Abstract
An innovative complexity metric is introduced that provides a way to compare similar or different ship types and sizes at the contract design stage. The goal is to provide the designer with this information throughout the design process so that an efficient design is obtained during the first design run. Application to and validation on real passenger ships indicate that there is a significant correlation between the error in an engineer’s judgement of complexity and the cost assessment error. It follows that this tool could be used to improve knowledge of the ship’s complexity at the contract design stage, and even to try to optimise the design if the complexity criteria are not fixed by the shipowners.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
Developed by the Community of European Shipyards Associations, CESA; the Shipbuilders Association of Japan, SAJ; and the Korean Shipbuilders Association, KSA.
References
Simon HA (1962) The architecture of complexity. Proc Am Philos Soc 106:467–482
Simon H (1996) The sciences of the artificial. MIT Press, Cambridge
Rodriguez-Toro C, Tate S, Jared G, Swift K (2003) Complexity metrics for design. Proc Inst Mech Eng B 217:721–725
Chryssolouris G (1994) Measuring complexity in manufacturing systems (technical report). University of Patras, Patras
Little G, Tuttle D, Clark DER, Corney J (1997) A feature complexity index. Proc Inst Mech Eng C 212:405–412
Calinescu A, Efstathiou J, Sivadasan S, Schirn J, Huaccho HL (2000) Complexity in manufacturing: an information theoretic approach. In: Conference on complexity and complex systems in industry. University of Warwick, Warwick, 19–20 Sept 2000, pp 19–20
Tang V, Salminen V (2001) Towards a theory of complicatedness: framework for complex systems analysis and design. In: 13th International conference on engineering design, Glasgow, UK, 21–23 August 2001, p 8
Community of European Shipyards Associations (CESA), the Shipbuilders’ Association of Japan (SAJ) and the Korean Shipbuilders Association (KSA) (2007) Compensated gross ton (CGT) system (technical report). Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development (OECD), Paris. http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/59/49/37655301.pdf
Bertram V (2003) Strategic control of productivity and other competitiveness parameters. Proc Inst Mech Eng M 217:61–70
Bruce GJA (2006) A review of the use of compensated gross tonnage for shipbuilding performance measurement. J Ship Product 22:99–104
Lamb T (2003) Methodology used to calculate naval compensated gross tonnage factors. J Ship Product 19:29–30
Brans J, Mareschal B (1992) PROMETHEE V: MCDM problems with segmentation constraints. INFOR 30:85–96
Brans J, Mareschal B (1994) How to decide with PROMETHEE. http://www.visualdecision.com/Pdf/How%20to%20use%20PROMETHEE.pdf
Brans J-P, Mareschal B (2005) PROMOTHEE methods. In: Figueira J, Greco S, Ehrgott M (eds) Multiple criteria decision analysis: state of the art surveys. Springer, New York, 78:163–186
Acknowledgments
The authors thank the University of Liege and experts at some European shipyards for their collaboration with this project, as well as the Belgian National Funds of Scientific Research (NFSR) for their financial support.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
About this article
Cite this article
Caprace, J.D., Rigo, P. Ship complexity assessment at the concept design stage. J Mar Sci Technol 16, 68–75 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00773-010-0107-9
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00773-010-0107-9