11th International Conference on Marine Technology

MARTEC 2018

Systems Engineering for Ship Concept Design

* 2
Jauhari T. Khairuddin1, 2 , A. Maimun and Siow C. L.2, Anuar AbuBakar1
1
School of Ocean Engineering
Universiti Malaysia Terengganu
21030 Kuala Nerus, Terengganu
2
Marine Technology Centre
School of Mechanical Engineering
Universiti Teknologi Malaysia
81210 Skudai, Johor

ABSTRACT

Ship design complexity is contributed by the customer needs and interacting design parameters.
Therefore, it is performed iteratively and heuristically, following the design spiral model.
Consequently, the design produced is restricted in alternative as the process is focused on the
design optimisation. This research is carried out to explore systems engineering in developing
passenger ship concept design. The work demonstrated the systems approach to ship design,
devising a prescriptive design model to develop ship having large and complex systems. It
emphasised on identifying the ship systems, sub-systems and components, developing the design
parameters and assessing their inter-dependencies. Importantly, this work accessed the approach
applicability to facilitate concurrent design and multi-criteria decision-making processes.

Keywords: Systems engineering; Concurrent engineering; Design complexities; Quality function

deployment; Axiomatic design

1.0 INTRODUCTION

Ship design complexity is contributed by detail customer needs (CNs) and interacting design
parameters (DPs), generally influenced by pre-established operational requirements and criteria. the
parameters developments are often conflicting, involving complex systems interactions. Thus, it
requires for rigorous design studies, multi-criteria decision-making and iterative processes. In recent
years, the interests on understanding ship design complexity has increased particularly in the design
processes, tools, techniques and methods [1]–[4].
Conventionally, ship design is performed heuristically following the ship design spiral
model and based on best available solution such as the basis ship. The design exploration is
performed in sequence, simplifying and developing DPs independently to minimise the design
complexity. It is achieved by compromising weak DPs, supressing their interactions and inter-
dependencies to achieve a balanced overall design. Consequently, the design produced is restricted
in alternatives as the process is mainly focused on single parameter optimisation. More often, the
design is executed intuitively around a single „expert‟ perspective, constrained by previously known,
simplified and workable technical solutions. However, one-off ship design with multi-role operation

*Corresponding author: jauhari@umt.edu.my

often demand for more detail design requirements and information beforehand, beyond the techno-
economic considerations.
Ensued, passenger ship is designed to carry passengers, vehicles and other cargo at speeds
and distances. Apart from the cargo space, the hull form, machineries, propulsions and structural
DPs interactions and interdependencies further introduce design complexities. Moreover, their
integration is challenging due to the conflicting DPs. To overcome this, ship design development
requires for concurrent design and trade-off approaches rather than being developed sequentially
and optimised independently. Therefore, systems engineering (SE) is proposed to support the
integrative approach.
SE applies the systems approach to observe large and complex systems design exploration,
development and problem solving through systematic and structured processes. It defines systems
as set of elements having well-defined behaviour and functions, subjected to common plan, and
serving common purpose [5]. Moreover, it is described as man-made, designed and utilised in a
defined environment serving its functions to achieve set goals [6]. Emphasising on design synthesis,
the systems approach models and structures DPs as systems, sub-systems and components in
hierarchical form through the functional decomposition and re-composition processes [7]–[9]. They
are represented as building blocks, arranged and mapped in logical flow or systems architecture.
The design exploration is then proceeded to deduce and develop the concept design.
Therefore, this work is devised to describe and demonstrate SE in developing passenger
ship concept design. It proposed an alternative prescriptive model to synthesis and analyse the
passenger ship DPs developments and interactions as well as to identify the potential tasks
concurrency within the design development processes.

2.0 SYSTEMS ENGINEERING AND PASSENGER SHIP DESIGN

The passenger ship concept design synthesis is initiated based on a pre-established planning phase.
The relationships between the design processes and phases can be referred as in Figure 1. It presents
the processes and their transitions in different domains. Particularly, this work assumed that the
planning phase has been pre-determined resulting design goals and top-level requirements presented
in Figure 2.

