The Building Block Design Methodology Applied to Advanced Naval Ship Design

THE ;I.J LDING BLOCK DESIGN THOD3LOGY APPLIED TO

ADVANCED NAV SHIP DESIGN

DAVID ANDREWS'
CHRISTOPHER DICKS'
Professor of Naval Architecture. 2 Research Assistant.
Naval Architecture Research Group, Dept. of Mechanical Engineering, University College London.

Abstract
The paper describes the application of the _Building Block design methodology to the
preliminary design of a naval escort vessel for both a conventional monohull solution and the more
innovative configuration of a trimaran hull form. From the overall justification of an architecturally
centred initial ship syntlieSTS, the paper outlines the basis of the Building Block approach which
essentially takes the functional elements required of a new design in discrete elements or building
blocks and places them as desired by the designer. The paper concludes with a discussion of the
Building Block approach compared to the previous sequential sizing - parametric investigation -
arrangement approach for a monohull frigate and the comparison of the Building Block approach
for monohull and trimaran configurations. Finally the way ahead in developing the methodology is
outlined

1. Introduction
A recent paper by the first author [1] has placed the methodology of ship design in the wider
context of the design of physically large complex systems. In doing so, whilst due regard is given to
the importance of management oriented design procedures, that paper focuses on the ship design
process as a paradigm for the design of complex systems. Further emphasis is placed on the initial
phases of design as the most critical stage in determining the overall configuration. This is
reinforced by the current interest Concurrent Engineering [2]. For naval ships in particularthis is
combined with an ever more stringent financial environment demanding increased assurance before
any irntial commitmentis made to a new procurement programme [3]. Such assurances are linked to
a wider exploration at the preliminary design stage of all possible alternatives, comparing their
potential effectiveness' and costs through such mechanisms as the USA's COEA (Cost and
Operational Effectiveness Analysis [4]) and the UK's COEIA (Combined Operational Effectiveness
and Investment Appraisal [5]). All this reinforces the need _for __a methodology_based on an
architecturally centred synthesis which is the subjectof this paper.
The paper commences by placing this methodology in the context of previous approaches to
initial ship design which can be considered to be of an essentially sequential nature. From this the \
evolution of the architecturally centred synthesis approach to the new Building Block methodology
is outlined. This methodology whilst dependant on modern computer graphics facilities also
requires a more functionally orientated description of the ship if it is to provide the more open
exploration of options required of current naval ship design.
The remainder of the paper is taken up with a description of the application of the Building
Block approach to the preliminary design of a typical frigate. Both to demonstrate the flexibility of
the methodology and to meet the remit for open exploration, two distinct solutions to this postulated
frigate requirement are presented. Namely the ubiquitous monohull and a trimaran option. The latter
demonstrates the application of the methodology to a configurationally novel option, which UCL's
Naval Architecture Research Group has pioneered in recent years [6],[7].
 The Building Block Design Methodology Applied to Advanced Naval Ship Design 2

The paper concludes by firstly discussing the advantages presented to the ship designer by
this design methodology with the potential of being both more information rich and fostering a
more exploratory design approach. Secondly the focus of current research in ship design using a
Building Block based design approach is outlined.

2. Current Approaches To Preliminary Naval Ship Design

In seeking to depict the process of ship design, naval architects have often resorted to the
iconographic representation of the design spiral. This was first proposed, specifically for ship
structural design„by Harvey Evans [8], whilst a typical general ship design example is that
produced by Snaith & Parker [9]. Figure 1 was produced by Andrews [10] to go beyond the closed,
almost mechanistic implications, of the two dimensional spiral. Firstly it shows the effects of both
direct and indirect constraints on the progress of the design, and secondly allows for the reality of
additional inputs and feedbacks.
Initial Requirement Despite its descriptive limitations
Or Previous Design Stage the design spiral remains useful,
if only to indicate the iterative
nature of the design process and
the consequent dependency of
each downstream 'spoke' on the ,
preceding issues. _--
Constraints When the actual procesg'
Directly on the Design of initial ship design is
considered, instead of seeing it as
Constraints -"*"---1' just a set of discrete steps, it can
On the Design Process 1111 be considered with reference to
thaectu
shailp adcetsiv
i Iun
t bakeen
en
Constraints by the has
Originating From argued [11] that, at the technical
The Design Environment
%Mr level there are essentially three
\1111111110.10 To Next Phase Of Design fundamental and, currently,
After Approval Proceedure sequential sub processes,
namely:-
Figure 1 The Design Spiral • Initial sizing, where a gross
size is obtained
• A parametric exploration, where principal dimensions and then a full hullform are evolved
• An architectural and engineering synthesis, which evolves progressively within the constraints
of the gross size and hull fouli previously determined.
Furthermore these three steps are not simply initiated by the user's needs, despite this being
frequently implied in papers on design theory. Such assertions suggest that a straight forward
specification of requirements is sufficient to commence a design. However for complex designs,
like naval ships, there are two reasons why this is rarely so:-
• Requirements are rarely expressed in total by an explicit and coherent statement. This is
characterised by the problem description made by Rittell and Webber [12] as a 'Wicked
Problem', in that the determination of the requirements is the major objective in the preliminary
design of such politically charged major procurements.
The manner in which an individual designer selects, creates or produces his initial ideas of the
overall design is fundamental to the end product.
 The Building Block Design Methodology Applied to Advanced Naval Ship Design

Figure 2 shows how this personal stamp of the designer influences all three of the above
sequential sub processes, essentially through the designer's interlinked personal schema (visual,
linguistic and practising system) [13] and the use of a key generator [14]. The later finding came
from interviews with architects and is consistent with the recorded views of prominent naval ship
designers [15].

