5 views

Uploaded by talabiz

ORCA 3DHullform 2012

- 16026-48196-1-PB
- South Korea Shipyard Confident in Crisis - The New York Timesvfd
- Manning of ships.doc
- Fin Stabilizers Mp 03 14
- Ships Documents
- MAIB-Incident-Investigation-Man Overboard during Cargo Operations-Dette G.pdf
- 29.IJMPERDAPR201829
- 10.1.1.123.849
- MEPC.282_70____SEEMP_Guidelines (1)
- Appendix 12 - IMO Ship Shore safety checklist Form
- Abbreviations of Imo Codes
- dtl_ttl_2012d11_Mwasenga.pdf
- Sword Art Online 13 - Alicization Dividing
- Star Wars Combat (1)
- Lecture 00 MAR3034 Ship Design
- Revision of the Load Line Convention (Kat)
- Watch Keeping Contents of Bridge Procedures Guide
- L6_1 - Outfitting
- SET6000-MARITIME ENGLISH.pdf
- Check List 78 - Loading Operation

You are on page 1of 20

Synthesis and Multi-Objective Optimization

David Winyall 1, Joshua Edwards2 and Alan Brown3

ABSTRACT

This paper describes ongoing research to develop a flexible 3D hullform design process and modules with

associated performance models, and integrate these modules into an existing ship synthesis model (SSM) in

a multi-objective optimization approach to perform Naval Ship Concept and Requirements Exploration

(C&RE). Effectiveness is initially based on seakeeping indices and resistance, and then extended to a multi-

objective genetic optimization of an Offshore Patrol Vessel (OPV) total ship design.

KEY WORDS

Ship design; Hullform; Multi-objective optimization, Seakeeping, Operational Effectiveness Models

INTRODUCTION

The goal of the research described in this paper is to develop a flexible 3D hullform design process and modules based on

ORCA3D and Rhino (DRS, 2011) with associated performance models, and integrate these hullform modules into an existing

ship synthesis model (SSM) in a multi-objective optimization to perform Naval Ship Concept and Requirements Exploration

(C&RE) (Brown and Thomas 1998; Brown and Kerns 2010). Objectives include:

Establish Rhino/ORCA3D design variable lanes for displacement and semi-displacement hullforms consistent with small

naval surface combatants.

Build response surface models for estimating hullform hydrostatic, seakeeping and radar cross-section characteristics for

application in C&RE.

Assess the influence of selected ORCA3D design variables on resistance, seakeeping characteristics and RCS.

The Naval Ship Design Concept and Requirements Exploration (C&RE) process used at Virginia Tech, shown in Figure 1, is

based on a Multi-Objective Optimization approach that explores the design space to identify a non-dominated set of ship

design solutions ranked by cost, risk, and effectiveness. Our current method of calculating an Overall Measure of

Effectiveness (OMOE) used in this process is based on expert opinion and pairwise comparison. In the past, it was sufficient

in this method to use a relatively simple and traditional parametric hullform model and design variables (LBP, B, D, T, Cp,

Cx, Crd) with performance based on parametric resistance algorithms (Holtrop 1984) and seakeeping indices (Bales 1980).

Despite the useful results obtained using expert opinion for effectiveness metrics (Stock and Brown 2008; Stepanchick and

Brown 2007), more direct physics-based Operational Effectiveness Models (OEMs) starting with a detailed Design Reference

Mission (DRM) including mission Operational Situations (OpSits), conditions, and measures may provide greater confidence

in the validity of the results and a greater perception that results are unbiased and rational (Kerns et al 2011a; Kerns et al

2011b). Many of these OEMs require analyses that depend on a 3D hullform model. These analyses include resistance,

seakeeping, ship vulnerability and radar cross section. Other performance, synthesis and feasibility analyses also benefit from

having a 3D hullform model early in the design process including space, structural weight, and stability. Having a 3D model

in Concept Development also facilitates transition to preliminary design. Fine tuning and detailed optimization of the

hullform using more sophisticated models and methods can come later, but greatly benefit from a solid foundation based on

early decisions that are consistent with the overall cost/effectiveness/risk of the total ship design.

1

Graduate Student, Aerospace and Ocean Engineering, Virginia Tech (VT), Blacksburg, VA, USA

2

Undergraduate Student, Aerospace and Ocean Engineering, Virginia Tech (VT), Blacksburg, VA, USA

3

Professor, Aerospace and Ocean Engineering, Virginia Tech (VT), Blacksburg, VA, USA

Figure 1: Concept and Requirements Exploration Process (C&RE)

Simulations and optimization algorithms can be combined together early using Simulation-Based Design (SBD) techniques

including response surface models to provide inexpensive approximations of expensive analysis codes. For hullform

modeling, it is helpful to use models that are not overly complex, but that inherently include reasonable physical and

feasibility constraints, and a practical set of design variables that capture important characteristics of the basic hull geometry

to be modeled. It is also advantageous to use as much commercial-of-the-shelf software as possible. Rhino with an ORCA3D

plugin (DRS, 2011) was selected for the hullform modeling tool used in this paper based on this criteria.