Figure 1: Proposed framework for systems design development

The SE framework is proposed by integrating Akao‟s quality function deployment (QFD)

[10] and Suh‟s axiomatic design (AD) [11] methods to facilitate systematic and concurrent design
development and decision-making processes. As in Figure 1, the planning phase serves to identify
the design goals and top-level CNs by performing the functional analysis. It is carried out in the
customer domain to identify the required information and to establish the feasibility studies into
synthesising a set of functional requirements (FRs). While in the part deployment phase, the FRs
are further decomposed to synthesis the DPs interchangeably within the functional and physical
domains. Here, the AD function analysis technique is applied to facilitates structured transition of
vague design idea and needs into concrete design solution represented by the DPs. Finally, the
process and production planning phases describe the subsequent activities for construction, test,
implementation and others, carried out in the process domain.

Gain income Utilise Space

Profitability
Increase
attractiveness

Other

Reduce
Reduce fuel
operational
use
cost

Other Other

Figure 2: Passenger ship partial owner‟s requirements functions analysis

Particularly, this work demonstrated SE in synthesising passenger ship concept design

following generic passenger ship design model and volume-based design approaches. Based on the
established planning phase, the top-level FRs are synthesised and decomposed to derive the
corresponding DPs. It is performed in the part deployment phase and continues until a feasible ship
systems structure is established. Additionally, it presents the FRs-DPs mapping that can be
modelled and formulated using mathematical equations. It serves as the basis to analyse the systems
interactions and characteristics thus to facilitate in assessing the FRs-DPs responses to design
changes.

2.1 Ship functions analysis

The design synthesis is emphasised in this work as the starting point to develop the passenger ship
concept design. In reference to Figure 2, the ship design goal “profitability” is decomposed into
deducing the primary passenger ship functions thus defined as the top-level CNs. The design
synthesis is then initiated by translating and decomposing the CNs into the top-level FRs in
functional domain and concurrently, the DPs in physical domain. They are represented as
Figure 3(a) and
Figure 3(b) respectively.
Referring to the Figure 3, the FR11, FR12 and FR13 highlighted the “deck” as design
constraint, therefore developed independently for specific deck. The FR111, FR112, FR121 and
FR122 presented further functions decompositions, refining design information. The passenger
number and vehicle numbers are identified as the design constraints for developing DP111, DP112,
DP121 and DP122. Thus, the FR-DP are formulated as equation 1 and 2. The X1, X2, X3 and X4
present the mapping functions for FR-DP relationships. As design information is augmented, it is
observed that complexity level increased with the increased in FR-DP decompositions.

{ } [ ]{ } (1)
 { } [ ]{ } ( )

The equation 1 and 2 present the uncoupled DPs characteristics for specified FR-DP
mappings. In this case, the FR111-DP111, FR112-DP112, FR121-DP121 and FR122-DP122 are
represented as the sum of area correspond to the FR11-DP11 and FR12-DP12. As for the FR13-
DP13, the respective FRs-DPs require further decomposition and mapping thus not discussed within
this scope of work.

FR1: Allocate cargo

to hull space

FR11: Allocate FR12: Allocate FR13: Allocate other

passenger to deck vehicle to deck to deck

FR111: Allocate FR112: Allocate FR122: Allocate

FR121: Allocate
seating for other functions for other functions for
parking for vehicle
passengers passenger vehicle

(a)

DP1: Volume
utilised for monohull

DP11: Area to DP12: Area to

DP13: Area to other
passenger vehicle
requirements
requirements requirements

DP111: Seating area DP112: Other area

DP121: Parking area DP122: Other area
for passenger for passenger
for vehicle number for vehicle number
number number

(b)

Figure 3: Utilise space partial functions decomposition and mapping

3.0 DESIGN PARAMETERS DEVELOPMENT

The design synthesis is then proceeded with the DPs development. As in Figure 3, the space is
defined according to passenger area (AP), vehicle area (AV) and container area (AC). They are
approximated to the total waterplane area, (AW) as in equation 3 where the total load is equal to
hydrostatic buoyance force (FB). The overall length (LOA) is determined from “waterline
length/overall length” (LWL/LOA) correlation, (cLOA). While, the AP, AV and AC are represented as
equation 4 – 6.

