Modularization of Ships

Report within the Framework of Project “Intermodul” s/03/G IntermareC

Volker Bertram
ENSIETA
2 rue François Verny
F 29806 Brest Cd 9
France
Volker.bertram@ensieta.fr 7/28/2005
1. Introduction

In today’s international competitive shipbuilding market, success is often based on offering both
competitive prices and competitive delivery dates. Over the last three decades, there has been a
continuous pressure to improve shipbuilding performance, to reduce build times and to reduce costs.
The initial focus of cost reduction efforts was on steel processes and there is still progress to be made
on design for production of steel structures, e.g. Lamb (2003). However, as the scope for further
improvement in the ship structure production and assembly techniques diminishes, the shipbuilding
industry explores increasingly also other options to save time and money, namely equipment and outfit
(E&O) as typically second largest cost item in a cargo ship. E&O offers the possibility of significant
improvement, Bruce and Nielsen (2003). While advanced outfitting (outfitting sections before
assembly) is problematic for some shipyards and ship types, Bruce and Nielsen (2003), Lamb (2004),
modularization and standardization are widely seen as areas where considerable progress is still
possible.

Before looking into specific applications for ships, we recall the definition of modularity credited to
Booz-Allen (1968), as quoted by Spero et al. (1971):

Constructed of modules or unit packaging schemes, usually having all major

dimensions in accordance with a prescribed series of dimensions; capable of being
easily joined to or detached, as an entity, from other components, units, or next higher
assemblies.

The general approach is tried and proven in assorted industries like aerospace, automotive, or
appliances. E.g. Rommel et al. (1995) report findings of McKinsey & Co.: ‘Winners’ shift the freeze
point (i.e. the point where the product variety is created in production) as late as possible in the
production. Standard parts and modular approaches offer gains in time, cost, and quality. The principle
is generally understood. ‘Winners’ and ‘Losers’ in the McKinsey study differed in how consequently
they implemented the modular approach.

Common platform, but product variance – One success story for modular design

2. General guidelines

The modules can be built and tested in parallel at the providers’ premises. This shortens the overall
construction time, reduces the risk for integration of the various systems, and therefore means overall
cost savings for the whole ship.

The general objectives of the Modular Ship Design concept are:

- reduced design and construction cost
- reduced design and construction time
- greater flexibility for updates later in the ship’s life (temporary for missions or general update)
- shorter and cheaper maintenance periods

2
 - reduced maintenance cost
However, modularization comes at price:
- higher initial design effort
- reduced design freedom (possibly retarding technological progress)
- usually higher weight
- usually increased space requirement

Creating ever larger standard modules and shifting outfitting to workshops (in ship yards or to
subcontractor sites) is not without dispute and optimal advanced outfitting levels depend on ship type
and ship yard, Lamb (2004). However, modularity and standardization at unit level are commonly
practiced at world class ship yards. One example are modular cabins/bathroom modules, Hoffmann
and Lamb (2003). Ichinose (1978) describes very early implementation of standard components and
modules at the Japanese shipbuilder IHI. Continued efforts at IHI have resulted in numerous related
patents1. Boudreaux et al. (1986) present modular concepts at Avondale shipyards in the USA, which
followed from a cooperation with IHI. Paetow (1997) describes efforts of the German shipyard HDW
within the framework of the Euroyards consortium. As only two main suppliers shared the market for
slow two-stroke diesel main engines, joint discussions between suppliers, shipyards and class resulted
in a harmonization of the interface engine-foundation, allowing to progress with the steel structure
while shifting a final decision on choice of main engine to a later point in time. A similar
harmonization for four-stroke engines was deemed impossible due to the multitude of potential
suppliers. Modules for cooling water and separator stations are mentioned as standards for HDW.

Standard furniture elements are Modular accommodation unit

arranged in standard cabins,
http://intro.masa-yards.fi/

3. Case studies

3.1. Navy applications

The general trend to fewer warships having to fulfill a greater variety of mission in their life time
motivates modular ship design and operation. Naval procurement programmes around the globe take
advantage of the modular design and operation philosophy.