Daley's Overlaps
A Visual Schema
B Linguistic Schema
Wider C Value Schema
Design
D 'Conscious' Propositional Knowledge -
Environment strongly influenced by Design Constraints

c Designer's `idiosyncratic'Influence

I
Task Current Current Current
Style of Crude Subsequent Integrative
Owner's Directed Output Output Process Output of
Emerging Generative Form Accumulative
Initiation Ship Design Input Process of Initial Selection rather than
of Form Comprehensive Architectural
Synthesis Analysis and
Engineering Synthesis
1

Figure 2 Sequential Synthesis in Ship Design

With these refinements, Figure 2 presents a reasonably sophisticated description of currently

sequential preliminary ship design with the initial sizing or generative process often described as
synthesis, although it usually consists of a purely numerical approach based on balancing weight
and space. Whilst some versions of this approach exhibit a 'black box' logic with rigid and in some I
cases inappropriate algorithms, the best of these (e.g. CONDES [16]) leave the choice of algorithms
for the weight and space components of displacement and gross enclosed volume to the individual
designer's judgement. When such an initial sizing system is just used to explore overall trends,
rather than provide absolute guarantees of feasibility or assurance, then with care and judgement it
can be effective. The proviso for this is that the designer must be experienced and know when to
resort, even early in the process, to more sophisticated design systems such as the GODDESS suite
[17]. However, simple numerical sizing systems become misleading when applied to novel design
options, whether the novelty is in requirements, or in the type of materiel configuration for the
solution, such as an unconventional hullform.
It has been argued that what is required is a fully integrated synthesis [11] and therefore the
sequential process of Figure 2 can be replaced by a spatially driven synthesis represented by Figure
3. This retains the designer's personal stamp and the satisficing of a key generator, whilst bringing
both form and architectural synthesis into the initial sizing process. An early approach to this
integrated synthesis was presented in the 1986 paper in which a preliminary deck plan was used to
layout compartments as part of the initial weight and space iterative balance. While this did
demonstrate the feasibility of incorporating a configurational facet into what had previously been no
more than a numerical balance of gross space required to gross space available, it required use of
default values of hull coefficients to provide the initial hull form and hence produce the deck plans.
It thus amounted to a very limited architectural synthesis which was essentially limited to frigate
monohulls, where the default values of the hull coefficients to produce the hull form were likely to
be similar to those of the final hull selected downstream.
 The Building Block Design Methodology Applied to Advanced Naval Ship Design 4

Given the limitations of

Linstuistic Schema
interactive computer _graphics --af—ffiat
time, beyond demonstrating the viability
Wider of the integrated synthesis, it was not
Design visual schema Value Structures
Environment
possible to arrive at the truly integrated
Designer's 'idiosyncratic'Influence
architectural synthesis shown in principle
Design Process
Constraints
(Daley's model of creativity) in Figure 3. For reasons explained in the
recent paper by Andrews et. al. [18] a
justification for first applying the fully
Task
Directed Conscious Primary Output integrated architectural synthesis arose in
of-Concept includin e
Input plus
Generator +
More Comprehensive 'Spatial' and 'Stylistic'
1990, with the very initial studies for a
user input integration Aspens replacement submarine for the Royal
Navy to come into service in the second
Fee process decade of the next century. It was
Combined sensitivity of important that a submarine concept
Input parameters and
standards in full system was developed that was neither
parametric exploration
type ship based nor simply limited to
variations within the conventional
configuration as in a limited numerical
Figure 3 A Holistic Approach to a Fully sizing approach . This new approach is
known as the Building Block approach.
Integrated Ship Synthesis
Essentially the designer takes both the
payload or combat elements, and
elements representing the mobility and supporting service functions in discrete blocks and places
them together however the designer wishes. Thus it meets the methodological stance of Figure 3 by
making the choice of the juxtaposition of the spatial elements central to the ship synthesis. This
approach is not restricted to submarines but is readily applicable to configurational driven designs
such as aircraft carriers and amphibious vessels on the naval side and cruise liners and Ro-ro ferries
on the merchant ship side. The approach is also applicable to other space driven ships such as
frigates and destroyers and commercial support vessels.

3. Description of the Building Block Approach

Taken at its most simplistic and design independent form, the Building Block methodology
is summarised by the following sequence:-
• A need for a new conceptual design is conceived and an idea of the likely design style to meet
that requirement suggested.
• Drawing on novel ideas or historical data a series of building blocks are defined in a computer
system. Each building block contains geometric and technical attributes regarding the functions
of that block.
• A design space is generated and the building blocks are configured as required or desired within
the design space.
• Overall balance and performance of the design are investigated using simple and flexible
algorithms and, if necessary, using analysis programs external to the main system.
• The configuration is then manipulated until the designer is satisfied.
• Decomposition of the building blocks to greater levels of detail is undertaken, as necessary to
increase confidence in the design solution.
Using the building blocks to produce the configuration is regarded as the main act of
synthesis in the design and can ensure that the representation of the design constraints, whether
physical or otherwise, are investigated and met. One of the major benefits of the early introduction
The Building Block Design Methodology Applied to Advanced Naval Ship Design 5