Perform hullform match runs using Rhino/Orca3D and establish design lanes for Orca3D Hull Assistant design

variables (DVs) consistent with displacement and semi-displacement hullforms used in small to medium naval

surface combatants. Develop a rational process and criteria to pre-set values and reduce the Orca3D design space to

a manageable size.

Perform a Design of Experiments (DOE) in Model Center (MC) with Rhino/Orca3D, extract hullform resistance

data from the Holtrop-Mennen utility in Orca3D, interface with a seakeeping analysis code, and interface with radar

cross section (RCS) analyses.

Collect data and build hullform response surface models. Conduct further variable screening and data analyses.

Build the final hullform RSMs for integration with the SSM. Analyze important relationships and influence between

Orca3D DVs and performance predictions for hydrostatics, resistance, seakeeping, and radar cross section.

Perform various multi-objective optimizations to better understand performance trade-offs.

Incorporate the new hullform model in a SSM and search the design space for non-dominated designs.

HULLFORM DESIGN

One of the most difficult steps in designing a hull is creating the initial 3D shape; modifying and fairing the shape is

relatively straightforward. We use Orca3D Hull Assistant for our hullform design tool (DRS 2011). Orca3D includes a

number of Hull Assistants that allow the user to specify a set of practical design parameters and create a 3D NURBS surface

which can then be modified and faired in Rhino to produce a final hull shape. Orca3D adds the capability in Rhino to define

sections, buttocks, waterlines, cant frames, inclines, and diagonals, and compute intact hydrostatics.

Figure 2 illustrates the somewhat unique design variables used in the Orca3D Hull Assistant to define a 3D NURBS

hullform. The approach takes advantage of the general characteristics of a displacement hullform and shapes the hull using

familiar characteristics, but does not explicitly use the more traditional sectional area curve and area/volume ratios that are

very common. Implicit in these variables and their permissible ranges are reasonable constraints and characteristics for a

displacement hull. This reduces the requirement for additional constraints in the optimization process.

Figure 2: Orca3D Design Variables (DRS 2011)

The Orca3D Hull Assistant uses 33 design variables, but it was hoped that many of these could be predetermined and set to

fixed values for all designs, effectively reducing the design space to a series of designs with some common characteristics

consistent with the mission and good practice. Since the literature provides no established design lanes for these variables, we

first set out to reverse-engineer a collection of recent surface combatant hullforms, and for contrast several other naval

surface ship hullforms, by modeling/matching these in Orca3D. Best-fit values of Orca3D DVs to match these hullforms

were determined by fitting ORCA-generated hullforms to imported IGES models of the target hullforms. First

approximations at matching Orca3D hullforms to the targets were created by hand using the Hull Assistant and visually

comparing the ORCA hulls to the target hulls. These manual matches gave a good starting point for optimized fits that were

performed by running Orca3D from Model Center and using Model Centers gradient optimizer to minimize the difference

between the Orca3D hull and the target IGES hull offsets. Figure 3 shows the hullform match for a DDG hullform.

Table 1 lists the Orca3D DV values for some of the matched hulls. These values were analyzed and interpreted to choose a

subset of the Orca3D hull assistant variables as Design Variables (DVs) with design lanes for use in the hull design process,

and the remainder as Design Parameters (DPs) with fixed values for all designs based the match results. A summary of this

analysis with conclusions is provided in Table 2.

Table 1: Orca3D Design Variable (DV) Values from Match Runs

Variables: Ships:

Num UI ARS50 DDG 51 FFG 7 LPD17 NSC OPC TAKE WHEC 378

Mean Match Difference: 0.054 0.096 0.082 0.021 0.047 0.027 0.077 0.064

1 Length on Deck [m] 77.430 154.480 136.000 208.000 125.550 108.470 210.000 113.080

2 Beam on Deck[m] 15.540 20.210 14.260 30.000 16.080 16.460 32.000 12.600

3 Depth @ Bow [m] 10.370 16.800 9.410 19.000 12.000 10.200 25.650 11.050

4 Depth @ Transom [m] 10.370 9.860 9.410 19.000 12.000 10.200 25.650 8.400

5 Draft [m] 5.000 6.200 4.380 5.000 0.100 5.000 5.000 5.000

6 Transom Height (abv BL) [m] 4.000 5.800 4.000 6.000 3.310 3.625 9.500 3.200

7 Max Area Location 0.500 0.500 0.500 0.484 0.500 0.500 0.550 0.500

8 Long'l Prismatic Control 0.450 0.351 0.050 0.309 0.250 0.250 0.450 0.450

9 Section Tightness Fwd 0.700 0.200 0.500 0.501 0.994 0.700 0.500 0.600

10 Section Tightness Mid 0.800 0.990 0.400 0.401 0.900 0.700 0.400 0.500

11 Section Tightness Aft 0.500 1.000 0.300 0.801 1.000 0.990 0.600 0.300

12 Deadrise Fwd 1.000 0.836 1.000 0.800 0.300 1.000 1.000 0.900

13 Deadrise Mid 0.009 0.200 0.800 0.028 0.300 0.100 0.100 0.300

14 Deadrise Aft 0.100 0.002 0.800 0.292 0.011 0.100 0.200 0.300

15 Side Slope Fwd 1.000 0.999 0.800 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.900 0.900

16 Side Slope Mid 0.012 0.198 0.100 0.077 0.200 0.300 0.000 0.200

17 Side Slope Aft 0.100 0.199 0.300 0.000 0.200 0.200 0.000 0.200

18 Flare Fwd 1.000 0.999 0.500 0.936 1.000 0.997 1.000 1.000

19 Flare Mid 0.002 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.100

20 Flare Aft 0.000 0.002 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.500 0.000

21 Sheer Height 0.800 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.700 1.000 1.000

22 Sheer Height Position 0.500 0.500 0.500 0.500 0.500 0.200 0.500 0.500

23 Fullenss Fwd 0.300 0.600 0.300 0.199 0.400 0.400 0.000 0.500

24 Fullness Aft 0.000 0.956 0.100 0.400 0.400 0.400 0.100 0.500

25 Stem Rake [deg] 29.004 37.154 47.000 27.168 44.555 48.022 23.000 40.000

26 Stem Curvature 0.200 0.300 -0.100 0.016 0.007 -0.500 0.000 0.100

27 Bow Rounding 0.100 0.100 0.000 0.199 0.200 0.100 0.100 0.000

28 Forefoot Shape 0.500 0.600 0.950 0.500 0.200 0.600 0.500 0.000

29 Transom Rake [deg] -11.003 -16.460 -40.000 -10.349 6.000 10.004 1.000 0.000

30 Transom Deck Width 0.500 0.611 0.700 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.780

31 Keel Rise Point 0.600 0.741 0.550 0.589 0.699 0.500 0.700 0.500

32 Vel0 0.296 0.300 0.400 0.394 0.300 0.400 0.100 0.300

33 Vel1 0.005 0.229 0.050 0.106 0.200 0.000 0.100 0.100

34 Number of Net Columns 12.000 12.000 12.000 12.000 12.000 12.000 12.000 12.000

35 Number of Net Rows 9.000 9.000 9.000 9.000 9.000 9.000 9.000 9.000

Table 2: Orca3D Hullform Match Summary and Conclusions

As shown in Table 2, we determined that 10 Orca3D hullform DVs were required. The remaining Orca3D parameters were

set to the same values for all designs. For our small surface combatant, our only dimensional DV was LOA which we varied

from 90-110 meters. For L/B and B/T ratios we chose well-established design lanes of 7-10 and 2.8-3.2, respectively. D10

was determined based on USN criteria for minimum freeboard forward and aft. For our initial studies we used zero sheer with

the plan to add a raised deck step to the final design, its location determined by a raised deck coefficient Crd, with a value of

0.6-0.8 defining the longitudinal location of raised deck step as a fraction of LBP. The remaining Orca3D design variables

and parameters had values as listed in Table 2 with rationale listed in the right hand column.

HULLFORM PERFORMANCE MODEL AND PERFORMANCE RSMs

Our Ship Synthesis Model (SSM) requires the calculation of various hullform characteristics and performance to assess the

balance, feasibility and effectiveness of alternative designs. Running Orca3D and related hullform performance software as

part of a multi-objective genetic optimization (MOGO) greatly increases optimization run time and the likelihood of crashes

and other issues during the optimation which can take many hours. It is also desireable upfront to screen design variables for

their influence on performance and verify program performance. Our approach to these issues is to conduct a Design of

Experiments (DOE) before and separate from the MOGO for our hullform design space to generate representative hullform

performance data sufficient to build hullform performance Response Surface Models (RSMs) and assess hullform DV

influence on performance.

We run DOEs, build RSMs and run optimizations, including our MOGO, using Model Center software (Phoenix Integration

2011). We typically merge data from a full-factorial DOE with a Latin-Hypercube DOE to obtain a good coverage of the

design space including the boundaries. We use polynomial or Kriging RSMs depending on their quality of fit for a particular

problem. Figure 4 shows four modules integrated in Model Center for running our hullform DOE. The Orca3D module

receives DV inputs and interfaces externally with Rhino/Orca3D to build a hullform as described, perform hydrostatic

analysis, perform a resistance calculation using a HydroComp, Inc. Holtrop/Mennen algorithm supplied with Orca3D,

generate a set offsets and calculate specified response location coordinates for input into our PDStrip seakeeping module. The

PDStrip module interfaces externally with a public-domain strip theory program, PDStrip (Source: Forge 2006) to perform

our initial seakeeping analysis. PDStrip computes the seakeeping characteristics of ships and other floating bodies using

Sodings method (Soding 1969) to calculate motions.

Seastate 4-5 is used as the limiting seastate for this paper. A significant wave height of 3 meters, modal wave period of 10

seconds and long-crested waves in head seas are used for calculating significant motions. Head seas and motions in the

vertical plane are considered worse-case in this analysis with the assumption that roll can be addressed in the design synthesis

by considering the design GM/B ratio when more is known about the ships weight distribution and KG. Significant heave,

pitch, vertical displacement at Station 15 and the approximate center of a helicopter deck (s3S15), vertical acceleration at

Station 10 (midships) and the approximate location of the bridge (a3S10), relative vertical displacement at Station 20 and the

approximate location of a stern boat ramp (r3S20), and relative vertical displacement at Station 0 and the keel (r3S0) are

computed. These motions are considered separately and combined into a simple seakeeping index similar to Bales, 1980 and

McCreight, 1984, and as discussed by Sarioz 2006.