Modular deckhouse

See: Spero et al. (1971)

In 1967, the J.J. Henry Company investigated the feasibility and advantages of modular construction
of ships’ deckhouses for MARAD. The concepts apparently were never put to practice.
1
US Patent US005259332A “Method of forming modules and method for arrangement thereof” (1993),
European patent EP 0470714A1 “Forming and arranging functional modules” (1991), cover grouping of outfits
or plant elements into modules. US patent US005347703A “Method pf coupling a module framework to a ship
structure” (1994), European patent EP 0473357A1 “Module frames” (1991) cover self-supporting frameworks
consisting of standard modules to which outfits are mounted.

3
 Exploded view of modular deckhouse

Affordability Through Commonality (US Navy)

See: Bosworth and Hough (1993), Hane et al. (1995), Cecere et al. (1995),
Christensen and Koenig (1995)

In 1992, the US Naval Sea Systems Command (NAVSEA) began an initiative titled “Affordability
Through Commonality” (ATC). The object was to develop the necessary strategies, standards, designs,
specifications, and procedures for cost reduction through equipment modularization, equipment
standardization, and process simplification. The ATC program primarily focused at HM&E (Hull,
Mechanical and Electrical) modularity. Modules consisting of standard components are then
assembled and interconnected in a workshop, possibly even outside the shipyard. Ideally a module
must be applicable across several ship types across the fleet to increase equipment standardization.
Standardization proved to be increasingly difficult moving from unit modules to system and zone
modules. Tested in practice: standard fire pump module, reverse osmosis desalination module,
modular crew sanitary space. Christensen and Koenig (1995) analyzed how shifting to standard outfit
package units would affect production of the LPD 17 amphibious dock ship.

Reverse osmosis desalinator module (ATC) SMART workstation modules

4
SMART System (US Navy)

See: Alexander and Olmstead (1997)

The Shipboard Modular Arrangement Reconfiguration Technology (SMART) is a methodology for

installing equipment in shipboard spaces to provide flexibility and cost efficiency. The heart of this
technology is a track rail system, similar to that used by the aircraft industry, which enables equipment
to be bolted to the deck, bulkheads or overhead. The SMART system includes a foundation track
system, modular connected power and lighting, and modular workstations.

NSSN Attack submarine (US Navy /Navy and Electrical Boat company)

See: Carey (1997)

In the early 1990’s, Navy and Electrical Boat (shipbuilding division of General Dynamics) started the
development of a new generation US attack submarine NSSN. The NSSN needed to be much more
affordable than previous Seawolf class submarines, but also the design and manufacturing process had
to be sufficiently flexible in order to adapt to mission requirements that could not be fully anticipated
at the time the construction began. Therefore, the Navy and Electrical Boat focused on integrated
product teams, concurrent engineering and modular design and construction concepts. The design
philosophy stresses a three-fold modularity: in construction, in technology, and in operation.

Schelde Naval Shipbuilding: Sigma Offshore Patrol Vessels and Enforcer

See: www.scheldeshipbuilding.com - Sigma , Enforcer

Post (2003)

In the 'Sigma' (Ship Integrated Geometrical Modularity Approach) philosophy of Schelde Naval
Shipbuilding, a set of geometrical parameters are defined which are applied throughout the entire
product family, thus providing a repetition of identical units, both in the dimensioning of ship spaces
as well as in the lay-out of systems. Furthermore, the hull form itself is 'modular'. With a few fore and
aft ships, all hulls within the product family range can be created. The approach is applied at Schelde
Naval Shipbuilding to a range of Offshore Patrol Vessels (OPVs).

