18.9 DESIGN PROCEDURE
18.9.4 A Generic Design Framework
By comparison with the previous standard procedure, Fig-ure 18.67 shows a new generic and advanced design
method-ology where the performance of the system, the manufac-turing process of the system and the associated life cycle costs are considered in an integrated fashion (120). De-signing ship structures systems involves achieving simul-taneous, though sometimes competing, objectives. The structure must perform its function while conforming to structural, economic and production constraints. The pres-ent design framework consists of establishing the structural system and composite subsystems, which optimally satisfy the topology, shape, loading and performance constraints while simultaneously considering the manufacturing or fab-rication processes in a cost effective manner.
The framework is used within a computerized virtual environment in which CAD product models, physics-based models, production process models and cost models are used simultaneously by a designer or design team. The per-formance of the product or process is in general judged by some time independent parameter, which is referred to as a response metric (R). Specifications for the system must be established in terms of these Response Metrics. The for-mulation of the design problem is thus the same whether the product or process systems (or both) are considered.
The general framework consists of a system definition module, a simulation module and a design module.
The system definition module [Y(U,V,W)] is used to build an environmental model [U], a product model [V] and a process model [W]. The system definition module receives operational requirements [Z] such as owner’s requirements.
These operational parameters are presumed fixed through-out the design.
They of course can eventually be changed if no accept-able design is established, but presumably any design would have operational parameters, which would not be sacrificed.
The environmental model [U] includes the still water and wave loading conditions and the product model [V] con-tains the production information, for example. The process model [W] is built to consider or define the fabrication se-quence. A translator (simulation based design translator) assigns some [Y] model parameters to the simulation pa-rameters [T] and design variables [X].
These parameters are selected based on the available simulation tools [S] that require specific data ([T],[X] and time).
The simulation module [S(T, X, time)] is used to pro-duce simulation responses such as Response Metrics [R[S(T, X)]]. The time is needed to consider the dynamic effects and actual dynamic load conditions [U].
The optimum design module includes the Design Cri-teria, the Design Assessment and the Optimization compo-nents. The design criteria module provides constraints [G(T, X, Y, Z)] and objective functions [F(R, T, X, Y, Z)]. These are used to assess the design through the Design Assess-ment component of the module (for example R≤G). The constraints are obtained by considering not only the simu-lation parameters [T] and the design variables [X] but also the operational requirements [Z] and the system definition parameter [Y]. Also, the objective function [F] is calculated using the response metrics [R], the operational requirements [Z], the system definition parameter [Y] as well as the de-sign variables [X] and simulation parameters [T].
Based on the results of the Design Assessment (Min(F) and R≤G) several strategies for the design procedure (iter-ations) can be followed:
• if the object function does not reach its minimum value or the response metrics do not satisfy the constraints, an optimization algorithm (steepest descent, dual approach and convex linearization, evolutionary strategies, etc.) is adopted to find a new set of design variables. Standard algorithms are presented in (113,114,123):
— if the optimizer fails to find an improved solution (un-feasible design space), it is required to change the simulation parameter values [T] and/or design vari-ables selection [X] or even to modify the Model Pa-rameters [Y].
Figure 18.67 A Generic Design Framework (120)
Operational Requirements Parameters Z
System Definition Model Parameters Y
Environmental Model Product Model Process Model Parameters U Parameters V Parameters W
Simulation Based Design Translator Simulation Parameters T
Design Variables X
Simulations
Simulation Response S(T ,X ,time) Design Criteria Constraints G(T,X,Y,Z)
— otherwise, the design space is feasible, and a change of design variable values [X] is performed based on the optimizer solution (in other words a new itera-tion).
• if the object function reaches its minimum value and the response metrics satisfy the constraints, two alternatives are examined:
— change the operational requirements parameters [Z], repeat the previous procedure and to compare with other alternative designs, or
— end the design procedure.
