173

2016,28(2):173-183
DOI: 10.1016/S1001-6058(16)60619-4

Hull form optimization of a cargo ship for reduced drag*

Fuxin HUANG, Chi YANG

Department of Physics and Astronomy, George Mason University, Fairfax, VA 22030, USA,
E-mail: fhuang@gmu.edu

(Received February 25, 2016, Revised April 19, 2016)

Abstract: Hydrodynamic optimization of the hull forms can be realized through the implementation and integration of computational
tools that consist of a hydrodynamic module, a hull surface representation and modification module, and an optimization module. In
the present paper, a new bulbous bow generation and modification technique has been developed and integrated into the hull surface
representation and modification module. A radial basis function based surrogate model is developed to approximate the objective
functions and reduce the computing cost. A multi-objective artificial bee colony optimization algorithm is implemented and integra-
ted into the optimization module. To illustrate the integrated hydrodynamic optimization tools, a cargo ship is optimized for reduced
drag. The optimal hull forms obtained are then validated computationally and experimentally. Validation results show that the prese-
nt tools can be used efficiently and effectively in the simulation based design of the hull forms for reduced drag.

Key words: simulation based design, ship hull form optimization, drag reduction, radial basis function, surrogate model,
Neumann-Michell theory

Introduction based on Euler/Reynolds Averaged Navier-Stokes

Hydrodynamic optimization is an important aspe-
ct of ship design. Traditionally, hydrodynamic design
optimization of ship hull forms is achieved using
empirical method based on the accumulated hull form
database. With the rapid development of computer
technology, modeling methods and numerical techni-
ques, computational fluid dynamics (CFD) based ship
hull form design optimization has become more widely
used in ship design.
Applications of CFD based hull form optimiza-
tion for reduced calm water resistance have been repo-
rted in a significant number of studies. These studies
attest to a rapidly growing interest in hydrodynamic
optimization[1-23]. The CFD solvers used in these stu-
dies can be classified into two categories: the low-
fidelity solver that is usually based on the potential
flow theory with various approximations on the boun-
dary conditions, and the high-fidelity solver that is
* Biography: Fuxin HUANG, Male, Ph. D.,
Research Assistant Professor
Corresponding author: Chi YANG, E-mail: cyang@gmu.edu
(RANS) equations. A low-fidelity CFD solver that
accounts for the dominate physics can give a reasona-
bly accurate flow prediction with much less compu-
ting time and it is thus good for the early stage design
that might require a very large number of flow evalua-
tions. A high-fidelity CFD solver that accounts for
more physics can give more accurate flow prediction
with much more computing time and it is thus good
for the validation of the final design. Both low-fidelity
and high-fidelity CFD tools have been integrated into
the hydrodynamics module of the present simulation
based design tool.
In addition to the flow solver, the CFD based ship
hull form design optimization requires two other com-
ponents: ship hull form modification module and opti-
mization module. In the hull form optimization proce-
ss, the low-fidelity flow solver is used to evaluate the
hydrodynamic performances of the ship hull forms that
are generated by the ship hull form modification tech-
niques according to the design variables updated by
the optimization algorithms.
In the field of ship geometry modeling for hull
form optimization, a number of techniques have been
developed. These techniques can be divided into two
categories: conventional modeling techniques and pa-
174
rametric modeling techniques[9]. Conventional mode-
ling techniques build on a low level definition of the
geometry, such as points. The points can be used to
define curves and curves can be used to define surfa-
ces. Therefore, these techniques offer a great flexibili-
ty to the modification of the geometry and topology.
However, they require many parameters in order to
conduct a fair geometry modification. These parame-
ters will serve as design variables in the optimization
process. In order to modify the ship hull form in the
optimization using conventional modeling techniques,
additional techniques, such as radial basis function
(RBF) interpolation method[15] and modification fun-
ction method[8], can be implemented to reduce the
required parameters, i.e., design variables. Parametric
modeling techniques, on the other hand, build on high-
level entities. These entities are called form paramete-
rs in the geometric modeling. The most prominent
advantage of parametric techniques is that small to
intermediate modifications can be produced very effi-
ciently. The parametric modeling of the hull form re-
quires few design variables. In the present study, a
RBF interpolation method is combined with a parame-
tric modeling technique to modify the hull form loca-
lly and globally in the optimization process.
Various optimization algorithms have been used
to minimize objective functions in the CFD based hull
form optimization. These algorithms can be divided
into two categories depending on whether the derivati-
ve of the objective function is required: the derivative
based algorithms and the derivative free algorithms.
Popular optimization algorithms, such as steepest de-
scent, Newton, and conjugate gradient, are derivative
based algorithms. With the help of gradient informa-
tion, derivative based methods usually obtain the opti-
mal solution efficiently. There are a number of appli-
cations on ship hull form optimization using derivati-
ve based optimization algorithms[6,23]. However, the
optimal solution obtained by such algorithms is a local
optimum, but not necessarily the global optimum. On
the other hand, derivative free optimization algorithms
include the direct search methods, the evolutionary
based algorithms (such as genetic algorithm and diffe-
rential evolution algorithm), and the swarm intellige-
nce based algorithms (such as particle swarm optimi-
zation algorithms, ant colony optimization algorithms,
and bee colony optimization algorithms). Many of
these derivative free optimization algorithms have im-
proved the capacity of finding the global optimum.
Derivative free algorithms have also been widely used
in the ship hull form optimizations[12-21] due to their
merits. In this study, a single objective artificial bee
colony algorithm is extended to a multi-objective arti-
ficial bee colony (MOABC) algorithm to ensure the
finding of the global optimums that meet several de-
sign needs at the same time.
In order to further reduce the computing time
required for the CFD based hull form optimization, a
radial basis function (RBF) based surrogate model is
developed in this study to approximate the objective
functions. Specifically, the simple (low-fidelity) CFD
tool is used to evaluate the objective functions at
sample points that are used to construct the RBF based
surrogate model, and the MOABC algorithm is used
to search for the optimal solutions using the RBF
based surrogate model.
The enhancement and integration of the compu-
tational tools discussed above have enabled the simu-
lation-based design of hull forms in terms of hydrody-
namic performance. The improved integrated compu-
tational tools are used for the design optimization of a
cargo ship for reduced drag in the present study. The
optimal hull forms obtained are then validated compu-
tationally and experimentally.
1. Problem statement
The aim for this study is to further develop a
simulation based design tool and apply it to optimize
the hull form for reduced drag. In order to reduce the
drag in the entire speed range, the present hull form
optimization problem can be formulated as follows:
min{ fi }( X ) subject to X ∈ S ⊆ R d (1a)
RTi − RTi , 0
fi = , i = 1, 2, 3 (1b)
RTi , 0
where fi defines objective function, RTi and RTi , 0
denote the resistance obtained for the new hull form
and the initial hull form, respectively, at three given
design speeds that cover the low, middle and high
speed, X represents the vector of design variables in
d dimension defined in terms of the parameters asso-
ciated with the hull form modification, and S is the
feasible solution set resulting from removing the por-
tion of the space R d prohibited by the constraints. In
the present study, the constraint for the optimization is
taken as the displacement, i.e., the reduction of the
displacement is less than one percent.
Table 1 Main particulars of the Series 60 hull (CB = 0.6)
LWL Beam Draft Displacement
3.101 m 0.406 m 0.163 m 0.121 m3
For the purpose of illustration, the Series 60 hull
model is taken as an initial hull and optimized for
reduced drag at three design speeds defined by Fr =
0.22, 0.27 and 0.32 using the present tools. The main
particulars of the Series 60 hull (CB = 0.6) model are
listed in Table 1 and the 3-D view of the ship hull