Combat system Auxiliary systems Propulsion Accommodation Support spaces

Schelde Sigma Offshore Patrol Vessel Schelde ENFORCER concept

Also Schelde’s ‘Enforcer’ family (landing platform docks, multi-role vessels) employs the modular
design concept offering pre-designed customized options for dock, garage, flight deck and hangar
area, accommodation, and propulsion systems. The basis design consists of 5 modules, with distinctly
grouped functions, like a hangar module, which facilitates the hangar and all helicopter support
functions. These modules can be used across the entire range of Enforcers. Differences in length are
created by inserting sections parallel mid-body sections.

5
MEKO Design Concept, by Blohm & Voss GmbH

See: www.blohmvoss.com
Jacobi (2003)

MEKO is probably the best-known example of modularity in shipbuilding. In the patented2 MEKO
concept, all components needed to run a specific system are accommodated in a single module and
modules are connected to the power supply, HVAC, and the data network via standard interfaces.
MEKO mainly focuses at SEWACO systems (sensor, weapons and communications). More than 50
MEKO frigates and corvettes were built by 2003.

green: mast modules; red: weapon modules;

blue: electronic modules; yellow: machinery;
purple: pallets
MEKO principle, Blohm&Voss MEKO modules, Blohm&Voss

MOPCO Concept, Abeking & Rasmussen

See: www.abeking.com
Jacobi (2003)

The Modular Platform Concept (MOPCO) of the German shipyard Abeking & Rasmussen (A & R) is
based on experience since the 1980s when a replacement programme of German mine-counter
measure vessels started. The concept is based on strict modularization of all systems and equipments
which are integrated in an improved design of the common platform. There are standard interface
connections for the various mission containers and equipment like winches and cranes.

MOPCO concept of Abeking & Rasmussen

2
European patent EP1512618A2 “Schiff mit modularer Struktur” (ship with modular structure) (2004).

6
SWATH@A&R

See: N.N. (2005)

Within the framework of preliminary studies for the MJ2000 (Minenjagd 2000 = mine hunting 2000)
concept of the German navy, a consortium involving the shipyards Abeking & Rasmussen and
Lürssen Werft have developed a SWATH platform which supports shock-elastically supported
modules. The complete superstructure with accommodation and bridge is one module. Another
module was developed for launching/retrieving drones. While the MJ2000 proposal failed to attract
funding, Abeking&Rasmussen continued to develop the modular SWATH concept under the
registered name SWATH@A&R. The platform contains only the absolutely necessary equipment e.g.
maneuvering devices, electrically driven propulsion, fuel and ballast tanks. The platform is structurally
self-supporting and carries modules which do not contribute to global strength and are in themselves
structurally self-supporting. Bridge and engine room are added as base module located up front. The
central module hosts the operational central and accommodation units, kitchen, and further equipment
for the operation such as electric transformers. The aft module may be exchanged for individual
missions, containing weapons, launching-retrieval systems for AUVs or boats.

MJ 2000 concept (Seepferd) of A&R Modular platform concept of A&R

Standard Flex (Flyfisken Class)

See: www.navalteam.dk/flex300.htm, www.naval-technology.com/projects/fly

Rodholm (1990), Hornhaver (1995), Jacobi (2003)

The Standard Flex 300, also known as the “Flyvefisken Class”, is a multi-role vessel based on a
standard hull with containerized systems and equipment, which allows the vessel to change role
quickly for surveillance, surface combat, anti-submarine warfare, countermeasures/mine hunting, or
pollution control tasks. This fiber-reinforced plastic vessel is designed by the Danish Navy and
Navalteam Denmark (project group of Danyard and the Nordic Defense industry). Between 1987 and
1996 a total of 14 of these vessels were built by Danyard A/S. The principle of the STANFLEX 300
concept were adapted for the three (much larger) fishery protection / offshore patrol vessels of the
‘Thetis’ class, and the flexible support ships of the Absalon class.

7
 Standard Flex module Standard Flex System

French-Italian FREMM (frégate européenne multi-mission)

See : Desclèves and Letot (2000), Desclèves (2004)

The French navy in cooperation with the Italian navy develops new frigates. Within the next decade
17 new frigates shall be built for France, 10 for Italy. Following the success of the Danish Standard
Flex approach, the frigate design shall be based on a modular ship design approach to provide the
desired flexibility and cost effectiveness. The concept foresees a standard platform, fitted with
equipment shared by all operational functions. This ‘plug&play’ concept shall make it easier to stay
abreast of new systems developments.