18.10 REFERENCES
1. Taggart R., Ship Design and Construction, SNAME, New York, 1980
2. Lewis, E. V., Principles of Naval Architecture (2nd revision), vol.1, SNAME, 1988
3. Hughes O. F., Ship Structural Design: A Rationally -Based, Computer-Aided Optimization Approach, SNAME, New Jer-sey, 1988
4. DnV 99–0394, Calculation Procedures for Direct Global Structural Analysis, Det Norske Veritas, Technical Report, 1999
5. Arai H., “Evolution of Classification Rules for Ships,” In Re-cent Advances in Marine Structures, ISSC’2000 Pre-Con-gress Symposium, Society of Naval Architects of Japan, Tokyo: 8.1–8.22, 2000
6. IACS Unified Requirement S7 “Minimum Longitudinal Strength Standards,” 1989
7. IACS Unified Requirement S11 “Longitudinal Strength Stan-dard,” 1993
8. ABS Rules for Building and Classing Steel Vessels, 2000 9. BV Rules for Steel Ships, 2001
10. RINA Rules, 2001
11. DNV Rules for Classification of Ships, 2001
12. NKK Rules and Guidance for the Survey and Construction of Steel Ships, 2001
13. Salvensen, N., Tuck, E. O. & Faltinsen, O., “Ship Motions and Sea Loads”, Transactions SNAME, 78: 250–287, 1970 14. Ochi, M.K., “Applied Probability & Stochastic Processes,”
John Wiley & Sons, 1990
15. GWS, “Global Wave Statistics” British Maritime Technol-ogy Ltd. Feltham, 1986
16. Guedes Soares, C., et al. “Loads (Report of ISSC Commit-tee I.2),” Proceedings of 13th ISSC, Moan & Berge (Eds.), Pergamon, Norway, 1, 1997
17. Guedes Soares, C., et al. “Loads (Report of ISSC Commit-tee I.2),” Proceedings of 14th ISSC, Ohtsubo & Sumi (Eds.), Elsevier, Japan, 1, 2000 ”
18. Chung, T. Y., et al. “Dynamic Response (Report of ISSC
Committee II.2),” Proceedings of 13th ISSC, Moan & Berge (Eds.), Pergamon, Norway, 1, 1997
19. Temarel, P., et al. “Dynamic Response (Report of ISSC Com-mittee II.2),” Proceedings of 14th ISSC, Ohtsubo & Sumi (Eds.), Elsevier, Japan, 1, 2000
20. “Vibration Control in Ships,” A/S. VERITEC Høvik, Nor-way, 1985
21. Kaminski, M.L., et al. “Ultimate Strength (Report of ISSC Committee III.1),” Proceedings of 14th ISSC, Ohtsubo &
Sumi (Eds.), Elsevier, Japan, 1, 2000
22. Pedersen, P. T., “Ship Grounding and Hull Girder Strength”
Marine Structures, 7, 1994
23. Beck R. F. and Reed A. M., “Modern Seakeeping Computa-tions for Ships” Proc. 23rdSymposium Naval Hydrodynam-ics Val de Reuil, France, 2000
24. Jensen, J. J. et al., “Extreme Hull Girder Loading,” Report of Special Task Committee VI.1 Proc. 14th International Ship and Offshore Structures Congress, Ohtsubo and Sumi (Edi-tors), 2: 261–320, 2000
25. Rawson, K. J., Tupper E. C., Basic Ship Theory (Fourth edi-tion), 1 & 2, Longman Scientic & Technical, Essex, UK, 1994
26. Schade, H. A., “The Effective Breath of Stiffened Plating Under Bending Loads,” Transactions SNAME, 61, 1951 27. Evans, H. J., Ship Structural Design Concepts—Second Cycle,
Cornell Maritime Press, First Edition, Maryland, 1983 28. Heggelund, S. E., Moan, T. and Omar, S., “Global Structural
Analysis of Large Catamarans,” Proceedings Fifth Confer-ence on Fast Sea Transportation, FAST’99, SNAME, Seat-tle: 757–771, 1999
29. Rigo, P., “Stiffened Sheathings of Orthotropic Cylindrical Shells,” Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE, 118 (4):
926–943, 1992
30. Rigo, P. and Fleury, C., “Scantling Optimization Based on Convex Linearizations and a Dual Approach,” Marine Struc-tures, Elsevier Science Ltd., 14 (6): 631–649, 2001 31. Mansour, A. E., “Gross Panel Strength under Combined
Load-ing,” Ship Structure Committee, SSC-270, NTIS, Washing-ton DC, 1977