of configuration into the design is the ability to analyse more of the critical design aspects whilst the
design description is still fluid.
The decomposition of the design to greater levels of detail has proven to be a useful facility.
It allows the designer to go into more detail in critical areas in the earliest phases of the design,
without resorting to a general compartment level description and the consequential design
complexity. The use of a Master Building Block to contain the overall summation of the ship
description, and data which cannot be assigned to any one function, provides sufficient ship
definition for use in the auditing and analysis routines. Other advantages the methodology provides
include:-
• An 'open' or 'Glass Box' approach to the design allowing the designer to incorporate his
experience and judgement in the process, rather than having to rely on a 'Black Box' system
which has usually been produced by someone else.
• The methodology and resulting computer based systems are 'soft', so that the structure and
processes used can be readily updated and improved algorithms or even different modelling
features can be readily incorporated.
• Allowances for design margins and specifically access can be made as part of the particular
design evolution, rather than using default values based on possibly inappropriate historic data
values which may not reflect the actual configuration being designed [19].
Andrews et al. [18] described the development of the Building Block methodology along
with the demonstration of a submarine design produced using the Building Block methodology. The
Building Block approach utilised in that student design study was comparatively simple with
essentially four levels of detail. The number of Building Blocks expanded from 10 to 140 as the
design progressed, having commenced with a broad investigation of the contents of the pressure
hull and concluded with a three dimensional model of the internal and external features of the

Figure 4 SUBCON Design Procedure

RADICAL
IDEAS
BALANCE
INDICATION

Space (Geometry) Definition

WEIGHT C
INVENTORY Data- Propulsion
bases

Weapons
Tankage
BALLAST
1
REQUIREMENT
Trim Polygons Functiona 'Technology
ficiency Changes

EIGHT MODULE Completeness

Check SPACE INVENTORY
Data- Noise (Required v Achieved)
bases Predictio

GENERAL
G ecnnetric Definition
ARRANGEMENT
External Technology
Structures(
Changes
Materials
DETAILED
Pressure Space/ LAYOUT
Hull W eight Resistance Dynamic
S Eructates/ Algorithms and
Materials Propulsion Rccove
' The Building Block Design Methodology Applied to Advanced Naval Ship Design 6

submarine. A schematic of the submarine orientated Building Block design procedure (SUBCON)
is shown at Figure 4.

3.1 Application of the Building Block Design Methodology to Surface Ships

Whereas submarine design can be considered a relatively constrained problem, given the
need to provide a long and largely cylindrical pressure hull with additional tankage and freeflood
volumes giving a hydrodynamically efficient underwater form, the design of a surface ship is less
simply defined in geometry and the basis on which the dimensions are determined tends to be more
diffuse. The surface ship preliminary design procedure using the Building Block methodology is
shown in Figure 5 in comparison with Figure 4. The design of the topside of a warship is a key
designissue for the majority of warships, especially those of the escort category which is the focus
of this paper. The topside design has to reconcile suc com etm e issues as weapon an• sensor
placement, e icopter opera ion ptake and intake considerations. I e • esign o a
modern _escort_is_to b_e successful these issues must be considered at the formative stage when the
major dimensions are being determined. In the designortirgerships„-sue • . 1 •

air-craft carriers and in smaller ships such as fast planincraft the_topside_maybe ain
design

RADICAL FUNCTIONAL
IDEAS HIERARCHY
BALANCE DECOMPOSITION
INDICATION MODEL

WEIGHT
INVENTORY
a
Data-
ace Definition

Wacera

Coosooad
J
TOPSIDE &
MAJOR FEATURE
HYDROSTATICS HULLFORM IMPLICATIONS
MODEL Vobsne Space Technology
Factional Required/
Drociercy Distribution Cloves
Available

SPACE INVENTORY
WEIGHT MODULE (Required v Achieved)
srerar Mean VCG I.CG
Sega:wring Maieuiering Access &
Margin
Policy

GENERAL
Geometric Definition
ARRANGEMENT
Structures Technology
Clarion
DETAILED
Space/
LAYOUT
Completeness
Chock Weight Resistance
Vulnerability/
Algorithms and Stability Personnel Survivability HULLFORM MODEL
Propulsion

Figure 5 Building Block Design Methodology Applied To Surface Ships

Given that the initial phase of the Building Block design methodology for a surface escort
ship must include the topside investigation, then three dimensional modelling of the desired topside
components of the warship can be used to locate these items on a deck of initially arbitrary
dimensions. Each of the components is modelled both by its physical size and also in terms of its
perceived separation from other components, due to such concerns as electromagnetic
compatibility, RADHAZ, efflux avoidance or weapons firing arcs. As the location of the prime
movers governs the positioning of the inlets and exhausts, these major components must be
determined and positioned in the hull(s). Arrangements which could lead to poor structural
continuity or unsatisfactory features functionally can be identified and preferable arrangements
 The Building Block Design Methodology Applied to Advanced Naval Ship Design 7

investigated. The minimum ship dimensions, likely to be required to achieve a coherent

arrangement, can be used to size many of the Building Blocks required for the supporting functions.
Early in the design the functions are grouped into a small number of Super Building Blocks
sized from the major functional requirements and, as far as feasible, located in the design space as
individual blocks. This follows Baker's stylistic preference [20] for collocating similar functions
and the survivability maxim of "concentrate, duplicate, separate" [21]. Each Super Building Block
can also have allowances made for the application of design margins to that function and also for
the requirement for access to, and within that function. Following the suitable arrangement of the
Super Building Blocks, the detail of the design definition can evolve by decomposing each Super
Building Block into its constituent subsidiary functions or elements and the design re-iterated. This
leads to defining the individual functions and major equipment items, within the Super Building
Block descriptions or, if necessary, reconfiguring the adjacent areas or, in the extreme, the outer
envelope of the ship's above and underwater form.