3.2. Civilian applications

M1000 System

See: Gallin (1977)

In the 1960s, driven by a demand to replace the Liberty ships built during World War II, Blohm+Voss
developed a “design for production” ship called ‘Pioneer’. The ship included a series of novelties,
including a prefabricated accommodation system M1000. The M1000 system consisted of a steel
framework for cabin structures, in standard parts, in meter measurements equipped with standard
metric furniture. Well thought out connection details and fire proof panels ensured quick assembly.
While the Pioneer concept as such flopped, the M1000 accommodation system, taken separately,
proved to be a success.

TNSW modular engine room

See: Sell (1996), Baade et al. (1998)

After DFP projects to reduce costs in steel construction, Thyssen Nordseewerke (TNSW) concentrated
on DFP in the ship engine room. The engine room, accounting for 40% of the production hours and
ship costs, offered considerable potential for cost savings. This consideration led to the introduction of
standardization and modularization in engine room design. In 1991 the yard started with the building
of a series of 1500 TEU containerships in which piping and pump groups were replaced by completely
assembled and pre-outfitted functional modules (low-temperature cooling water module; high-
temperature water module; sea-water cooling module; separator module; lubricating and fuel oil
module; starting air and control air module). After the first series of containerships, the module series
was extended with some additional modules. In total, thirteen containerships were built between 1991
and 1996 with this (patented) modular engine room. TNSW also patented3 a concept of modular

3 US patent US005899161A “Ship with plane area elements which extend horizontally and are located in the hull of
the ship” (1999)

8
supports for engine rooms which consists of vertical supporting columns in the hull supporting one of
more horizontal rectangular deck elements.

TNSW machinery space unit NASSCO machinery unit

TNSW modular support system for engine rooms

Modular deckhouse

See: Höpfner (1997)

A consortium of shipbuilding suppliers in Rostock/Germany started in 1998 with the prototype of a

modular deckhouse.

The deckhouse consists of five modules:

(1) accommodation cells,

(2) floors,
(3) nautical bridge,
(4) funnel, and
(5) appendages.

Decks consist of mass-produced laser-welded

sandwich panels.

Modular deckhouse

9
Engine Room Built Strategy developed by NASSCO

See: Jaquith et al. (1996)

During the contract design phase of the Strategic Sealift New Construction Program engine room at
the National Steel and Shipbuilding Company (NASSCO), the yard's management recognized that
procurement would be technically challenging and highly competitive. To reduce the construction
time required for designing and building such a complex engine room, and due to facility and crane
lifting constraints, a modular approach was taken instead of the conventional block outfit approach.
This resulted in the innovative Engine Room Built Strategy, developed and supported by a Concurrent
Engineering team. This resulted in a two-layer engine room, with ten lower layer modules and three
upper layer modules. Each module contains one or more completely outfitted and tested systems.
During the design of the modules, extra attention was paid to improve the piping and cabling
architecture. According to NASSCO, the project proved to be successful, although some refinements
are considered for future programs.

PU-707

See: Altic et al. (2003)

NASSCO continued work on modular and standard outfit of (US Navy) ships. A pilot implementation
project focused on production processes associated with the machinery unit PU-707. The outfitting
unit consists of a foundation made up of angles, beams, and deck plates that support distributive
systems, tanks, and equipment for the starting, control, and ship service air systems, lube oil transfer
system, stern tube lip tank and electrical group control center, load centers, and display panel. The unit
was re-engineered for modular outfit using a family of interim products, optimizing for repeated
assembly. During the course of the project, it became obvious that a clear definition of an interim
product hierarchy was needed to reach agreement as to the defining criteria for each of the levels of
the product hierarchy. The creation of a series of previously established products or a product family
album, which could be built with established production processes, would make the preproduction
evolution much quicker and cost effective.