32. Hughes, O., Nikolaidis, E., Ayyub, B., White, G. and Hess, P., “Uncertainty in Strength Models for Marine Structures,”
Ship Structure Committee (375), NTIS, Washington DC, 1994
33. Paik, J. K., Thayamballi, A. and Kim, B., “Advanced Ulti-mate Strength Formulations for Ship Plating under Com-bined Biaxial Compression/Tension, Edge Shear and Lateral Pressure Loads,” Marine Technology, 38, (1): 9–25, 2001 34. Faulkner, D., “A Review of Effective Plating for use in the
Analysis of Stiffened Plating in Bending and Compression,”
Journal of Ship Research, 18 (1): 1–17, 1975
35. Faulkner, D., Adamchak, J., Snyder, G. and Vetter, M., “Syn-thesis of Welded Grillages to withstand Compression and Normal Loads,” Computers & Structures, Vol.3, 1973, pp.221–246.
36. Bleich, F. Buckling Strength of Metal Structures, McGraw-Hill, 1952
37. ECCS-56, Buckling of Steel Shells, 4th edition, ECCS—Tech-nical Working Group 8.4 Stability of Shells, (60), European Convention for Constructional Steel Work, Brussels, 1988 38. Paik J.K., Thayamballi A.K., Ultimate Limit State Design of
Steel Plated Structures, John Wiley & Sons, London, 2002.
39. Kaminski et al., “Ultimate Strength, Report of Technical Committee III.1,” Proceedings of the 14th Int. Ship and Off-shore Structures Congress, Vol.1, Elsevier: 253–321, 2001 40. Dowling et al “Design of Flat Stiffened Plating: Phase 1
Re-port”, CESLIC Report SP9, Department of Civil Engineer-ing, Imperial College, London, 1991
41. Mansour, A. E. and Thayamballi A., “Ultimate Strength of a Ship’s Hull Girder in Plastic and Buckling Modes,” Ship Structure Committee (299) NTIS, Washington DC, 1980 42. Mansour, A. E., Lin M., Hovem, L. and Thayamballi, A.,
“Probability-Based Ship Design—Phase 1: A Demonstra-tion,” SSC (368), NTIS, Washington DC, 1993
43. Chen, Q., Zimmerman, T., DeGeer, D. and Kennedy, B.,
“Strength and Stability Testing of Stiffened Plate Compo-nents,” Ship Structure Committee (399), NTIS, Washington DC, 1997
44. Paik, J. K. and Kim, D. H., “A Benchmark Study of the Ul-timate Compressive Strength Formulation for Stiffened Pan-els,” Journal Research Institute of Industrial Technology, 53, Pusan National University: 373–405, 1997
45. Rigo, P., Moan, T., Frieze P. and Chryssanthopoulos, M.,
“Benchmarking of Ultimate Strength Predictions for Longi-tudinally Stiffened Panels,” PRADS’95, 2: 869–882, Seoul, Korea, 1995,
46. ECCS-60, Recommendations for the Design of Longitudi-nally Stiffened Webs and of Stiffened Compression Flanges, 1st edition, ECCS—Technical Working Group 8.3—Struc-tural Stability, (60), European Convention for Constructional Steel Work, Brussels, 1990
47. Mansour, A. E., Lin,Y. H. and Paik, J. K., “Ultimate Strength of Ships under Combined Vertical and Horizontal Moments,”
PRADS’95, 2: 844–851, Seoul, Korea, 1995
48. Smith, C. S., “Elastic Analysis of Stiffened Plating under Lateral Loading,” Transactions RINA, 108, (2): 113–131, 1966
49. Paik, J. K. and Thayamballi, A., “An Empirical Formulation for Predicting the Ultimate Compressive Strength of Stiff-ened Panels,” Proceedings of ISOPE’97 Conference, IV:
328–338, 1997
50. Yao, T. et al., “Ultimate Hull Girder Strength (Committee VI.2),” Proc. of 14th ISSC, Ohtsubo & Sumi (Eds.), Else-vier, Japan, 2: 321–391, 2000
51. Yao, T., “Ultimate Longitudinal Strength of Ship Hull Girder;
Historical Review and State of Art,” International Journal Offshore and Polar Engineering (ISOPE) 9 (1): 1–9, 1999 52. Chen, Y. K., Kutt, L. M., Piaszczyk, C. M. and Bieniek, M.