(3)

( ) (4)
 ( ) (5)

( ) (6)

Where, cABLWL is the A:BxLWL ratio and cLWLB is the waterline length/breadth (LWL/B) correlation
function. For the FR11-DP11 and FR12-DP12, the ship main dimension is determined by
estimating LOA based on equation 7 or 8.

⁄ √ (7)

⁄ √ (8)

The other DPs are derived based on established parametric relationships. Here, the main
dimension is estimated based on the basis design data. It is summarised in Table 1 with the design
data restricted to monohull ship with LOA ≥ 80.0 m, exploited to derive the passenger ship DPs and
to assess their relationships. The DPs variables, equations and coefficients can be observed as in
Table 2. As for powering, the DP is synthesised and developed based on the FRs as in Figure 4 and
Figure 5. Based on the data, it is acknowledged that the hull dimension influenced the FR2-DP3
thus the required propulsive power for the speed and Froude number (Fn). Thus, the main engine
and propulsive powers can be satisfied based on engine and propulsor types, identified as DP21 and
DP22.

Table 1: Passenger ship design database range

Vessel type Np Nv Nc
Passenger only 920 – 969 - -
Passenger-vehicle only 50 – 3,200 25 – 1,340 -
Passenger-vehicle-container only 90 – 1,157 72 - 180 6 - 312
Passenger-container only 295 – 1,000 - 34-293

Table 2: Main dimension design parameter variables and coefficient values

Variables Monohull R2
2
BxLWL (m ) 0.71AP + 1885.90 0.54
0.99AV + 738.75 0.89
0.32AC + 2737.00 0.24
AP (m2) 27.69LOA - 1855.10 0.50
2
AV (m ) 32.60LOA - 2239.20 0.83
AC (m2) 33.19LOA – 3351.40 0.27
AP:BxLWL 0.71 0.54
AV:BxLWL 0.82 0.88
AC:BxLWL 0.50 0.21
LWL/LOA 0.92 0.98
T/D 0.40 0.48
L/B 5.98 0.62
L/D 11.38 0.44
 In reference to the Figure 4, more often the “travel in short time” requirement suggests for
high speed ship operation. It is described by using the Fn thus defining the hull operating mode.
Setting the Fn as design constraint, the FR2 is satisfied based on set travel speed and ship length.
Figure 6 shows the passenger ship speeds data with the speed-length relationship represented by
equation 9.

(9)

Consequently, the powering requirement is estimated based on the equation 9 and 10.
Finally, the ship deadweight is estimated based on ship length and equation 11. It provided the
initial estimation for cargo capacity in relation to ship length thus the total cargo weight. Therefore,
this highlights the ship lengths, LOA and LWL as the key DPs variables to derive passenger ship
concept design from income and cost perspectives.

(10)

(11)

Travel in short
time
Attract
passenger
Travel
comfortably

Increase
aesthetics

Figure 4: “Increase attractiveness” functions analysis

FR2: Increase
travel speed for Fn

FR21: Attain FR22: Deliver

engine power for propulsion power
speeds for speeds

(a)

DP2: Propulsion
DP3: Hull
power to travel
length to Fn
speed

DP21: Power for DP22: Power for

engine types propulsor types

(b)

Figure 5: Travel in short time FR-DP decomposition and mapping

 Based on the proposed model, Figure 7 presents the FRs-DPs coupling characteristics
describing the DPs dependencies. Here, the figure shows that the DP2 and DP3 need to be
developed concurrently in order to satisfy FR2. Thus, it is observed that the AD concept presents
systematic DPs development. While, the QFD functioned to identify and manage the CN-FR-DP
coupling characteristics thus to facilitate trade-off and “multi-criteria decision-making”, (MCDM)
processes.