Design data is extracted from Orca3D and PDStrip using a Design of Experiments (DOE) in Model Center over a pre-defined

design space as shown in Figure 4 and Figure 5. This data is used to build Response Surface Models (RSMs) for application

in variable screening, analysis, the total ship synthesis model, and optimization. Rhino/ORCA3D are kept open in the

background as the DOE is run in Model Center. Hullforms are generated as shown in Figure 6, hydrostatics, resistance and

seakeeping are analyzed, and the data is returned and collected in Model Center. POFACETS is a program for analyzing

radar cross section. We have interfaced POFACETS with our hullform geometry and we are in the process of adding a

deckhouse to this automated process at which time RCS will be addressed. It is not discussed further in this paper. Influence

plots generated from the DOE data are shown in Figure 7, and representative cuts of the Response Surface Models (RSMs)

built from the data are shown in Figure 8.

Influence diagrams are used to screen DVs for their relative effect on model responses, in this case hydrostatic characteristics,

resistance and sustained speed, and ship motions, represented in Figure 7 by sustained speed for a specified propulsion

effective power, hull form displacement, and pitch significant amplitude in the specified seastate.

Figure 5: Setup of Hullform Design of Experiments (DOE)

Sustained Speed (Vs) Displacement Pitch

Figure 8: Response Surface Model Cuts Generated from DOE Data

Response surface models, illustrated in Figure 8, are used in the ship synthesis model as surogates to reduce optimization run

time and improve robustness. Sustained speed varies significantly with available power. It decreases with increasing LOA in

this analysis despite the effect of reduced speed to length ratio because LOA is the major driver for ship dimensions and

displacement. For a given LOA, sustained speed increases with increasing L/B and B/T ratios. Sustained speed is also very

sensitive to Deadrise Midship, Longitudinal Prismatic Control, and Section Tightness. Hydrostatic characteristics including

displacement vary as expected with LOA, B, T and Prismatic Control and are also very sensitive to Deadrise and Section

Tightness. Significant pitch amplitude is also sensitive to Deadrise, Fullness Forward and Section Tightness.

As a preliminary application of the hullform RSMs, before insertion in the ship synthesis model, a multi-objective

optimization was run with objectives to minimize required shaft power at endurance speed (14 knots) and to maximize a

simple Seakeeping Index (SKI), Equation (1), developed considering important motion operational criteria for an OPV in Sea

State 5 with significant wave height of 3 meters and modal period of 10 seconds in long-crested waves and head seas. Results

for this optimization are shown in Figure 9 through Figure 16. In each of these figures, points represent individual hullform

designs and designs closest to the upper left hand corner of the plots dominate. Colored points are constrained to

displacements between 1500MT and 1600 MT to visualize the impact of hullform design variables without the influence of

displacement. Variations of color in each plot show the variation of the respective design variable in different regions of the

design space with their respective performance in resistance and seakeeping. All of the non-dominated designs in this

displacement range had LOAs close to 90 meters indicating that this lower value may be constraining the design space and

should be checked during ship synthesis when this trend could change.

where:

x3 = significant heave (m)

x5 = significant pitch (deg)

s3S15 = significant vertical displacement at Station 15 (approximate center of helo deck (m)

a3S10 = vertical acceleration at Station 10 (approximate location of the bridge) (m)

r3S20 = relative vertical displacement at Station 20 (approximate location of a stern boat ramp) (m)

r3S0 = relative vertical displacement at Station 0 and the keel (m)

Figure 9: Length to Beam Ratio Figure 13: Beam to Draft Ratio

Figure 10: Longitudinal Prismatic Control Figure 14: Section Tightness Forward

Observations from Figure 9 to Figure 16 are as follows:

Figure 9 shows that values of Length to Beam ratio at the high end of its design lane (6.6-7.6) dominates for minimum

resistance.

Figure 13 shows an even stronger dominance for Beam to Draft ratio at the high end of its design lane (2.7-3.2). This

could indicate that the L/B and B/T design lanes should be extended to higher values, but in the final ship synthesis

considering effectiveness and cost higher values are not as dominant.

Figure 10 indicates that low values in the design lane of the Longitudinal Prismatic Control parameter (0.1-0.4) are

favored for low resistance and high values are favored for maximum seakeeping index. There is a clear trade-off here.

Similarly Figure 14 shows that low values in the design lane of the Forward Section Tightness parameter (0.15-0.99) are

favored for low resistance and values higher than 0.5 are favored for maximum seakeeping index. There is also a clear

trade-off here, whereas Figure 11 shows that low values for Midship Section Tightness (0.4-0.99) are preferred for all

non-dominated designs in this displacement range.

Figure 15 indicates that high values (less full) in the design lane for Fullness Forward (0.3-0.6) are favored for low

resistance and medium values are favored for maximum seakeeping index. There is a clear trade-off here.

A large Stem Rake was preferred for all non-dominated designs in this displacement range with negative Stem Curvature

(-0.3to0.3) preferred for low resistance and positive curvature preferred for seakeeping.

Figure 17 through Figure 22 assess the consistency of individual seakeeping parameters with respect to the seakeeping index.