NSRP/ASE Project 21

See: Tomassoni et al. (2003)

The project was initiated to improve ship design at US shipyards and to assist them in achieving
commercial competitiveness. The aim is to develop a template-based design process utilizing standard
ranges of parametric interim products (≈ modules). The project focuses rather on generation of product
data templates. More than 200 such templates shall be developed in the project.

Ulstein Modular Design Strategy

The Ulstein A101 (offshore supply vessel), launched in late 2002 was built using the Ulstein Modular
Design Strategy. The DFP strategy is based on standardized components employed in different
combinations to preserve flexibility in design while reducing cost. Little information on details is
available, but the Ulstein website gives the reasoning of the shipyard management: “Modular design is
about reusing knowledge and solutions. In other words, producing and utilizing good solutions of a
vessel, or a system on board a vessel. We can build the simplest and the most advanced vessels and
ship systems from modules. Thus we can also outsource all or parts of our production and use our
expertise and the network we have at our disposal to produce vessels and systems more cheaply.”

10
 Ulstein modular design strategy

Modular concept for small dredgers

See: Bilen (1989)

In this concept for the modular design and construction of small dredgers for inland waters the overall
dimensions of the modules are within the international standard container dimensions to facilitate the
transport from supplier to customer. The modules are connected by specially constructed wedges
which provide easy connection and disconnection of modules. Several modules were developed:
displacement module; propulsive displacement module; connecting modules; wheelhouse module;
hydrostatic navigator; several dredging modules.

Modular inland waterway dredger

Modular bulk carriers

See: Parashkevov et al. (1989)

In 1989 the shipbuilding department of the Varna Higher Institute of Machine & Electrical
Engineering developed series of modular transport ships (bulk carriers, product tankers, multi-purpose
vessels). The bulk carrier range is based on the assumption that the ship’s width is kept constant along
the range. Together with the selection of the topology of the main transverse section and the frame
space on the one hand, and the special approach of the development of the hull lines on the other hand,
high levels of ship forms and structure unification were allowed along the range. For all bulk carriers
in the investigated range, the required section modules can be achieved by only changing the plate
thickness and the transverse stiffeners, without changing the rest of the construction. The high level of
unification between the construction of the different vessels, allows for easy group and in-series
production of module parts, units, sections and blocks. To further utilize the possibilities of unification
the series is designed such that the arrangement and the equipment of all deck structures is the same
for all ships.

11
Modular ship hull design IIT

See : Misra et al. (2002), Sha et al. (2004)

The Indian Institute of Technology in Kharagpur patented4 a family of modular ship hull forms,
combining a choice of one aft body, two fore bodies and six mid-bodies to generate a total of twelve
hull forms. There is no information on implementation in industry.

Sha + Misra : Modular containership

Modular fast catamaran IRIS

See: N.N. (1994)

http://www.iris-catamarans.com

The French shipyard Iris Catamarans in La Rochelle has developed a modular fast catamaran ferry
family. The concept consists of closed modules for the passenger space (one or two decks), a control
module which groups all functions of propulsion, steering, safety and transmission together, and the
two side hulls which are connected by three strong girders. The side hulls contain engines, auxiliary
engines, waterjets and electric systems.

Modular Iris Catamaran

4
World Intellectual Property Organization patent WO2004/029839A2 “A method for modularization of ship
hull” (2004)

12
Futura Carrier

See: Mühlhausen (2004), N.N. (2005a,b)

www.new-logistics.com

The Futura Carrier system is a modular system proposed for inland waterways transport vessels. The
ship is equipped with 4 propulsion units, two astern and two forward. Aft and forward propulsion
modules can be combined with standard accommodation units and cargo modules (tanker, container,
general cargo). A prototype of this ship was built in 2005 by the German shipyard CON-MAR.