3.2 Definition of a Warship by the Functional Group Paradigm

In order to allow the modelling of a ship design at the concept stage, the definition of the
ship must be decomposed into groups each of which contains a certain category of equipment or
usage. Conventionally this has been achieved by the use of a weight based group system, such as
that used by the Ministry of Defence or the UCL system shown in Table 1.

Weight Group Title Functional Typical Components

Structure Group
2 Personnel Float Hull, Damage Control
3 Ship Systems Move Prime Movers, Fuel
4 Main Propulsion Fight Communications,
5 Electrical Power Anti Submarine Warfare
6 Payload Infrastructure Accommodation, Stores,
Variable Air Conditioning

Table 1 UCL Ship Weight Breakdown Table 2 Functional Breakdown of A

Structure Warship Design

Such a weight breakdown has been beneficial in the past as it allows comparison between
new designs and existing ship designs. However in many ways the weight group system is less
applicable for a spatially determined synthesis where many of the investigations involve assessing
the impact on the whole design of adding or subtracting equipment. Also in a weight group based
design the designer is restricted by the historical assumptions resulting from the weight group
system. This can inhibit consideration of radical ideas and lead to conventional solutions which may
be less effective, particularly for unconventional ship types.
In adopting the Building Block methodology a functional breakdown was incorporated such
that each functional group contained all the items which were to fulfil a given need. Thus removal
of a particular function such as the Anti Submarine Warfare capability can be readily undertaken
and the impact on the design obtained. The functional groups followed the classic Float-Move-Fight
subdivision plus a general infrastructure group. It was initially intended to use the three main
functional groups of Float, Move and Fight to encompass all the ship's functionality. However it
proved impractical to apportion all those elements which were of an essentially support nature, such
as provision of galley space or stores and so the Infrastructure group was produced. Table 2 shows
typical components of each of the four functional groups. The hierarchical relationship between the
whole ship description and the individual items of equipment is shown in Figure 6.
• The Building Block Design Methodology Applied to Advanced Naval Ship Design

Hierarchical Level Example

Whole Ship Trimaran Escort Design
Whole Ship Functional Group Fight
Functional Group Super Building Block Helicopter systems
Super Building Block
Building Block Building Block Hangar
Compartment Compartment Air Weapons Magazine
Equipment

Figure 6 A Functional Hierarchy

The four different functional groups do not all evolve in the same manner and the trends
shown in Table 3 have been noted from the design processes described later in this paper.

Functional Method of Estimation of Flexibility of BB

Group Requirements for a Building Block Configuration
Float Scaled from Master Building Block Medium
Move Derived from performance data. Low
Fixed equipment sizes
Fight Derived from operational Low
requirements. Fixed equipment sizes
Infrastructure Scaled from Master Building Block High
and other functional group
requirements

Table 3 Evolution of Functional Group Requirements

Degree of The Fight and Move groups have

the characteristics of directly defined
Compromise
requirements and generally tightly
of Ship's
Architecture
controlled configuration choices which
tend to drive the design to certain
limited architectures. The Float and
Infra-structure groups are defined to a
significant degree as a result of the Fight
and Move Groups and to this extent can
be seen as dependant rather than main
Figure 7 Behaviour of Functional Groups drivers of the ship design. However
they are also determined directly from
choices on gross ship characteristics such as seakeeping and standards (e.g. survivability, signatures,
robustness). Even so their locations are relatively more open. Having said that, certain technologies
like the all electric ship and vertical launch missile silos provide the ship designer vvmore -Ea—ote
—optiq --architecturally-irr-the-Wrov-e—andFIOt Building Blocks. As m all such considerationsthese
categorisations ofthb groups cannotbe applied too rigidly but useful consideration of the trends is
shown in Figure 7.

4. Design Of A Monohull Frigate Using Traditional and Building Block

Approaches
4.1 A Traditionally Designed Initial Frigate Study
In order to compare and contrast the traditional numerically based initial design
methodology and the Building Block methodology, two monohull frigate designs were developed to
 The Building Block Design Methodology Applied to Advanced Naval Ship Design 9

an identical set of requirements using each methodology. Following this a trimaran design to a
similar requirement was developed using the Building Block approach. From the statement of
requirements the salient machinery and combat system features are given in Table 4.

Monohull Frigate Trimaran Frigate

(Traditional and (Building Block)
Building Block) (see section 5)
Propulsion / Electrical 4 x Gas Turbines 1 x Gas Turbine
Generation COGOG Propulsion 4 x Diesel Generators
2 Propellers Electric Motor Propulsion
4 x Diesel Generators for Ships 1 Main Hull Propeller
Service Electricity Only 2 Side Hull Azipods
Weapons and Sensors
Surface to Surface 4 Missiles 4 Missiles
Point Defence Double Headed System Vertical Launch System
Radar Surveillance & 2 Trackers Surveillance & 2 Trackers
Navigation radar Navigation radar
Electronic Surveillance Passive ESM system Passive ESM system
Anti Submarine Armament 1 Helicopter 2 Helicopters
Torpedo Tubes Torpedo Tubes
Sonar Hull Mounted Sonar Hull Mounted Sonar
Command System UCL Command system A UCL Command system A
Communications UCL Comms. Fit No.1 UCL Comms. Fit No.1