Figure 17 shows that the lowest significant heave for these designs is consistent with a high seakeeping index. Pitch shown in

Figure 19 is remarkably low for all of the non-dominated designs because of its importance to a number of the other

seakeeping parameters (s3S15, r3S20, r3S0). The lowest r3S20, s3S15, a3S10, and r3S0 also all occur consistent with a high

seakeeping index. This correlation indicates that the seakeeping index was a reasonable choice for this optimization.

Finally, Figure 23 shows that maximum sustained speed is also consistent with low endurance speed SHP as would generally

be expected.

Figure 17: Heave Significant Amplitude (meters) Figure 19: Pitch Significant Amplitude (degrees)

Figure 18: r3S20, Relative Vertical Displacement, Sta 20, DWL (m) Figure 20: s3S15, Vertical Displacement, Sta 15 (m)

Figure 21: a3S10, Vertical Acceleration, Sta 10, Bridge (m/s2) Figure 22: Relative r3S0, Vertical Displacement, Sta 0, BL (m)

As a final analysis of this non-dominated set, three designs were selected for further discussion. These designs are shown in

Figure 24. Design 21379 is the non-dominated design with maximum seakeeping index. Design 26734 is the non-dominated

design with minimum endurance speed resistance. Design 8428 is a non-dominated design at the knee-of-the-curve with a

high seakeeping index and good resistance. Table 3 lists the characteristic for these designs and Figure 25 shows the hullform

geometry.

Table 3: Selected Designs Characteristics

knee high SK low R

Design 8428

Design 21379

Design 26734

Figure 25: Selected Designs - Hullforms

Design 21379 has the best SKI. It has the lowest length to beam ratio, a prismatic control equal to the maximum of 0.4, the

highest section tightness forward, the highest deadrise midships, the lowest fullness forward, the highest stem rake and the

highest positive stem curvature. All of these are consistent with the non-dominated results.

Design 26734 has the lowest endurance resistance and highest sustained speed. It has the highest LtoB ratio, lowest prismatic

control, the lowest section tightness forward, lowest deadrise midships, the highest fullness forward, and a low negative stem

curvature. All of these are consistent with the non-dominated results. Design 8428 DV values are between Designs 21379 and

26734 in most cases.

Pitch RAOs for these designs are shown in Figure 26. Design 21379 shows the lowest response although Design 8428 is very

close. Again, Design 26734 shows the largest pitch response.

Figure 27 plots the pitch significant response for Design 21379 in a polar plot as a function of ship speed and heading. This

shows that head sea vertical motions at 14 knots were a reasonable choice for the seakeeping index and for seakeeping

optimization.

Figure 27: Design 21379 Sea State 5 Significant Pitch Response (deg)

SHIP SYNTHESIS MODEL AND MULTI-OBJECTIVE OPTIMIZATION

As discussed earlier in the paper, the Naval Ship Design Concept and Requirements Exploration (C&RE) process used at

Virginia Tech, Figure 1, includes a Multi-Objective Genetic Optimization (MOGO) that explores the design space to identify

a non-dominated set of ship design solutions ranked by cost, risk, and effectiveness. Integral to this optimization is a ship

synthesis model (SSM) that assembles the designs and assesses their balance, feasibility, performance, effectiveness, cost and

risk. Response surface model modules for hullform hydrostatics, resistance and seakeeping were developed as described in

the previous sections and used to represent the 3D hullforms developed in Rhino/ORCA3D.

The SSM and MOGO will be presented here in the context of an Offshore Patrol Vessel (OPV) design case study. OPV is

intended to bridge the gap between the USCGs smaller FRCs and larger NSCs. It will be deployed primarily in the

outskirts of littoral regions of the Americas with the capability to stay at sea for extended periods of time. The primary

responsibilities will be Port, Waterway and Coastal Security (PWCS) and Search and Rescue (SAR). PWCS includes, but is

not limited to, the enforcement of exclusion zones and the performance of tactical reconnaissance in and around US maritime

ports. SAR will require the vessel to be capable of rescuing multiple individuals and towing any ship up to the OPVs weight

that is incapacitated. To aid in search and rescue OPV will have aerial support for helicopters and VAUVs. The OPV will

also be heavily involved in Drug Interdiction (DRUG), in which the vessel will conduct maritime interception of trafficking

operations as well the search and seizure of suspected vessels. Migrant Interdiction (AMIO) will require OPV to be capable at

all times to provide humanitarian support to any parties in need as well being fully capable to manage any number of refugees

that are intercepted. The vessel will be also be responsible for the Protection of Living Marine Resources (LMR) which

entails the enforcement of maritime fishing and wildlife regulations and the apprehension of non-cooperative vessels and

those on board. Finally, OPV is charged with Defense Readiness (DR) in which the vessel must engage in the collection of

tactical intelligence and the provision of Harbor Defense and Port Security.

Following the C&RE process shown in Figure 1, a clear mission definition was developed including a Mission Essential Task

List (NMETL), Operational Situations, a Design Reference Mission (DRM) and Required Operational Capabilities (ROCs).

