Advertisement

Design for Modularity

  • Stein Ove ErikstadEmail author
Chapter

Abstract

Design for modularity refers to decisions taken at the design stage of the ship lifecycle, addressing how we can decompose and encapsulate ship system elements to both improve design and manufacturing process efficiency and ship operational performance. At the design stage, modularity can concurrently support both standardization and diversification using a product platform strategy and thus lay the foundation for a configuration-based design process. In the production phase, modularity is relevant in supply chain design, modular production, early outfitting and outsourcing. In the operation phase, modularity implies flexibility, providing opportunities for adapting the vessels to changing markets, technologies, regulations and customer needs.

Keywords

Modular design Modular adaptable ships Configuration-based design 

References

  1. Andreassen T (2005) Module-based and parametric configuration and engineering. Web-IT Maritime, Ålesund, NorwayGoogle Scholar
  2. Andrews DJ (2003) A creative approach to ship architecture. Int J Marit Eng 145:229–252Google Scholar
  3. Andrews D (2011) Marine requirements elucidation and the nature of preliminary ship design. Int J Marit Eng (RINA Trans Part A) 153 (Jan–Mar 2011)Google Scholar
  4. Brathaug T, Holan JO, Erikstad SO (2008) Representing design knowledge in configuration-based ship design. In: COMPIT 2008—7th international conference on computer and IT applications in maritime industries, Liege, BelgiumGoogle Scholar
  5. Choi M, Erikstad SO, Chung H (2018) Operation platform design for modular adaptable ships: towards the configure-to-order strategy. Ocean Eng 163:85–93CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Daniels AS, Parsons MG (2007) Development of a hybrid agent-genetic algorithm approach to general arrangements. In: COMPIT 2007, ItalyGoogle Scholar
  7. Doerry N (2016) Framework for analyzing modular, adaptable, and flexible surface combatants, ASNE DayGoogle Scholar
  8. Droste K, Kana A, Hopman H (2018) Process-based analysis of arrangement aspects for configuration-driven ships. In: IMDC18—International marine design conference, Helsinki, FinlandGoogle Scholar
  9. Erichsen S (1989) Design of marine transport. Marinteknisk senter, NTNUGoogle Scholar
  10. Ericsson A, Erixon G (1999) Controlling design variants: modular product platforms. Society of Manufacturing Engineers, Dearborn, MichiganGoogle Scholar
  11. Erikstad SO (2009) Modularisation in shipbuilding and modular production. In: IGLO-MP 2020 working paper, Marintek, Trondheim, NorwayGoogle Scholar
  12. Erikstad SO, Levander K (2012) System based design of offshore support vessels. In: IMDC12—The 11th international marine design conference, Glasgow, ScotlandGoogle Scholar
  13. Erikstad SO, Rehn CF (2015) Handling uncertainty in marine systems design—state-of-the-art and need for research. In: IMDC 2015—12th international marine design conference, Tokyo, Japan, pp 324–342Google Scholar
  14. Fixson S, Ro Y, Liker J (2005) Modularisation and outsourcing: who drives whom? Int J Automot Technol Manage 5(2):166–184CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Gaspar H, Rhodes D, Ross AM, Erikstad SO (2012) Addressing complexity aspects in conceptual ship design—a systems engineering approach. J Ship Prod Des 28(4):1–15CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hölttä-Otto K, de Weck O (2007) Degree of modularity in engineering systems and products with technical and business constraints. Concurrent Eng 15(2):113–126CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Jogeva M (2014) Modularisation of passenger ship hotel areas. M.Sc., Aalto UniversityGoogle Scholar
  18. Jolliff JV (1974) Modular ship design concepts. Naval Eng J 86(5):11–32CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Marintek (1998) Innkjøp i salgsfasen, sluttrapport (“Procurement in the Sales Phase, final report”), MARINTEKGoogle Scholar
  20. Papanikolaou A (2010) Holistic ship design optimization. Comput Aided Des 42(11):1028–1044CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Rehn CF (2018) Ship design under uncertainty. Ph.D., NTNUGoogle Scholar
  22. Rehn CF, Erikstad SO (2018) Versatility vs. retrofittability tradeoff in design of non-transport vessels. Ocean Eng 167:229–238CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Salvador F, Forza C, Rungtusanatham M (2002) Modularity, product variety, production volume, and component sourcing: theorizing beyond generic prescriptions. J Oper Manag 20(5):549–575CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Schank JF, Savitz S, Munson K, Perkinson B, McGee J, Sollinger JM (2016) Designing adaptable ships—modularity and flexibility in future ship design. Rand Corporation, Santa Monica, CACrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Schilling MA (2000) Towards a general modular systems theory and its application to interfirm product modularity. Acad Manag Rev 25(2):312–334CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Simon HA (1962) The architecture of complexity. Proc Am Philos Soc 106(6):467–482Google Scholar
  27. Simpson TW (2003) Product platform design and customization: status and promise. In: ASME design engineering technical conferences—design automation conference. K. Shimada, Chicago, ILGoogle Scholar
  28. Sortland S (2001) IT and Net-based solutions in product configuration and sales. Web-IT Maritime, Ålesund, NorwayGoogle Scholar
  29. Suh NP (1990) The principles of design. Oxford University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  30. Ulrich KT (2008) Product design and development. McGraw-Hill/Irwin, BostonGoogle Scholar
  31. Ulrich K, Tung K (1991) Fundamentals of product modularity. In: ASME winter annual meeting symposium on design and manufacturing integration, Atlanta, GAGoogle Scholar
  32. van Oers B (2011) A packing approach for the early stage design of service vessels. Ph.D., TU DelftGoogle Scholar
  33. van Oers B, Stapersma D, Hopman H (2007) Development and implementation of an optimisation-based space allocation routine for the generation of feasible concept designs. In: COMPIT 2007, Italy, pp 171–185Google Scholar
  34. Vestbøstad Ø (2011) System Based Ship Design for offshore vessels. M.Sc., NTNUGoogle Scholar
  35. Wuuren W, Halman JIM (2001) Platform-driven development of product families: linking theory with practice. In: The future of innovation studies conference, Eindhoven, The NetherlandsGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Marine TechnologyNorwegian University of Science and Technology (NTNU)TrondheimNorway

Personalised recommendations