Advertisement

Journal of Marine Science and Technology

, Volume 15, Issue 1, pp 23–33 | Cite as

A process-centric ship design management framework

  • Beom-Seon Jang
  • Benedikte Harstad Kallåk
  • Chang-Hyun Lee
  • Dae-Eun Ko
  • Yong-Suk Suh
  • Young-Soon Yang
Original Article

Abstract

As the concept of concurrent engineering has emerged along with support for optimization techniques, lots of endeavors have been made to apply optimization techniques to real design problems for holistic decision-making. Even if the range of design problems to which optimization is applicable has been extended, most ship designs use an iterative and manual approach due to the difficulties of seamless integration of all related design activities. This paper proposes a process-centric management framework for the preliminary ship design process depending on these approaches. Requirements for the framework are generated based on the features of the ship design process first. The proposed framework consists of both process scheduling and process management parts. Each of these modules is divided into submodules, and the modules and their interactions are elaborated to reflect actual design practice. The designed framework is embodied within a workflow system and its usefulness examined through a pilot project.

Keywords

Preliminary ship design process Process-centric integration Workflow system 

References

  1. 1.
    Evans JH (1959) Basic design concepts. Nav Eng J 71(4):671–678Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Buxton IL (1972) Engineering economics applied to ship design. RINA Trans Annu Rep 114:409–428Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Andrews D (1981) Creative ship design. RINA Trans Annu Rep 123:447–471Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Mistree F, Smith WF, Bras BA, Allen JK, Muster D (1990) Decision-Based Design: A Contemporary Paradigm in Ship Design. Trans Soc Nav Arch Mar Eng 98:565–597Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Mistree F, Hughes OF, Phuoc HB (1981) An optimization method for the design of large, highly constrained, complex systems. Eng Optim 5(3):177–183Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Hughes OF (1983) Ship structural design: a rationally-based, computer aided optimization approach. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Kroo IM (1997) MDO for large-scale design. In: Alexandrov NM, Hussaini MY (eds) Multidisciplinary design optimization: state of the art, SIAM, pp 22–44Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Balling RJ, Sobieszczanski-Sobieski J (1996) Optimization of coupled systems: a critical overview of approaches. AIAA J 34(1):6–17zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Braun RD (1996) Collaborative optimization: an architecture for large-scale distributed design. Ph.D. Thesis, Stanford UniversityGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Eppinger SD, Whitney DE, Smith R, Gebala D (1994) A model-based method for organizing tasks in product development. Res Eng Des 6(1):1–13CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Rogers JL (1989) A knowledge-based tool for multilevel decomposition of a complex design problem, Hampton, VA, Technical Manual TM-2903Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Rogers JL (1996) DeMAID/GA—an enhanced design manager’s aid for intelligent decomposition. In: Proceedings of 6th AIAA/USAF/NASA/ISSMO symposium on multidisciplinary analysis and optimization, Seattle, WA, AIAA paper no. 96-4157Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Whitcomb CA, Szatkowski JJ (2000) Concept level naval surface combatant design in the axiomatic approach to design framework, proceedings of ICAD 2000. In: First international conference on axiomatic design, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Panchal J, Fernandez MG, Paredis C, Mistree F (2004) Reusable design processes via modular, executable, decision-centric templates. In: Proceedings of 10th AIAA/ISSMO multidisciplinary analysis and optimization conference, Albany, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Miers D (2005) BPM—too much BP, not enough of the M. In: Fischer L (ed) Workflow handbook 2005, Workflow management coalition. Future Strategies Inc., FloridaGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Pahl G, Beitz W (1984) Engineering design. The Design Council, LondonGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Suh NP (1990) The principles of design. Oxford University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Stein OE (1996) A decision support model for preliminary ship design. Ph.D. Thesis, The University of TrondheimGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
  20. 20.
    Rishoff E (2005) Best engineering practice in a life cycle context, DNV Software white paperGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Astrup OC, Wøien E (2006) A workflow implementation supporting the commercial ship design process, In: Fisher L (ed) Workflow handbook. Future Strategies Inc., FloridaGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© JASNAOE 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Beom-Seon Jang
    • 1
  • Benedikte Harstad Kallåk
    • 2
  • Chang-Hyun Lee
    • 3
  • Dae-Eun Ko
    • 4
  • Yong-Suk Suh
    • 1
  • Young-Soon Yang
    • 5
  1. 1.Structure Research Part, Marine Research InstituteSamsung Heavy IndustriesGeojeKorea
  2. 2.Software Factory, BRIX, DNV SoftwareHøvikNorway
  3. 3.Hull Structure Design PartSamsung Heavy IndustriesGeojeKorea
  4. 4.Department of Naval Architecture and Ocean EngineeringDong-Eui UniversityBusanKorea
  5. 5.Department of Naval Architecture and Ocean Engineering, and Research Institute of Marine Systems EngineeringSeoul National UniversitySeoulKorea

Personalised recommendations