Measures of Performance (MOPs) were developed from these which were assembled in an Overall Measure of Effectiveness

(OMOE) using the Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) and expert opinion. The resulting OMOE hierarchy is shown in

Figure 28 with the resulting MOP weights in Figure 29. A technology risk register and Overall Measure of Risk (OMOR)

were also developed. An enhanced weight-based cost model was used to estimate acquisition and total ownership costs. The

design space for hullform, power and propulsion, mission/combat systems including boats, helos and UAVs, Table 4, was

developed to consider a broad range of available and required technologies and systems.

Figure 29: Measure of Performance (MOP) Weights from AHP/Expert Opinion

Table 4: OPV Design Variables

Figure 30: OPV Ship Synthesis Model for Multi-Objective Optimization

Once the objective metrics and design space are developed, response surface models developed for the design space

(including hullform hydrostatics, resistance and seakeeping) are added to the ship synthesis model (SSM) in Model Center,

Figure 30. The following is a description of the modules in the SSM configured for the Offshore Patrol Vessel (OPV) design:

- Input Module: Inputs all design variables and parameter values. Provides inputs to other modules.

- Combat Systems: Extracts combat systems data from the combat systems data tables as specified by the selected combat

systems design variables. Calculates payload SWBS weights, VCGs, areas and electric power requirements.

- Propulsion Module: Extracts propulsion system data from propulsion system data tables as specified by the selected

propulsion system design variables. These tables are generated by modeling similar power plants in ASSET using a

single baseline design. The module calculates the characteristics of the propulsion and power generation systems using

this data.

- Hull Form Module: This is a Response Surface Model (RSM) that calculates hullform hydrostatic characteristics,

volume and areas based on the input of ORCA3D design variables.

- Space Available Module: Uses simple geometric equations to estimate areas and volumes of the hull above the

waterline and deckhouse. Also calculates the minimum required depth, hull cubic number, and the height and volume

requirements of the machinery box.

- Electric Module: Calculates the maximum marginal electric load (KWMFLM), required generator power (KWGREQ),

required 24 hour average electric power (KW24AVG), and the required auxiliary machinery room volume (VAUX). The

module estimates the systems power requirements using known values or parametric equations, sums and applies

margins. It also uses response surface models to determine manning.

- Resistance Module: This is a Response Surface Model (RSM) that calculates hullform resistance at endurance speed

and sustained speed based on the input of ORCA3D design variables and propulsion power.

- Weight Module: Calculates single digit SWBS weights, total weight and full load weights and VCGs. The module uses

a combination of known weights and parametric equations to calculate the SWBS weights. This module uses fuel as a

slack variable meaning that the fuel weight is calculated as the difference of the total displacement on the design

waterline and the sum of all other weights except fuel. This fuel weight is used to calculate Endurance range in the

Tankage module which is then evaluated for feasibility in the Feasibility module and used to calculate OMOE in the

OMOE module. The balancing of ship weight and buoyancy is therefore obtained without iteration. The module also

calculates the KG, KB and GM for the design.

- Tankage Module: Calculates required tankage volumes based on fuel weight and parametric equations. The module

uses a number of input variables including specific volumes for the fluids, fuel weight, ballast type, specific fuel

consumption from engines, total power at endurance speed and electric load. All fuel tankage calculations are based on

DDS 200-1 requirements. Outputs for the tankage module include required tankage volumes and endurance range.

- Space-Required Module: Calculates required areas for deckhouse and total ship using parametric equations. Required

inputs include beam, hull volume, tankage volume, average deck height and crew size.

The Darwin Multi-Objective Optimizer is used to search the design space for non-dominated designs resulting in the 3-D and

2-D non-dominated frontiers shown in Figure 31 and Figure 32. Non-dominated objective attributes are total ownership cost

(CTOC), overall effectiveness (OMOE) and overall risk (OMOR). Medium risk designs show two clear knees-in-the-curve at

$320M and $360M. These coincide closely with steps in propulsion power from the lower to higher options.

Figure 33 shows the distribution in seakeeping index for the non-dominated set with a mean of 0.575, lower-midrange for the

designs optimized only for seakeeping and resistance. Figure 36 shows the non-dominated set distribution for sustained speed

with three speed ranges corresponding to the three main engine options.

Of the design variables discussed above which seemed to max (or min) out in the optimization for seakeeping and resistance,

we find good distributions for Length to Beam ratio (Figure 34), Section Tightness Midships (Figure 35), and Stem Rake

(Figure 38). Only Beam to Draft ratio continued to push its upper limit and could benefit from being extended up to 3.4 or

3.5. Overall the hullform, seakeeping and resistance modules functioned very well in the MOGO with consistent results

throughout.

Figure 33: Non-Dominated Set Seakeeping Index Figure 36: Non-Dominated Set Sustained Speed

Figure 34: Non-Dominated Set Length to Beam Ratio Figure 37: Non-Dominated Set Beam to Draft Ratio

Figure 35: Non-Dominated Set Section Tightness Midship Figure 38: Non-Dominated Set Stem Rake (deg)

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

In this paper, we have described the application of Rhino/ORCA3D and PDStrip to hullform generation and analysis.

