiency and accident proneness, that is not so readily identifiable by the sufferer
or a supervisor. These motion responses are highly relevant to the RVOC research ship
situation. Not only because of the plans to reduce the number of crewmembers, but also
because a number of the research or academic team members may have little or no
recent experience at sea, particularly in heavy weather. Attention to onboard habitability
issues and fostering a high level of morale among crewmembers are also very important
factors in support of crew retention, particularly in modern ships with smaller numbers
of crewmembers. The author will address these issues and make recommendations to
improve the incorporation of the human element in future ships.
warship naval conceptual design
link
Table of Contents
1 REQUIREMENTS AND PLAN ........................................................................................................ 1
1.1 Mission Need ......................................................................................................1
1.2 Design Philosophy and Process .......................................................................... 1
1.3 Work Breakdown................................................................................................3
1.4 Resources............................................................................................................4
2 MISSIONS, MISSION EFFECTIVENESS AND COST................................................................. 5
2.1 Missions..............................................................................................................5
2.1.1 Mission Concept of Operations .................................................................. 5
2.1.2 Projected Operational Environment and Threat ......................................... 5
2.1.3 Mission Scenarios .......................................................................................6
2.1.4 Required Operational Capabilities.............................................................. 7
2.2 Objective Attributes ............................................................................................8
2.2.1 Cost .............................................................................................................8
2.2.2 Overall Measure of Effectiveness Model ................................................... 9
3 CONCEPT EXPLORATION .......................................................................................................... 11
3.1 Concept Exploration Model.............................................................................. 11
3.1.1 Model Overview and Function ................................................................. 11
3.1.2 Trade-Off Technologies, Concepts, and Design Parameters .................... 11
3.1.3 Concept Design Balance Sub-Models ...................................................... 16
3.1.4 Concept Design Feasibility....................................................................... 21
3.2 Multi-Objective Optimization...........................................................................22
3.2.1 Pareto Genetic Algorithm (PGA) Overview and Function....................... 22
3.2.2 Optimization Results.................................................................................23
3.3 Baseline Concept Design and ORD1................................................................ 25
4 CONCEPT DEVELOPMENT......................................................................................................... 26
4.1 Hull Form and Appendages .............................................................................. 26
4.2 Structural Design and Analysis......................................................................... 28
4.2.1 Procedures.................................................................................................28
4.2.2 Scantlings..................................................................................................29
4.2.3 Midships Region Analysis ........................................................................ 32
4.2.4 Load cases and Analysis ........................................................................... 34
4.3 Resistance, Power and Propulsion .................................................................... 38
4.4 Space and Arrangements................................................................................... 41
4.4.1 External.....................................................................................................41
4.4.2 Internal Space and Arrangements ............................................................. 45
4.5 Mechanical and Electrical Systems and Machinery Arrangement ................... 49
4.6 Mission Systems ...............................................................................................50
4.6.1 CONREP...................................................................................................50
4.6.2 VERTREP.................................................................................................51
4.7 Manning............................................................................................................51
4.8 Weights and Loading ........................................................................................ 52
4.9 Hydrostatics and Stability ................................................................................. 53
T-AKE PIKE Design Report
v
4.9.1 General......................................................................................................53
4.9.2 Intact Stability...........................................................................................53
4.9.3 Damage Stability.......................................................................................56
4.10 Seakeeping and Maneuvering........................................................................... 60
4.11 Cost and Effectiveness...................................................................................... 61
5 CONCLUSIONS AND FUTURE WORK...................................................................................... 63
5.1 Assessment........................................................................................................63
5.2 Recommended Improvements ..........................................................................63
Table of Contents
1 REQUIREMENTS AND PLAN ........................................................................................................ 1
1.1 Mission Need ......................................................................................................1
1.2 Design Philosophy and Process .......................................................................... 1
1.3 Work Breakdown................................................................................................3
1.4 Resources............................................................................................................4
2 MISSIONS, MISSION EFFECTIVENESS AND COST................................................................. 5
2.1 Missions..............................................................................................................5
2.1.1 Mission Concept of Operations .................................................................. 5
2.1.2 Projected Operational Environment and Threat ......................................... 5
2.1.3 Mission Scenarios .......................................................................................6
2.1.4 Required Operational Capabilities.............................................................. 7
2.2 Objective Attributes ............................................................................................8
2.2.1 Cost .............................................................................................................8
2.2.2 Overall Measure of Effectiveness Model ................................................... 9
3 CONCEPT EXPLORATION .......................................................................................................... 11
3.1 Concept Exploration Model.............................................................................. 11
3.1.1 Model Overview and Function ................................................................. 11
3.1.2 Trade-Off Technologies, Concepts, and Design Parameters .................... 11
3.1.3 Concept Design Balance Sub-Models ...................................................... 16
3.1.4 Concept Design Feasibility....................................................................... 21
3.2 Multi-Objective Optimization...........................................................................22
3.2.1 Pareto Genetic Algorithm (PGA) Overview and Function....................... 22
3.2.2 Optimization Results.................................................................................23
3.3 Baseline Concept Design and ORD1................................................................ 25
4 CONCEPT DEVELOPMENT......................................................................................................... 26
4.1 Hull Form and Appendages .............................................................................. 26
4.2 Structural Design and Analysis......................................................................... 28
4.2.1 Procedures.................................................................................................28
4.2.2 Scantlings..................................................................................................29
4.2.3 Midships Region Analysis ........................................................................ 32
4.2.4 Load cases and Analysis ........................................................................... 34
4.3 Resistance, Power and Propulsion .................................................................... 38
4.4 Space and Arrangements................................................................................... 41
4.4.1 External.....................................................................................................41
4.4.2 Internal Space and Arrangements ............................................................. 45
4.5 Mechanical and Electrical Systems and Machinery Arrangement ................... 49
4.6 Mission Systems ...............................................................................................50
4.6.1 CONREP...................................................................................................50
4.6.2 VERTREP.................................................................................................51
4.7 Manning............................................................................................................51
4.8 Weights and Loading ........................................................................................ 52
4.9 Hydrostatics and Stability ................................................................................. 53
T-AKE PIKE Design Report
v
4.9.1 General......................................................................................................53
4.9.2 Intact Stability...........................................................................................53
4.9.3 Damage Stability.......................................................................................56
4.10 Seakeeping and Maneuvering........................................................................... 60
4.11 Cost and Effectiveness...................................................................................... 61
5 CONCLUSIONS AND FUTURE WORK...................................................................................... 63
5.1 Assessment........................................................................................................63
5.2 Recommended Improvements ..........................................................................63
INTEGRATING PERSONNEL MOVEMENT SIMULATION INTO PRELIMINARY SHIP
Download at:
INTEGRATING PERSONNEL MOVEMENT SIMULATION INTO PRELIMINARY SHIP
DESIGN
D Andrews, L Casarosa and R Pawling, University College London, UK
E Galea, S Deere and P Lawrence, University of Greenwich, UK
SUMMARY
Traditionally, when designing a ship the driving issues are seen to be powering, stability, strength and seakeeping.