Futura Carrier

4. Conclusion

Despite the potential disadvantages, modularization is increasingly used by successful shipyards and
navies, indicating that there is still considerable potential for improvement in the industry in terms of
using modular approaches in design and operation. The fragmentation of the suppliers’ market for
many items in equipment and outfit, together with the weak position of the customers (ship yards or
ship owners, with the possible exception of large navies) prevents rapid progress in this respect. In
addition, typical university curricula do not train young engineers in design for production and
modular design. Other channels of dissemination should therefore be employed, e.g. through
professional societies, publications in journals widely read in the industry, standard text books, etc.

Acknowledgement

Claude Morvan, as usual, did a great job in tracking down references. Jan-Jaap Nieuwenhuis, PhD
candidate at TU Delft, supplied valuable material and discussion.

13
References

ALEXANDER, R.K.; OLMSTEAD (1997), Meeting the 21st century with smart mission flexibility,
Naval Engineers J. 109/3, pp.341-348

ALTIC, B.E.; BURNS, R.M.; FONTAINE, B.J.; SCOTT, I.; SILVEIRA, J.L.; SOFTLEY, J. (2003),
Implementation of an improved outfit process model, J. Ship Production 19/1, pp.1-7

BAADE, R.; KLINGE, F.; LYNAUGH, K.; WORONKOWICZ, F.; SEIDLER, K.M. (1998), Modular
outfitting, J. Ship Production 14/3, pp.170-179

BILEN, B. (1989), Modular Concept of construction of small dredgers, CEDA Dredging Day,
Amsterdam

BOOZ-ALLEN (1968), A study of the feasibility, cost and benefits of expanded use of the modular
concept in the DX/DXG program, Booz-Allen Applied Research Inc., final report Contract N00024-
67-C-0368

BOSWORTH, M.; HOUGH, J. (1993), Improvements in ship affordability, Trans. SNAME 101,
pp.705-721

BOUDREAUX, C.P.; LEWIS, W.W.; SMITH, E.E. (1986), The application of shipyards modular
construction techniques to other industrial projects, Energy Processes 6/3, pp.141-148

BRUCE, G.; NIELSEN, T. (2003), More effective planning of early ship outfitting, SNAME World
Maritime Technology Conf., San Francisco, pp.1-8,
http://www.skibstekniskselskab.dk/download/WMTC_downloads.htm

CAREY, M. (1997), Modularity times three, Sea Power, April, pp.81-84

CECERE, M.L.; ABBOTT, J.; BOSWORTH, M.L.; VALSI, T.J. (1995), Commonality-based naval
ship design, production and support, J. Ship Production 11/1, pp.1-14

CHRISTENSEN, W.L.; KOENIG, P.C. (1995), Standard outfit package units in the LPD 17 ship
design : A production impact study, SNAME Ship Production Symposium, Seattle, pp.9.1-9.11

DESCLÈVES, E. (2004), Les nouveaux bâtiments de surface, Navigation 52/206, pp.63-73

DESCLÈVES, E.; LETOT, L. (2000), Technologies and sociotechnical systems for future
frigates, Naval Eng. J. 113/1, pp.81-87

GALLIN, C. (1977), Inventiveness in ship design, Trans. North East Coast Institution of Engineers
and Shipbuilders Vol. 94/1, 1977, pp.17-32

HANE, T.H.; GAUTHIER, E.A.; LANG, S.W.; VALSI, T.J. (1995), Modularity in H&M Systems,
Naval Engineers J. 107/3, pp.149-166

HOFFMANN, H.; LAMB, T. (2003), General arrangement design, hull outfit and fittings, Ch.22 Ship
Design and Construction (Ed. T. Lamb), SNAME, pp.22.1-22.45

HÖPFNER, R. (1997), Entwurf eines modularen Deckhauses und Konzeption für seine Fertigung,
Jahrbuch Schiffbautechnische Gesellschaft 91, Springer, pp.88-89

HORNHAVER, H. (1995), STANDARD FLEX – Distributed architecture combat system, Naval

Engineers J. 107/3, pp.41-48

14
ICHINOSE, Y. (1978), Improving shipyard production with standard components and modules,
SNAME STAR Symp, New London, pp.10.1-10.11