Rhino/ORCA3D design lanes were developed for a medium-sized surface combatant displacement hull, and a working

understanding of the relationship between Rhino/ORCA3D design variables, seakeeping and resistance was developed and

presented. Response surface models for hullform hydrostatics, resistance and seakeeping were derived from data using

Rhino/ORCA3D and PDStrip. These models were applied as modules in a hullform-only optimization and in a multi-

objective genetic optimization of an OPV ship design. These modules worked very effectively in both optimizations

providing consistent and effective results in both.

Future work includes adding a bulbous bow and a simple deckhouse to the hullform design, radar cross-section analysis,

basic subdivision, an automated interface for hull structural design and optimization, and an early stage vulnerability analysis.

Similar work has also been completed for a semi-planing hullform which will be the subject of a future paper. We are also

exploring the application of physics-based operational effectiveness models (OEMs) in place of our expert opinion-based

effectiveness models. These OEMs will require more quantitative ship motions analysis and integration in operations like

helo launch and recovery and boat launch and recovery. These will also be subjects of our future work.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The authors wish to thank our gracious sponsor, Ms. Kelly Cooper, ONR 33, for her support of this project.

REFERENCES

BALES, N.K., Optimizing the Seakeeping Performance of Destroyer-type Hulls, 13th Symposium on Naval

Hydrodynamics, Shipbuilding Research Association of Japan, Tokyo, 1980

BROWN, A.J., THOMAS, M., "Reengineering the Naval Ship Concept Design Process," From Research to Reality in Ship

Systems Engineering Symposium, ASNE, 1998

Brown, A.J., KERNS, C., Multi-Objective Optimization in Naval Ship Concept Design, Marine Systems and Technology

(MAST) 2010 Conference, Rome, Italy, 9-11 November 2010

KERNS, C., BROWN, A.J., WOODWARD, D., Application of a DoDAF Total-Ship System Architecture in Building

Naval Ship Operational Effectiveness Models, MAST Americas 2011, Washington DC, 1416 November, 2011

KERNS, C., BROWN, A,J., WOODWARD, D., Application of a DoDAF Total-Ship System Architecture in Building a

Design Reference Mission for Assessing Naval Ship Operational Effectiveness, ASNE Global Deterrence and Defense

Symposium, Bloomington, IN, September 13-14, 2011

HOLTROP, J., "A Statistical Re-Analysis of Resistance and Propulsion Data", International Shipbuilding Progress, Vol. 31,

No. 363 November, 1984

MCCREIGHT, W.R., Estimating the Seakeeping Qualities of Destroyer-Type Hulls, DTNSRDC Report/ SPD-1074-01,

January, 1984

SARIOZ, K. and SARIOZ, E., Practical Seakeeping Performance Measures for High Speed Displacement Vessels, Naval

Engineers Journal, No. 4, 2006

STROCK, J., BROWN, A.J., Methods for Naval Ship Concept and Propulsion System Technology Exploration in a CGX

Case Study, Naval Engineers Journal, Vol. 120, No. 4, pp. 95-122, 2008

STEPANCHICK, J., BROWN, A.J., Revisiting DDGX/DDG-51 Concept Exploration, Naval Engineers Journal, Vol. 119,

No. 3, 67-88, 2007

SODING, H., Eine Modifikation der Streifenmethode, Schiffstechnik, 16, pp.15-18, 1969

Source Forge, Open Source Software, PDStrip Public Domain Strip Method, http://pdstrip.sourceforge.net/, 2006.

- 16026-48196-1-PBUploaded byV Jinmates
- South Korea Shipyard Confident in Crisis - The New York TimesvfdUploaded byneelnaik1986
- Manning of ships.docUploaded byJithin Varalil
- Fin Stabilizers Mp 03 14Uploaded bynguyenvanquyetvtt
- Ships DocumentsUploaded bySto Cu
- MAIB-Incident-Investigation-Man Overboard during Cargo Operations-Dette G.pdfUploaded byVasileios Iliopoulos
- 29.IJMPERDAPR201829Uploaded byTJPRC Publications
- 10.1.1.123.849Uploaded byBill Kelso
- MEPC.282_70____SEEMP_Guidelines (1)Uploaded byFarich Firmansyah
- Appendix 12 - IMO Ship Shore safety checklist FormUploaded byCharalampos Bar
- Abbreviations of Imo CodesUploaded byMasterPie1950
- dtl_ttl_2012d11_Mwasenga.pdfUploaded byfrida calist
- Sword Art Online 13 - Alicization DividingUploaded byRaffy Gomez
- Star Wars Combat (1)Uploaded byHoooooob
- Lecture 00 MAR3034 Ship DesignUploaded byyan9naing9shin
- Revision of the Load Line Convention (Kat)Uploaded byCláudio Tavares
- Watch Keeping Contents of Bridge Procedures GuideUploaded byArnab Poddar
- L6_1 - OutfittingUploaded byFlavio Moraes
- SET6000-MARITIME ENGLISH.pdfUploaded byjm cabal
- Check List 78 - Loading OperationUploaded byprakash7k
- ECL6 Bunkering Safety ChecklistUploaded byyvonne22
- Geometry of Ships - LetcherUploaded bySven Klinkhamer
- Ship Collision and Grounding Simulations as a Part of Regional Risk AssessmentUploaded byKristjan Tabri
- OCIMF Drug and AlcoholUploaded byJeffry
- Resume Gcf EnglishUploaded byGilberto Ciro
- Star Wars - D6 - Stock ShipsUploaded byjames lucas
- ImmersiveUploaded byBlades Dee
- Iims Btec Hnc Hnd ProspectusUploaded bydiegocely700615
- Letcher, John S., Jr.-principles of Naval Architecture Series - The Geometry of Ships-Society of Naval Architects and Marine Engineers (SNAME) (2009)Uploaded byAnonymous g7kEt3AQbu
- MANUAL AGE OF PIRATES 2Uploaded bymaldoca89