Issues related to ship operations and evolutions are investigated later in the design process, within the constraint of a
fixed layout. This can result in operational inefficiencies and limitations, excessive crew numbers and potentially
hazardous situations.
This paper summarises work by University College London and the University of Greenwich prior to the completion of
a three year EPSRC funded research project to integrate the simulation of personnel movement into early stage ship
design. This integration is intended to facilitate the assessment of onboard operations while the design is still highly
amenable to change.
The project brings together the University of Greenwich developed maritimeEXODUS personnel movement simulation
software and the SURFCON implementation of the Design Building Block approach to early stage ship design, which
originated with the UCL Ship Design Research team and has been implemented within the PARAMARINE ship design
system produced by Graphics Research Corporation. Central to the success of this project is the definition of a suitable
series of Performance Measures (PM) which can be used to assess the human performance of the design in different
operational scenarios.
The paper outlines the progress made on deriving the PM from human dynamics criteria measured in simulations and
their incorporation into a Human Performance Metric (HPM) for analysis. It describes the production of a series of
SURFCON ship designs, based on the Royal Navy’s Type 22 Batch 3 frigate, and their analysis using the
PARAMARINE and maritimeEXODUS software. Conclusions on the work to date and for the remainder of the project
are presented addressing the integration of personnel movement simulation into the preliminary ship design process.
INTEGRATING PERSONNEL MOVEMENT SIMULATION INTO PRELIMINARY SHIP
DESIGN
D Andrews, L Casarosa and R Pawling, University College London, UK
E Galea, S Deere and P Lawrence, University of Greenwich, UK
SUMMARY
Traditionally, when designing a ship the driving issues are seen to be powering, stability, strength and seakeeping.
Issues related to ship operations and evolutions are investigated later in the design process, within the constraint of a
fixed layout. This can result in operational inefficiencies and limitations, excessive crew numbers and potentially
hazardous situations.
This paper summarises work by University College London and the University of Greenwich prior to the completion of
a three year EPSRC funded research project to integrate the simulation of personnel movement into early stage ship
design. This integration is intended to facilitate the assessment of onboard operations while the design is still highly
amenable to change.
The project brings together the University of Greenwich developed maritimeEXODUS personnel movement simulation
software and the SURFCON implementation of the Design Building Block approach to early stage ship design, which
originated with the UCL Ship Design Research team and has been implemented within the PARAMARINE ship design
system produced by Graphics Research Corporation. Central to the success of this project is the definition of a suitable
series of Performance Measures (PM) which can be used to assess the human performance of the design in different
operational scenarios.
The paper outlines the progress made on deriving the PM from human dynamics criteria measured in simulations and
their incorporation into a Human Performance Metric (HPM) for analysis. It describes the production of a series of
SURFCON ship designs, based on the Royal Navy’s Type 22 Batch 3 frigate, and their analysis using the
PARAMARINE and maritimeEXODUS software. Conclusions on the work to date and for the remainder of the project
are presented addressing the integration of personnel movement simulation into the preliminary ship design process.
DESIGN
OK my friends
what U think about SHIP DESIGN?
whats your steps on that?
whats your idea about the MISSION NEED DESIGN,CONCEPTUAL DESIGN,BASIC DESIGN,CONTRACT DESIGN,DETAIL DESIGN?
WRITE TO ME...OK?
what U think about SHIP DESIGN?
whats your steps on that?
whats your idea about the MISSION NEED DESIGN,CONCEPTUAL DESIGN,BASIC DESIGN,CONTRACT DESIGN,DETAIL DESIGN?
WRITE TO ME...OK?
at the first,in the name of GOD
Dears
Hi
this Blog was Created to demonstration and developing of some case studies and idea about the naval ship design and their tools.
any body can help US to grow this space.
thanks
sir.naval.arc@gmail.com
Hi
this Blog was Created to demonstration and developing of some case studies and idea about the naval ship design and their tools.
any body can help US to grow this space.
thanks
sir.naval.arc@gmail.com
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
