Get the basics right - an article about NA Sigmund Borgundvaag

[daiquiri]

A good reading for everyone interested in naval architecture: http://www.imeche.org/news/engineering/a-life-in-ships

An imo significant excerpt from the article:

"There is a lot of good things about the way ships are designed today but you have to get the basics right. You can optimise for aerodynamics and hydrodynamics, so modern designs are generally better. But for some special tasks, you cannot improve the design any more than the simplest way to do it."​

Get the basics right. These words were repeated three times by Mr. Borgundvaag during the interview. It is imo a simple design philosophy which should be painted red on the walls of every engineering or design office. Something to think about.

When the basics are done right, a design can arrive to 40 years of heavy service - like the first UT704 (ex-Stad Scotsman), now working in Nigeria with the name Reliance Star 1: http://www.shipspotting.com/gallery/photo.php?lid=1042141

Cheers

 

[Leo Lazauskas]

Get the basics right. These words were repeated three times by Mr. Borgundvaag during the interview. It is imo a simple design philosophy which should be painted red on the walls of every engineering or design office.

Thanks, Slavi.

This presentation to the 2013 Annual Meeting of SNAME from two very
experienced designers is interesting.
"The Fallacy of Using A Parent Ship Design"
http://higherlogicdownload.s3.amazo...oadedImages/KEANE_SD-8PRESENTATION3-19-14.pdf

Simply put: a parent design can't be tweaked and stretched without
serious consequences. Not surprising to some, but there are many who
keep repeating that mistake.

I hope it is expanded into a paper and published by SNAME.

 

[Ad Hoc]

Simply put: a parent design can't be tweaked and stretched without serious consequences.

Well, he's correct on both counts! But it comes down to definitions.

A parent hull, if known, is easy to tweak and manipulate. The trouble comes is when the SOR is clearly not suited to a tweaked parent hull, simply to get a contract to satisfy the SOR. To makes matters worse when statements like a "proven hull" are used, the definition of "proven hull" is the elephant in the room. If SORs are written by intelligent personnel that recognise evolutionary tweaking is a good thing, rather than tweaking an old design simply to call it "proven" but tweaked beyond its limits in the process.

Simple question.
Would you buy a 2014 BMW 3 series, or a 1980 BMW 3 series? Both are BMW's and both are 3 Series models. Why buy the "proven" 1980 car today when you can have the evolution of the 1980 model at todays technology and manufacturing with the 2014 model.

That's where the process falls down. An SOR that wants a "known" 1980 3 series but wants all the goodies that's in the 2014 model.. ...never the twain shall meet!

 

[daiquiri]

Thanks Leo, that was an interesting reading too.
I am not entirely sure that your point is related to Mr. Borgundvaag's story , but I am pretty sure he was not talking in exclusive favor of parent hull-based ship design. The way I read it, his message is: "make sure that the basics of the design are sound and perfectly matched to the mission and you have done half of the good job". The choice of whether opting for a modified repeated hull or a brand new one should be part of that process (and not subject to political directives, as Mr. Keane's and Capt. Tibbitt's paper show). The fact that his designs were mostly variations of the UT parent hull indicates IMO that in those cases the modified repeated hull method was able to deliver designs suitable to relative operative requirements. How do I know that? Well, 800 ships were made and sold to the operators around the world. Such a big market share is imo an indicator of the efficiency of the design, since the procurement of those ships by private operators was almost certainly governed by the philosophy of penny-wise spending and not by political decisions. By the way, see the page 30 of that presentation...
Cheers!

 

[daiquiri]

Simple question.
Would you buy a 2014 BMW 3 series, or a 1980 BMW 3 series? Both are BMW's and both are 3 Series models. Why buy the "proven" 1980 car today when you can have the evolution of the 1980 model at todays technology and manufacturing with the 2014 model.

That's where the process falls down. An SOR that wants a "known" 1980 3 series but wants all the goodies that's in the 2014 model.. ...never the twain shall meet!

A nice and very eloquent example.

 

[Leo Lazauskas]

Thanks Leo, that was an interesting reading too.
I am not entirely sure that your point is related to Mr. Borgundvaag's story ,

I just offered it as another interesting, very recent take on ship design, not
necessarily as a rebuttal to Mr. Borgundvaag's story.
Again, part of the theme is to get the basics right, not blindly follow what
has gone before.

 

[Leo Lazauskas]

If SORs are written by intelligent personnel that recognise evolutionary tweaking is a good thing, rather than tweaking an old design simply to call it "proven" but tweaked beyond its limits in the process.

For me (as you know, a very impractical person!) it was interesting to see
where tweaking can lead to problems, e.g. with limited capability to handle
weight and KG increases.

Your BMW example was also an excellent illustration.
(Personally, I'd just take a taxi. )