Table 4 Equipment Fit for Ship Studies

The traditional ship design process is used by the Naval Architecture Research Group in the
ship design exercises on the M.Sc. and B.Eng. degree courses. The major components follow the
sequential process of Section 2 and Figure 2:-
• Initial sizing using an assumed payload volume fraction approach to break into volume and
displacement and then space and weight group algorithms leading iteratively to a balance in
gross volume and displacement.
• Parametric survey. Using the work of van Greithuysen [22] the dimensions and form
parameters of the ship are derived by deforming the parent hullform in a logical manner while
maintaining the same displacement and volume.
• Layout within the dimensions and hullform obtained from the survey.
• Performance Analysis to ensure viability and work up the detail of the balanced form
This procedure was followed using the equipment fit of Table 4 and the ship characteristics
given in Table 5 were derived, with the design biased towards minimising the high speed resistance.
Initial performance requirements were specified in terms of a maximum speed, a solid metacentric
height and an approach to seakeeping based on permissible ratios of ship's length to the cube of the
volume of displacement.

Dimension/ Feature Traditional Building Trimaran Building Block

Design Block Design Design (see section 5)
Displacement (to e 4166 4386 4246
3
Internal Volume 13228 12098 15180
Length (m) 122.8 126 147 (overall)
55.1 (side hull)
 The Building Block Design Methodology Applied to Advanced Naval Ship Design 10

Beam (m) 15.7 15 25 (overall) 10 (main hull)

2 (side hull)
Draught ( 4.2 4.5 5.45 (main hull)
2.92 (side hull)
Depth ( 8.8 9 12.1 (main Hull)
Number of Hull Decks 3 4
Deck head height (m) 2.5 2.5 2.5 to 2.8
Side Hull Displacement (%) NA NA 3.5
Double Bottom Hei (m) 1.3 1.5 1.3
Intact Stability (GM,„lid, m 2 2 2.5
Max. Speed (knots) [power] 30 [38 Mw] 30 [38 Mw] 28 [28 Mw]

Table 5 Traditional and Building Block Design Characteristics

Design Preparation 4.2 The Monohull Frigate Building

Selection of Design Style
Block Design
Topside and Major Feature Design Phase
Design Space Creation Table 5 compares the two monohull
Weapons and Sensor Placement design solutions (alongside the trimaran
Engine and Machinery Compartment Placement design) produced by the traditional and
Aircraft Systems Sizing and Placement Building Block approaches. Table 6
Superstructure Sizing and Placement
summarises the various stages in the
Super Building Block Based Design Phase Building Block based approach to the
Composition of Functional Super Building Blocks
Selection of Design gorithms
monohull frigate.
Assessment of gin Requirements
Placement of Super Building Blocks 4.3 Discussion of Monohull Design
Design Balance & Audit Methods
Initial Performance Analysis for Master B.B. The monohull frigate initial design
Building Block Based Design Phase studies produced using the two different
Decomposition of Super Building Blocks by function design processes, resulted in broadly similar
Selection of Design Algorithms features and with sizes over 4000 t
Assessment of g' s and Access Policy
displacement and 12000m3 gross volume.
Placement of Building Blocks
Design Balance & Audit
There are however significant differences in
Further Performance Analysis for Master B.B. size and arrangement between the two
General Arrangement Phase designs as shown in Table 5. The
Drawing Preparation differences arise from the Building Block
design containing a more considered and
Table 6 Building Block Design Phases feasible configuration which gives
consequently a greater displacement.
An example of this is the stowage of fuel in the two designs. As a conscious design decision
it was decided that as much fuel as possible would be stored in the double bottom to reduce the
design's susceptibility to fire spreading. In the Building Block based design the height of the double
bottom was chosen to ensure that the double bottom fuel tank space met the fuel bunkage
requirements. This in turn directly increased the depth of hull, since the deck heights in way of the,
main machinery and the passing deck had already been selected. The ship's length and beam were
directly controlled by other layout and performance considerations (e.g. topside and stability
respectively) therefore the, generally, larger dimensions of the Building Block design were derived
from meeting specific functional needs together with the overall requirements to provide sufficient
space and displacement.
 The Building Block Design Methodology Applied to Advanced Naval Ship Design 11

