Analyzing the dynamic behavior of marine design tools using network theory

This paper introduces a new network metric, termed path influence, to analyze the dynamic behavior of marine design tools. Design tools are increasingly becoming opaque, if not outright black boxes, and engineers often do not have the resources to intuitively understand their behavior. Network representations of marine design tools have been created and analyzed in previous research, providing static insight into designer intent and tool formulation; this paper extends the research to include dynamic behavior. Two network weighting schemes were developed that enable path influence to approximate the impact of variable changes on an entire tool formulation. The first scheme utilizes partial derivatives and is demonstrated to be equivalent to a first order Taylor series expansion. The proposed approach was applied to the Sen Bulker problem, and then compared with a full factorial design of experiments. The benefits and drawbacks associated with path influence are discussed throughout the paper.

[1]  David J. Singer,et al.  The use of network theory to model disparate ship design information , 2014 .

[2]  Kalyanmoy Deb,et al.  An integrated approach to automated innovization for discovering useful design principles: Case studies from engineering , 2014, Appl. Soft Comput..

[3]  Thomas A. McKenney,et al.  An Early-Stage Set-Based Design Reduction Decision Support Framework Utilizing Design Space Mapping and a Graph Theoretic Markov Decision Process Formulation , 2013 .

[4]  Michael G. Parsons,et al.  Intelligent Ship Arrangements: A New Approach to General Arrangement , 2008 .

[5]  Alan Brown,et al.  Dynamics of Naval Ship design : a systems approach. , 1999 .

[6]  Justin W. Gillespie,et al.  A Network Science Approach to Understanding and Generating Ship Arrangements in Early-Stage Design. , 2012 .

[7]  Tyson R. Browning,et al.  Applying the design structure matrix to system decomposition and integration problems: a review and new directions , 2001, IEEE Trans. Engineering Management.

[8]  M. Greenberg Advanced Engineering Mathematics , 1988 .

[9]  David J. Singer,et al.  Identifying drivers of general arrangements through the use of network measures of centrality and hierarchy , 2013 .

[10]  Pratyush Sen,et al.  Interactive tradeoff analysis and preference modelling for preliminary multiobjective ship design synthesis , 1996 .

[11]  Dgm Watson,et al.  SOME SHIP DESIGN METHODS , 1977 .

[12]  K J MacCallum UNDERSTANDING RELATIONSHIPS IN MARINE SYSTEMS DESIGN , 1982 .

[13]  M. S. Bazaraa,et al.  Nonlinear Programming , 1979 .

[14]  Reinhard Diestel,et al.  Graph Theory , 1997 .

[15]  D. J. Andrews,et al.  Art and science in the design of physically large and complex systems , 2012, Proceedings of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences.

[16]  David J. Singer,et al.  Generating functional complex-based ship arrangements using network partitioning and community preferences , 2013 .

[17]  P. Sen,et al.  Multiple Objective Decision Making , 1998 .

[18]  Mark Newman,et al.  Networks: An Introduction , 2010 .

[19]  Robert Smith,et al.  Ship Design Process Modeling: Capturing a Highly Complex Process , 2011 .

[20]  D K Brown DEFINING A WARSHIP , 1986 .