P., “Ultimate Strength of Ship Structures,” Transactions SNAME 91: 149–168, 1983
53. Yao, T., Sumi, Y., Takemoto, H., Kumano, A., Sueoka, H.
and Ohtsubo, H., “Analysis of the Accident of the MV NAKHODKA, Part 2: Estimation of Structural Strength,”
Journal of Marine Science and Technology (JMST), 3 (4):
181–183, 1998
54. Smith, C. S., “Influence of Local Compressive Failure on Ul-timate Longitudinal Strength of a Ship’s Hull, PRADS 77, Tokyo, Japan: 73–79, 1977
55. Rigo, P., Catalin, T. and Yao, T., “Sensitivity Analysis on Ul-timate Hull Bending Moment,” In Proceeding of PRADS’2001, Shanghai, China, 2001
56. Adamchack, J. C., “Approximate Method for Estimating the Collapse of a Ship’s Hull in Preliminary Design,” Proc. Ship Structure Symposium’84, SNAME: 37–61, 1984
57. Beghin, D., et al., “Design Principles and Criteria (Report of ISSC Committee IV.1),” Proceedings of 13th ISSC, Moan and Berge (Eds.), Pergamon Press—Elsevier Science, 1: 351–406, 1997
58. Dow, R. S., Hugill, R. C., Clarke, J. D. and Smith, C. S.,
“Evaluation of Ultimate Ship Hull Strength,” Proceedings of Symposium on Extreme Loads Response, Arlington: 33–148, 1991
59. Gordo, J. M., Guedes Soares, C., “Approximate Methods to Evaluate the Hull Girder Collapse Strength,” Marine Struc-tures 9 (3–4): 449–470, 1996
60. Gordo, J. M. and Guedes Soares, C., “Interaction Equation for the Collapse of Tankers and Containerships under Com-bined Vertical and Horizontal Bending Moments,” Journal of Ship Research 41 (3): 230–240, 1997
61. Yao, T. and Nikolov, P. I., ‘Progressive Collapse Analysis of a Ship’s Hull under Longitudinal Bending,” Journal of So-ciety Naval Architects of Japan, 170: 449–461, 1991 62. Yao, T., Nikolov, P. I., “Progressive Collapse Analysis of a
Ship’s Hull under Longitudinal Bending (2nd Report),” Jour-nal of Society Naval Architects of Japan, 172: 437–446, 1992 63. Rutherford, S. E., Caldwell, J. B., “Ultimate Longitudinal Strength of Ships: A Case Study,” SNAME Transactions, 98:
441–471, 1990
64. Caldwell, J. B., “Ultimate Longitudinal Strength,” Transac-tions RINA 107: 411–430, 1965
65. Paik, J. K. and Mansour, A. E., “A Simple Formulation for Predicting the Ultimate Strength of Ships,” Journal Marine Science and Technology, 1: 52–62, 1995
66. Viner, A. C., “Development of Ship Strength Formulation,”
Proceedings of International. Conference on Advances in Marine Structures, ARE, Dunfermline, UK: 152–173, 1986 67. Frieze, P. et al, “Applied Design, Report of ISSC