In contrast, the choice of double bottom height for the traditional escort design was made
during the parametric survey when it was impractical to consider the functional requirements of the
double bottom, since a hullform was not yet available. Given default hull coefficients, only the
effect on the four major hull dimensions of double bottom height and superstructure proportion
could be considered. When the compartment arrangements of the traditional design were
subsequently worked up it became obvious that the double bottom height was less than desirable,
since large fuel tanks were required on No. 4 Deck. This could have been avoided by adding extra
double bottom height at the parametric survey stage but this would have resulted in either
insufficient superstructure or a weather deck length with an unsatisfactory topside arrangement.
Alternatively, the whole design could have been revised to balance at a larger volume, requiring a
further iteration where the designer was having to respond to consequences of the design's
evolution rather than controlling the evolution.
It is therefore suggested that the major dimensions of the traditionally derived ship would
have benefited by being derived with reference to specific concerns and the actual configuration. As
a result of not doing this, the traditionally designed ship did not meet all its requirements and would
in practice have required several further design iterations to meet its requirements to the same
degree as the Building Block design. Furthermore focusing on individual changes to dimensions
would have been more difficult to achieve.
Another aspect in which the Building Block design was considered more satisfactory than
the traditional design was in the selection of a combination of hull and superstructure. The Building
Block design process allowed the designer far greater control over the size and position of
superstructure. In this case it was minimised with only enough superstructure provided for a bridge
position on No. 02 deck, the fitting of necessary weapons, sensors and command system and the
helicopter facilities. In particular the positioning of the operations room and the provision of hanger
space drove the final superstructure arrangement. The approach to superstructure design in the
traditional design process is based on the variation of superstructure proportion in the parametric
survey. This assumes that superstructure proportion is a continuous variable, which is a
questionable assumption to make, even if a full superstructure layout is produced and this
demonstrates the minimum feasible superstructure volume operationally. Again this issue shows
that the Building Block based design produces a more practical arrangement meeting the functional
needs and reflects the designer's thoughts and experience rather than giving a design which matches
a numerically balanced sizing, produced by an essentially 'Black Box' sizing program.
A further advantage of the Building Block based ship design is that, from the earliest stages
of designing the topside and major features, the intakes and uptakes arrangements for the gas
turbines can be investigated. In comparison the intake and uptake requirements for the traditionally
designed ship, could not be considered as part of the layout until the main dimensions had been
fixed, which in this case resulted in the intakes and the forward superstructure clashing. Bringing all
these issues together, it is believed that in terms of choosing ship dimensions, the Building Block
approach fosters a greater awareness by the designer. When defining the dimensions this applies to
both the global ship design issues and the local design issues, whereas the traditional approach leads
to dimensions being based on a gross numerical description.

5. Design of a Trimaran Using a Building Block Based Methodology

As stated previously, it is considered that unconventional hull configurations, such as the
Trimaran [6] and SWATH [23], generally require the layout and configuration to be considered to a
greater extent than is usual for the conventional monohull configuration at an early stage in the
preliminary design process. It was therefore important to discover whether the Building Block
design methodology, with its increased emphasis on the use of layout and configuration, facilitated
the preliminary design of such forms as the Trimaran.
 The Building Block Design Methodology Applied to Advanced Naval Ship Design 12

In general the design requirements for the Building Block derived Trimaran Escort design
were the same as those used in the monohull designs. However experience at UCL [7] has shown
that for the trimaran the use of a double propulsion shaft arrangement in the main central hull is
both difficult (due to the narrower beam) and less appropriate. For this reason one single main
propulsion shaft was adopted. In order to exploit a flexible configuration for the prime movers, an
electric propulsion system was adopted. In comparison with the monohull, the Trimaran is
considered to provide a better utilisation of the important topside 'real estate'. This was
demonstrated by the ease of adding a second organic helicopter. The positioning of the flight deck
was also an important design consideration and a more central location than is the norm with a
monohull was easily achieved, thus greatly extending helicopter operability in high sea states. The
point defence missile system was also upgraded in capability as a modular vertical launch silo
arrangement was facilitated by the wider upper deck of the trimaran in the central portion of the/
ship's length.

5.1 Topside and Major Feature Design

An electrically propelled warship enables the designer to mount the gas turbine combustion
units in the superstructure of the ship, thus saving internal volume that would otherwise be used for
inlets and exhausts. So the first conceptual arrangement included superstructure mounting of the gas
turbines as one of its design features. However this arrangement was found to be a poor choice for
this particular ship design, as either the gas turbine exhaust was too close to the helicopter flight
deck, the gas turbine inlet was exposed to sea spray, or three separate superstructure elements
resulted. None of these were considered acceptable. This arrangement also affected the main mast
which had been positioned further aft than normal in order to avoid electromagnetic interference
between the ESM equipment and one of the point defence tracker radars.
The major disadvantage with this entire topside concept was that in order to achieve the
topside design as envisaged, the enclosed hull volume was far in excess of that required by the hull
mounted components of the ship. Therefore mounting the gas turbine in the superstructure did not
produce an efficient internal arrangement and reduced the usable space on the weather deck. The
second conceptual topside design arrangement, provided only two deck houses, one for the
helicopter hangar and associated compartments with the other housing the bridge and point defence
system's forward tracker. The positions of these deckhouses were governed by the need to maintain
structural continuity driven by the large prime mover block located inside the main hull. The
exhausts from this block were sufficiently far from the helicopter flight deck to avoid efflux
problems and the exhaust effects on the main radar did not seem a concern with this arrangement
The configuration that was selected to form the basis of the Trimaran design is shown at
Figure 8. The dimensions of this configuration gave the start point for the concept and were held in
the Super Building Block description. Thus the topside consideration provided a significant input
for the designer in investigating feasible configurations and dimensions of the concept design.
 The Building Block Design Methodology Applied to Advanced Naval Ship Design 13