- WHO WaterUploaded byShaun Bardon-Spence
- ms-lolland_generalplan.pdfUploaded bytalabiz
- ILO - Ambient Factors in the Workplace - 2001Uploaded bynicholis
- Accident Prevention Onboard Ship at Sea and in PortUploaded byteddrill
- Iacs Class What Why HowUploaded byJuniorJavier Olivo Farrera
- [Elearnica.ir]-Dynamic Stability of Nonlinear Barge-Towing SystemUploaded bytalabiz
- Basic Principle of Ship PropulsionUploaded byShengte Hsu
- Eye Bolt - Din 580. - 10.04.07Uploaded byvtsusr fv
- CEEJ Volume 41 Issue 2 Pages 11-18Uploaded bytalabiz
- 转转大师-Word转PDF(pdftoword.55.la)Uploaded bytalabiz
- [Elearnica.ir]-High Speed Ship Structural Dynamics Practical Application to Design 2Uploaded bytalabiz
- Cfx Shortens Fan Design Time From Three Months to OneUploaded bytalabiz
- Microsoft Word - NAVSEA 05D Ship Design Certification Lab - KM Project 2007.DocUploaded bytalabiz
- 3D Printer ComparisonUploaded bytalabiz
- Aqwa Programs Tutorial-2Uploaded bySyed Hasan
- DESMI Self-Priming Centrifugal Pump Operation and Maintenance InstructionUploaded bytalabiz
- 700903 bUploaded bytalabiz
- 56 Steel Std Strt HRUploaded bytalabiz
- CH4Uploaded bytalabiz
- 7.5-02-01-02Uploaded bytalabiz
- CH3Uploaded bytalabiz
- 0062-01-0037-0006-11Uploaded bytalabiz
- 0810MA0711wUploaded bytalabiz
- CH2Uploaded bytalabiz
- 3D Printer ComparisonUploaded bytalabiz
- 10246_tcm1023-79849Uploaded bytalabiz
- 15-2014 (25-06-2014)Uploaded bytalabiz
- A Review of Battle Damage Prediction and Vulnerability Reduction MethodsUploaded bytalabiz
- Ada 444311Uploaded bytalabiz

- WheelHorse electric clutch conversion for post 1970 tractors 8-3513Uploaded byKevins Small Engine and Tractor Service
- Cigre 257 El Cid Electromagnetic Core Imperfection DetectorUploaded bymramirez1741
- 2002-01-3308Uploaded byzaza
- The Asian Angler - December 2013 Digital Issue - Malaysia - EnglishUploaded byThe Asian Publisher
- Network QuoteUploaded byIng Dario Ortega
- Montana Modeling Guideline For Air Quality PermitsUploaded byfranny73p
- Afghan Slaughterhouse Pre-Feasibility Study ADB-RBSP November 2008Uploaded bybalajicrack
- Hp Msr900 SeriesUploaded bytudocris
- Ch 06Uploaded bychaitanyachegg
- Parochial and Plain Sermons Volume 8 of 8 John Henry NewmanUploaded bythepillquill
- Fern HillUploaded byFawzia Firza
- Mahoyo - The novel on AokoUploaded bydiegokouga
- drill-cnUploaded byprakhargupta41
- ME2405 Lab Manual 1Uploaded byjaycee68
- MODUL Farma AnginaUploaded bySriLestariFajerin
- Fireball_Plus_AS_Product_Manual.pdfUploaded bymumapaduriii
- User Manual - MaxQ 4000 Incubated and Refrigerated Shakers - 7004342 - 057-287-00 Rev. 7Uploaded byAndrew Hernandez
- VMWare Interview Questions and AnswersUploaded bytubaidada
- South Africa Paper Industry v1Uploaded byNatasha Prakash
- Working at Height by Mark SuttonUploaded byDarshan
- The Morning Calm Korea Weekly - Apr. 23, 2004Uploaded byMorning Calm Weekly Newspaper
- Conveyor DesignsUploaded byajaykrishnaa
- Unit IUploaded byJackson ..
- Union Station Intermodal Transportation Center Feasibility StudyUploaded byDistrict Department of Transportation
- INDIAN STANDARD.docxUploaded byAlvin Smith
- Chassis 3S30 SchUploaded byIBSDIALLO
- CLC Main Workbench User ManualUploaded byvregtrs
- (794006897) motor de induccion.docxUploaded byJose
- neurocisticercosis actualizado 2018Uploaded byRoberth Sanchez
- UT Dallas Syllabus for ba2333.001.11s taught by Walter Johnston Jr (wlj031000)Uploaded byUT Dallas Provost's Technology Group