Commit-tee V.1,” 11th ISSC Conference, Wuxi, China, 2, 1991 68. Sumi, Y. et al, “Calculation Procedures. In Quasi-static
Re-sponse (Report of ISSC Committee II.1),” Proceedings of 13th ISSC, Moan and Berge (eds), Pergamon Press—Else-vier Science, 1: 128–138, 1997
69. Hu, Y., Zhang A. and Sun J., “Analysis on the Ultimate Lon-gitudinal Strength of a Bulk Carrier by Using a Simplified Method,” Marine Structures, Elsevier, 14: 311–330, 2001
(ICCGS’2001), Technical University of Denmark, Copen-hagen, 2001
88. Todd, F. H., Ship Hull Vibration, Arnold Ltd, London, 1961 89. Lewis F. M., “The Inertia of Water Surrounding a Vibrating
Ship,” SNAME Transactions, 37, 1929
90. Volcy, G., Baudin, M, Bereau, M. and Besnier, F., “Hydro-elasticity and Vibration of Internal Steelwork of Tanks,”
SNAME Transactions, 1980
91. Morel, P., Beghin, D. and Baudin, M., “Assessment of the Vibratory Behavior of Ships,” RINA Conference on Noise and Vibration, London, UK, 1995
92. Spittaël, L., Zalar, M., Laspalles, P.and Brosset, L., “Mem-brane LNG FPSO & FSRU—Methodology for Sloshing Phenomenon,” Proceedings of Gastech’2000, Houston, 2000 93. Fabro, R., “Ship Noise and Vibration Comfort Class: Inter-national Rules and Shipbuilding Practice,” Proceedings of NAV2000, Venice, Italy, 2000
94. Blevins, R. D., Formulas for Natural Frequency and Mode Shape, Krieger Publishing Company, Florida, US, 1984 95. Lund. J. W., “Rotor-Bearing Dynamics Design
Technol-ogy,” Part III: Design Handbook for fluid film bearings., Mech. Tech. Inc., Technical Report AFAPL-TR-65–45, 1965 96. Greene E., Design Guide for Marine Applications of Com-posites, Ship Structure Committee, SSC-403, NTIS, Wash-ington DC, USA, 1997
97. Beier, K. P., “Web-Based Virtual Reality in Design and Man-ufacturing applications,” COMPIT 2000, 1st Int. Euro Con-ference on Computer Applications and Information Technology in the Maritime Industry, Potsdam, Germany:
45–55, 2000
98. Jensen, J. J. et al, “Performance of Composite Structures,”
in Report of Technical Committee III.1, Proc. of the 13th Int. Ship and Offshore Structures Congress, 1, Pergamon:
256–263, 1997
99. Ross, J. M., “CAD/CAM/CIM: Using Today’s High-Tech Tools for State-of-the-Art,” International Conference on Computer Applications in Shipbuilding (ICCAS), Society of Naval Architects of Japan, Yokohama, Japan, 1997 100. Zenkert, D., The Handbook of Sandwich Construction.,
En-gineering Materials Advisory Services Ltd., London, UK, 1997