JACOBI, F. (2003), Modular ship design, Naval Forces 1/2003, pp.36-44

JAQUITH, P.E.; BURNS, R.; DUNBARR, S.; NELSON, H.; SILVEIRA, J.; THOMPSON, T. (1996),
Modular engine room design and construction for the strategic sealift ships, J. Ship Production 12/4,
pp.230-243

JAQUITH, P.E.; BURNS, R.M.; DUNECLIFT, L.A.; GASKARI, M.; GREEN, T.; SILVERIA, J.L.;
WALSH, A. (1998), A parametric approach to machinery utilization in shipbuilding, J. Ship
Production 14/1, pp.59-84

LAMB, T. (2003), Design/production integration, Ch.14 Ship Design and Construction (Ed. T.
Lamb), SNAME, pp.14.1-14.70

LAMB, T. (2004), The advanced outfitting dilemma, Trans. SNAME

MISRA, S.C.; SHA, O.P.; GOKARN, R.P. (2002), Modularized ship designs for competitive
construction in India, Trans. SNAME 110, pp.279-299

MÜHLHAUSEN, A. (2004), Effiziente Binnenschiffe durch Baukastenprinzip, Schiff+Hafen, July,

pp.27-30

N.N. (1994), Iris catamarans unveils a novel design, Fast Ferry Int. 33/10, pp.27-29

N.N. (2000), SWATH Technologie für kompakte Marineschiffe, Hansa 142/2, pp.29-34

N.N. (2005a), Forward looking freighter has future in shallow water, The Naval Architect,
September, pp.56-63

N.N. (2005b), Das flussangepasste Binnenschiff, Hansa 142/11, pp.32-36

PAETOW, K.-H. (1996), Standardisierung - ein Weg zur Kostenreduzierung (Standardisation – A

chance for cost reduction), Jahrbuch Schiffbautechnische Gesellschaft 90, Springer, pp.391-399

PARASHKEVOV, G.; DRAGANCHEV; TRENDAFILOV, C. (1989), A methodological approach

and effectiveness of design, building operation and reproduction of module bulk carriers, 4th Int.
Symp. Practical Design of Ships and Mobile Units, Varna, pp.83.1-83.6

POST, R. (2003), Affordability and flexibility in naval patrol vessel design, Naval Forces 24/2,
pp.130-131

RODHOLM, I.B. (1990), Standard Flex 300 – An innovation in warship construction, Warship '90 –
Int. Symp. Future for Surface Warships, London, RINA

ROMMEL, G.; BRÜCK, F.; DIEDERICHS, R.; KEMPIS, R.D.; KLUGE, J. (1995), Simplicity wins,
Harvard Business School Press

SCOTT, R. (2004), Denmark’s new standard ships offer greater flex, Janes’ Navy Int., July/August,
pp.12-18

SELL, G. (1996), Modularisierter Maschinenraum (modularized engine room), Jahrbuch

Schiffbautechnische Gesellschaft 90, Springer, pp.401-405

15
SHA, O.P.; MISRA, S.C.; GOKARN, R.P. (2004), Ship hull form design – A modular approach, 9th
Symp. Practical Design of Ships and Other Floating Structures (PRADS), Luebeck-Travemuende

SHANK, J.F.; PUNG, H.; LEE, G.T.; ARENA, M.V.; BIRKLER, J. (2005), Outsourcing and
outfitting practices – Implications for the Ministry of Defence Shipbuilding Programmes, RAND
Europe
http://www.rand.org/pubs/monographs/2005/RAND_MG198.pdf

SPERO, J.R.; HICKS, W.F.; GREENE, D.L. (1971), A philosophy of naval ship design and
construction, Naval Engineers J., October, pp.45-52

TOMASSONI, C.; HUYNH, T.; SCHILLER, T. (2003), Production-based design methodology for
shipboard machinery spaces, J. Ship Production 19/1, pp.53-63

16