50 0.8
45
0.7

Froude number, Fn
40
35 0.6
30
Speed, kn

0.5
25
20 0.4

15 0.3
10
0.2
5
0 0.1
70 100 130 160 190 220 250 70 100 130 160 190 220 250
Length, m Length, m

Figure 6: Ship and hull speeds to ship length relationships

DP111: Seating area for passenger number
DP112: Other area for passenger number

DP121: Parking area for vehicle number

DP2: Propulsion power to travel speeds

DP11: Area to passenger requirements

DP122: Other area for vehicle number

DP12: Area to vehicle requirements

DP22: Power for propulsor types

Design parameter

DP21: Power for engine types

DP1: Volume to monohull

DP3: Hull length to Fn

FR1: Utilise space for ship hull x

FR11: Allocate passenger to deck x
Functional requirement

FR111: Allocate seating for passenger x

FR112: Allocate other function for passenger x
FR12: Allocate vehicle to deck x
FR121: Allocate parking for vehicle x
FR122: Allocate other function for vehicle x
FR2: Increase travel speeds for Fns x x
FR21: Attain engine power for speeds x
FR22: Deliver propulsion power for speeds x

Figure 7: QFD “house of quality”, (HoQ) matrix for FR-DP

4.0 CONCLUSIONS
This work described SE as design methodology, demonstrated into partially synthesising the
passenger ship concept design. It is initiated by defining and estimating the ship functional spaces
and main dimension followed by the powering and cargo capacity requirements.
Through this work ,the integrated QFD-AD method is devised to facilitate prescriptive
design and systematic decision-making processes using the systems approach, alternative to
conventional ship design spiral model. Adopting the SE, the proposed method presents potential
applicability to support modular design approach and design automation. Furthermore, it is devised
as basis to develop computer aided design tool to facilitate the design of ship having large and
complex systems.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This work is carried out as part of the main author Ph.D research work. It is supported by
the Ministry of Education Malaysia (MoHE) and Universiti Malaysia Terengganu (UMT) under the
SLAI and SLAM programs.

NOMENCLATURE

QFD Quality function deployment T Draught

AD Axiomatic design ∇ Displaced water volume
CN Customer need cABLWL A:BxLWL ratio
FR Functional requirement cLWLB LWL/B correlation function
DP Design parameter NP Number of passenger
LOA Overall length NV Number of vehicle
AP Passenger area NC Number of cargo
AV Vehicle area Fn Froude number
AC Container area PME Main engine power
AW Waterplane area V Travel speed
cLOA LWL/LOA correlation function HoQ House of quality
FB Buoyance force MCDM Multi-criteria decision-making

REFERENCES

[1] Gaspar, H. M., 2013, Handling aspects of complexity in conceptual ship design, Ph.D Thesis,
NTNU, Norway.
[2] von Bock und Polach, R. U. F., Ehlers, S. and Erikstad, S. O., 2015, A Decision-based
Design Approach for Ships Operating in Open Water and Ice, J. Sh. Prod. Des., vol. 31, no.
4, 209–219.
[3] Shields, C. P. F., Rigterink, D. T., and Singer, D. J., 2017, Investigating physical solutions in
the architectural design of distributed ship service systems, Ocean Eng., vol. 135, 236–245.
[4] D. Brefort et al., 2018, An architectural framework for distributed naval ship systems,
Ocean Eng., vol. 147, 375–385.
[5] D. W. Oliver, T. P. Kelliher, and J. G. Keegan, “Engineering Complex Systems with Models
and Objects,” in Engineering Complex Systems with Models and Objects, New York, NY:
McGraw-Hill Companies, 1997, pp. i–xii, 1–327.
[6] Walden, D. D, et al., 2015 Systems engineering handbook: A guide for system life cycle
processes and activities, 4th ed. New Jersey, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. USA.
[7] Ring, D., 2002, Role of functional analysis techniques in ship design and production, UoS,
UK.
[8] Olivier, J. P., Balestrini-Robinson, S. and Briceno, S., 2014, Approach to capability-based
system-of-systems framework in support of naval ship design, 2014 IEEE International
 Systems Conference Proceedings, 388–395.
[9] Farid, A.M., and Suh, N.P., 2016, Axiomatic Design in Large Systems: Complex Products,
Buildings and Manufacturing systems. Cham: Springer International Publishing. Switzerland.
[10] Akao, Y., 1990, Quality Function Deployment (QFD): Integrating Customer Requirements
into Product Design. Productivity press. USA.
[11] Suh, N. P., 1989, The principles of design. New York, NY: Oxford University Press, USA.