Figure 8 Trimaran Topside Design Model including EMI Clearance Envelopes,

simplified for clarity

5.2 Super Building Block and Building Block Design Phases

Figure 9 shows the functional hierarchy used to develop the definition of the ship. Given
that the previously separate electrical supply (normally an Infrastructure function) and propulsion
systems were now linked inextricably and given the propulsion function was the major design
driver for the electrical systems they were considered to be part of the Move functional group. The
major problems encountered in the concept design of the trimaran all appeared to be centred on the
requirement to maintain a 3.5m air gap below the box structure, in order to avoid excessive sea slap
loads in up to Sea State 7[7]. The first implication of this was excessive volume in the design which
exceeded that required for the ship's functions as a result of the main hull depth necessary to
maintain the air gap. Secondly increased weight occurred because of the extra structure required,
Thirdly this increase in displacement meant further growth in length to meet the speed requirement.
All these issues have been experienced in previous trimaran design studies [7].
Consequently the majority of the design choices made during both the Super Building Block
and Building Block phases were driven by the need to reduce volume and weight whilst maintaining
the ability to meet the maximum speed. Additionally the stability requirements had to be met,
however this was less of a problem for the trimaran configuration than for a monohull. Maintaining
structural continuity was another significant early design issue and led to several design solutions
being rejected. The Building Block method allowed these problems to be readily identified and
solutions to be investigated quickly, along with their effect on the design's configuration and
general viability. The slender nature of the side and main hulls meant that the configuration of such
items within the hull as the prime movers had to be investigated to confirm the choice prior to
fixing the dimensions of the design. The ability to develop the concept, with regard to layout and
certain aspects of performance, meant that many design alternatives could be investigated and often
discarded due to their impact on the overall ship. In contrast a more traditional numerical sized
concept design cannot provide this early exploration and feed back on such implications. Table 5
gives the Trimaran's characteristics at the end of the study in comparison with the two monohull
studies.
The Building Block Design Methodology Applied to Advanced Naval Ship Design 14

Float Functional up

BI Hull Buoyancy Support Boats

— Structure — Mooring Control — BoatsEquip

— Voids & WIC — Trim &Conipensati torage

Move Fuuclionat Gin

Manocvriug Pro ion

Propulsion Control Fuel Provision Auxiliary sion Macby Maio Propulshe Maelsy Afl go Propulsive Machinery FWD
(DM and Mown) (WR21)

— Ship Control Centre Furl — Pon DG Space — Motor Spaces — WR21 Space
— Technical Spaces — Compensation Slid DG Space — DG Spaces / Exhaust
— Pon Motor — Electrical Equipment — Electrical Equipment
— Slid Motor
— Port Electrical Equip.
— Slid Electrical Equip.

ova Functional Group

Manoevring Propulsion

otion Control Motion Actuation

— Bridge — Steering Actuation

— Stabilisation

Fight Functional Group

Command & Control Systems ASurEW AAW ASW

— Communications — SSM — Fwd VLS — Sonar

— Command System — Bofors / Chaff — Port VLS — ASW Weapons
— Surveillance Radar — Stbd VLS — Helo Systems
— Fwd Tracker — Hangar
— Aft Tracker

cture Functional Group

1 1
Catering / Officers Acco Ratings Accom Supply Ship Systems

— Dining — CO Accom — CPOs Accom — Stores — Water & Sewage

— Galley — Officers Accom — POs Accom — Deck Stores — Air Conditioning
— FIRVanl,e Stores — JR s Accom — Hoot&

Figure 9 Trimaran Frigate Functional Breakdown

5.3 Critique of the Building Block Design Process Applied to a Trimaran Study

The benefits of applying the Building Block design methodology to the trimaran design
largely matched those revealed in the monohull design application. Configuration based preliminary
ship design requires the entire ship to be laid out and therefore a lot of time is spent on the basic
layout in contrast to the traditional quick and limited numerical study. The latter can therefore
explore more rapidly the sensitivity of the design to changes in major requirements, such as speed
and gross weight and space demands. However many of these options may prove more demanding
when the consequences are tackled in more depth beyond the parametric survey and so choices
made largely on a numerical sizing basis may prove to have been optimistic in their whole ship
 The Building Block Design Methodology Applied to Advanced Naval Ship Design 15

impact. When a configuration based design is developed using the Building Block methodology the
time-scale and complexity can be reduced by using a Super Building Block level of description,
without sacrificing the ability to investigate the impact of configuration on the design.

6. Conclusions on the Building Block Methodology

This paper has discussed the preliminary results of a research programme intended to
produce a new design methodology for the initial design of surface warships based on a Building
Block approach. Further work is required to explore the utility of the approach and the following list
identifies the current focus of follow on work.
• Design of large and small warships using the Building Block methodology (e.g. aircraft
carriers, assault ships and minehunters).
• Incorporation of survivability and vulnerability considerations into the methodology.
• Costing of warship designs using a functional breakdown.
• Incorporation of topside design and marine engineering aspects into the Building Block
methodology.
• Exploration of knowledge based systems [24] and decision making tools [25] to assist the
designer in assessing options.
The studies described in this paper have shown that the Building Block approach enables the),
designer to consider both major and discrete aspects in ship design by providing a more detailed
design description on which early major design decisions can be made. The Building Block derived
design studies were considered to have met all the performance and functional requirements
identified. In contrast if the traditionally derived monohull design had been required (with
hindsight) to achieve the same level of viability and functional performance, it would have to grown
in size and displacement considerably. The concept of the Building Block design methodology
presented incorporates the overall configuration and compartment layout of a surface warship at the
earliest stages of the preliminary design. This application extends the methodology from the
SUBCON development program for submarine concept design [18] to the more configurationally
demanding surface ship domain.
The application of the methodology to a monohull escort frigate has been compared with
the traditional numerical sizing approach. A similarly specified trimaran configured frigate design
using the new design methodology demonstrates the application of the methodology to
unconventional hull forms. This emphasises the need for such a methodology since options and
design choices drawing on the architectural dimension could not otherwise be readily considered at
the earliest design stage. The design studies also demonstrated the need to include consideration of
topside design issues within the first stage of specifying a surface warship design. An integral part
of the Building Block methodology is a functional description which starts by defusing four
functional groups leading to Super Building Blocks and then finally ever more detailed Building
Blocks.
The design studies outlined in the paper show that the use of configuration based design at,
the earliest design stages allow the designer to consider and discard design options thereby
enhancing the viability of the initial design study. This is achieved through consideration of specific
layout driven aspects and their compatibility with the overall ship configuration and dimensions.
Such an approach greatly enhances the preliminary design description and fosters a seamless
interface with Concurrent Engineering aspirations [2].