101. Kitamura, O., Kawamoto, Y., Kaneko, E., “A Study of the Improved Tanker Structure Against Collision and Ground-ing Damage,” ProceedGround-ings of PRADS’98, Elsevier, The Hague, NL, 1: 173–179, 1998
102. Bishop, R. E., Price N. G., “Some Comments on present-day ship dynamics,” Philosophical Transactions Royal So-ciety, London, A 334: 187–187, 1991
103. Porcari, et al., “Quasi-static Response (Report of ISSC Com-mittee II.1),” Proceedings of 14th ISSC, Ohtsubo & Sumi (Eds.), Elsevier, Japan, 1, 2000
104. Basu, R., Kirkhope, K. and Srinivasan, J., “Guidelines for Evaluation of Finite Elements and Results,” Ship Structure Committee (387), NTIS, Washington DC, 1996
105. Rigo, P., “A Module-Oriented Tool for Optimum Design of 70. Paik, J. K., Thayamballi A. K. and Jung S. C. “Ultimate
Strength of Ship Hulls under Combined Vertical Bending, Horizontal Bending and Shearing Forces,” SNAME Trans-actions 104: 31–59, 1996
71. IACS “Longitudinal Strength Standard. Requirements Con-cerning Strength of Ships, IACS (International Association of Classification Societies),” IUR S11 Longitudinal Strength Standard, S11.1-S11.12, 1993
72. Nitta, A., Arai, H. and Magaino, A., “Basis of IACS Unified Longitudinal Strength Standard,” Marine Structures, 5: 1–21, 1992
73. Almar-Naess A. Fatigue-Handbook—Offshore Structures, Tapir Publication, Trondheim, 1985
74. Fricke, W. et al., “Fatigue and Fracture (Report of ISSC Com-mittee III.2),” Proceedings of 14th ISSC, Ohtsubo & Sumi (Eds.), Elsevier, Japan, 1: 323–392, 2000
75. Maddox S. J., Fatigue Strength of Welded Structures, Abing-ton Publishing, Second Edition, UK, 1994
76. Niemi, E., Stress Determination for Fatigue Analysis of Welded Components, Abington Publishing, UK, 1995 77. NRC-National Research Council, “Prevention of Fractures
in Ship Structures, Committee on Marine Structures,” Ma-rine Board, Washington DC, US, 1997
78. Petershagen, H., Fricke, W. and Paetzold, H., Fatigue Strength of Ship Structures, GL-Technology—Part I: Basic Principles, Germanischer Lloyd Aktiengesellschaft, Hamburg, 1/97, 1997 79. Byers, W.G., Marley, M., Mohammadi, J., Nielsen, R. and Sarkani, S., “Fatigue Reliability Reassessment Procedures:
State-of- The-Art Paper,” Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE, 123 (3): 227–285, 1997
80. Madsen, H. O., Krenk, S. and Lind, N.C., Methods of Struc-tural Safety, Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 1986 81. Harris, D.O., Probabilistic Fracture Mechanics,
Probabilis-tic Fracture Mechanics Handbook, Sundarajan, ed., Chap-man and Hall, New York, N.Y., 1995
82. Miner, M. A., “Cumulative Damage in Fatigue,” Trans.
ASME, 67, Journal of Applied Mechanics, 12: 154–164, 1945 83. Wirsching, P.H., Chen, Y. N., “Considerations of Probabil-ity Based Fatigue Design Criteria for Marine Structures,”
Marine Structures, 1: 23–45, 1988
84. Brown, A., Tikka, K., Daidola, J., Lutzen, M. and Choe, I.,
“Structural Design and Response in Collision and Ground-ing,” Proceedings of the 2000 SNAME Annual Meeting, Van-couver, Canada, October, 2000
85. Amdahl, J. and Kavlie, D., “Design of Tankers for Ground-ing and Collision,” ProceedGround-ings of the Int. Conference on Technologies for Marine Environment Preservation (MARIENV’95), 1, Tokyo, Japan: 167–174, 1995 86. Ohtsubo, H. et al., “Structural Design Against Collision and
Grounding,” Report of Technical Committee V.4, Proc. of the 13th Int. Ship and Offshore Structures Congress, 2, Perg-amon: 83–116, 1997
87. Wang, G., Spencer, J. and Chen, Y., “Assessment of a Ship’s Performance in Accidents,” Proceedings of the 2nd Interna-tional Conference on Collision and Grounding of Ships
Stiffened Structures,” Marine Structures, Elsevier, 14 (6):
611–629, 2001
106. Ueda,Y., Rashed, S., “The Idealized Structural Unit Method and its Application to Deep Girder Structures,” Computers
& Structures, 18 (2): 277–293,1984
107. Paik, J. K. and Hughes, O. F., “Ship Structures,” Chapter 8 in the textbook Computational Analysis of Complex Struc-tures, Edited by R.E. Melchers, The American Society of Civil Engineers, 2002
108. Fujikubo, M. and Kaeding, P., ISUM rectangular plate ele-ment with new lateral shape function (2nd Report) – Stiff-ened plates under bi-axial thrust—Journal of Society Naval Architects of Japan: 479–487, 2000
109. Brebbia, C. and Dominguez, J., Boundary Elements: An In-troductory Course, Computational Mechanics Publications, Boston, McGraw-Hill, New York, 1989
110. Pradillon, J. Y. et al., “Design Method (Report of ISSC Com-mittee IV.2),” Proceedings of 14th ISSC, Ohtsubo & Sumi (Eds.), Elsevier, Japan, vol.1, 2000
111. Beckers, P., “Recent Developments in Shape Sensitivity Analysis: the Physical Approach,” Engineering Optimiza-tion, 18: 67–78, 1991
112. Bendsoe, M. P. and Kikuchi, N., “Generating Optimal Topologies in Structural Design using a Homogenization Method,” Comp. Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engi-neering, (71): 187–224, 1988
113. Vanderplaats, G. N., Numerical Optimization Techniques for Engineering Design, McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1984 114. Sen, P. and Yang, J. B., Multiple Criteria Decision Support in Engineering, Springer-Verslag London Ltd, UK, 1998 115. Catley, D. et al., “Design Optimization: A State-of-the-Art
Review,” Marine Structures, Elsevier Science Publications, 5: 343–390, 1990
116. Beghin, D., Jastrzebski, T. and Taczala, M., “Result—A Computer Code for Evaluation of the Ultimate Longitudi-nal Strength of Hull Girder,” Proceedings of PRADS-95, Eds. Kim & Lee, Society of Naval Architects of Korea, 2:
832–843, 1995
117. Birmingham, R., Cleland, G., Driver, R. and Maffin, D. Un-derstanding Engineering Design, Prentice and Hall, Lon-don, 1997
118. Chalmers, D. W. Design of Ships’ Structures, Ministry of Defense, HMSO Eds., London, 1993
119. Moan T. et al., “Report of ISSC Committee IV.1- Design Philosophy,” 11th ISSC Conference, Wuxi, China, 1991 120. Karr, D., Beier, K. P., Na, S. S. and Rigo, P., “A Framework
for Simulation Based Design of Ship Structures,” Proceed-ings of the 2001 Ship Production Symposium, SNAME,Yp-silanti, Michigan, 2001
121. Parsons, G., Singer, D. and Sauter, J., “A Hybrid Agent Ap-proach for Set-Based Conceptual Ship Design,” Proceedings 10th ICCAS Conference, Cambridge MA, 2: 207–221, 1999 122. Watson D. G. M. Practical Ship Design, Elsevier Ltd,
Ox-ford, 1, 1998
123. Fleury C., “Mathematical Programming Methods for Con-strained Optimization: Dual Methods, (Chap7)” and “Re-cent Developments in Structural Optimization Methods (Chap9)” in Structural Optimization: Status and Promise, (M.P. Kamat ed.), series: Progress in Astronautics and Aero-nautics, AIAA, 150: 123–150 and 183–208, 1993 124. Rigo, P., “Least-Cost Structural Optimisation Oriented
Pre-liminary Design,” Journal of Ship Production, 17 (4):
202–215, 2001