References
The Building Block Design Methodology Applied to Advanced Naval Ship Design 16

1. Andrews, D.J., (1996), A Comprehensive Methodology for the Design of Ships (and Other
Complex Systems), To Be Published.
2. Tibbetts, B. & Keane, R.G., (1995), Making design Everybody's Job, Naval Engineers
Journal, May 1995, pp 283-301.
3. Andrews, D.J., (1994), Preliminary Warship Design, Trans.RINA, Vol.136, pp37-56
4. Hockberger, W.A., (1993). Cost and Operational Effectiveness Analysis (COEA) in Naval
Ship Design, SNAME Chesapeake Section, 11 May 1993.
5. Kirkpatrick, D.L., (1996), Choose Your Weapon: COEIA and its Role in UK Defence
Procurement, RUSI Journal , May 1996.
6. Pattison, D.R. & Zhang, J.W., (1995), Trimaran Ships, Trans.RINA, Vol.137 part B.
7. Andrews, D.J. & Zhang, J.W., (1995), Considerations in the Design of a Trimaran Frigate, Int.
Symp. "High Speed Vessels for Transport and Defence", RINA.
8. Harvey Evans, J., (1975), Ship Structural Design Concepts, Cornell Maritime Press, p 26.
9. Snaith, G.R. & Parker, M.N., (1972), Ship Design with Computer Aids, North East Coast
Institution of Engineers and Shipbuilders, Newcastle, 20 March 1972.
10. Andrews, D.J., (1981), Creative Ship Design, Trans.RINA, Vol.123, pp 447-473.
11. Andrews, D.J., (1986), An Integrated Approach to Ship Synthesis, Trans.RINA, Vol.128, pp
73-104.
12. Rittell, H.W.J. & Webber, M.W., (1973), Dilemmas in a General Theory of Planning, Policy
Sciences, Vol. 4.
13. Daley, J., (1982), Design Creativity and the Understanding of Objects, Design Studies, Vol.3
No.3 July 1982, p 133.
14. Darke, J., (1979), The Primary Generator and the Design Process, Design Studies, Vol.1 No.1
July 1979, p 36.
15. Brown, D.K. (1983), A Century of Naval Construction, Conway Maritime Press.
16. Hyde, M. & Andrews, D.J., (1992), CONDES, A Preliminary Warship Design tool to aid
Customer Decision Making, PRADS 92, Newcastle University, pp 2.1298-2.1310
17. Barrett, M., Duncan, J. and Rutland, P., (1994) Warship Design on the Desktop Computer,
ICCAS 94, pp 14.3-14.17.
18. Andrews, D.J., Cudmore, A.C., Humble, P., Wilson, D., (1996), SUBCON - A New Approach
to Submarine Concept Design, RINA Symposium Naval Submarines 5 "The Total Weapons
System" , RINA, Paper No.19.
19. Andrews, D.J., (1987), Explorations in the Nature of Frigate Preliminary Design, RINA
Warship 87 Symposium.
20. Baker, R., (1957), Habitability in the Ships of the Royal Canadian Navy, Trans.SNAME, Vol.
65, pp 69-110.
21. Brown, D.K., (1990), The Battleworthy Frigate, North East Coast Institution of Engineers
and Shipbuilders, 30' April 1990.
22. van Greithuysen, W.J., (1994), On the Variety of Monohull Warship Geometry, Trans.RINA,
Vol. 136, pp 57-78.
23. Betts, C.V., (1988), A Review of Developments in SWATH Technology, Int. Conf. on
SWATH Ships & Advanced Multihull Vessels 2, RINA, Paper 1.
24. Hills, W., Barlow, M., and Cleland, M., Layout Design of Large Made to Order Products
Using a Knowledge Based System., Proc. Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Vol. 207 pt. B,
pp 257 - 263.
25. Mistree, F., Smith, W., Kamal, S., and Bras, B., Designing Decisions: Axioms, Models and
Marine Applications, IMSDC 91, Kobe, Japan, 1991, pp 1-24.

Glossary
AAW Anti Aircraft Warfare ASW Anti Submarine Warfare
 - The Building Block Design Methodology Applied to Advanced Naval Ship Design 8

A.SurEW Anti Surface Warfare GM Metacentric Height

CO Commanding Officer GODDESS Government Design System for
COEA Cost & Operational Ships & Submarines
Effectiveness Analysis JR Junior Rates
COEIA Combined Operational Effectiveness PO Petty Officers
& Investment Appraisal RADHAZ Radiation Hazard
COGOG Combined Gas or Gas Ro-ro Roll on roll off
CONDES Concept Design of Ships SSM Surface to Surface Missile
CPO Chief Petty Officer SUBCON Submarine Concept Design System
DG Diesel Generator UCL University College London
EMI Electromagnetic Interference VLS Vertical Launch System
ESM Electronic Support Measures WIC Watertight Compartment

Annex A Trimaran Functional Arrangement

Centre Hull Profile View

No. 1 Deck (not to scale)

• • •
• • • • • • • ......• •••

• + ......

No.2 Deck (not to scale)