model is shown in Fig.1.
Fig.1 3-D view of the original Series 60 hull model
2. Methodology
The procedure for the hull form optimization
using the present simulation based design tools is de-
scribed in Fig.2.
Fig.2 Flowchart of the hull form optimization procedure
It can be observed from Fig.2 that the present
simulation based hull form design optimization proce-
dure consists of four steps. After an initial hull form is
selected and the optimization objective functions and
constraints are defined, the first step is to select appro-
priate ship hull surface modification techniques and
determine the design variables for the optimization
problem. In order to optimize hull form for reduced
drag, a steady ship flow problem needs to be solved
for all hull forms generated in the optimization proce-
ss at given design speeds using a CFD tool so that
objective functions can be evaluated. A simple CFD
tool based on linear potential flow theory can usually
be used in the optimization process if the simple CFD
tool is accurate enough in predicting the variations of
the flow solutions due to the change of the hull forms.
In order to further reduce the computing cost associa-
ted with the flow evaluations using a CFD tool, a
surrogate model is developed to approximate the obje-
ctive functions. Thus, the second step is to construct
the surrogate model in terms of the values of the obje-
ctive functions obtained using a simple CFD tool.
Once the surrogate model construction is completed, it
can then be used by a multi-objective optimizer during
the search of the optimal hull forms in the third step.
A set of optimal solutions called Pareto-front can be
175
obtained in this step. Given a set of requirements and
certain criteria, an optimal solution that defines an
optimal hull form can be chosen from the Pareto-front
in the fourth step. Considering the fact that the opti-
mal hull form is obtained using a surrogate model
based on a simple CFD tool, it is necessary to validate
the optimal hull form in this step by a RANS/Navier-
Stokes based advanced CFD tool or a model test.
The computational tools used in each step will be
discussed in details in the following subsections.
Fig.3 The definition sketch of coordinate system
2.1 Drag evaluation
Consider the steady flow about a ship advancing
in calm water. Non-dimensional coordinates x ≡ ( x,
y, z ) ≡ X / L are defined in terms of a reference
length L , typically taken as the ship length. The z
axis is vertical and points upward, and the mean free
surface is taken as the plane z = 0 . The x axis is
chosen along the path of the ship and points toward
the ship bow. The definition sketch of the coordinate
system is shown in Fig.3. The Froude number Fr
and the Reynolds number Re are defined as
U
Fr = (2)
gL
UL
Re = (3)
ν
where U is ship speed, g is gravitational accelera-
tion, and ν is kinematic viscosity of the water.
The total drag of a ship hull is approximated by
the summation of the wave drag and the friction drag.
The wave drag is calculated by the Neumann-Michell
(NM) based potential flow theory. A detailed descri-
ption of the formulation and the numerical solution
procedure for the NM theory can be found in authorsʼ
previous work[24-28]. The friction drag is determined
by an empirical formula. The total drag coefficient is
defined as
RT
CT = = CW + CF (4)
0.5ρU 2 S wet
where ρ is the water density, U is the ship speed,
S wet is the wetted surface area, RT is the total drag
176
and CW is the wave drag coefficient evaluated by non-
dimensionalizing the wave drag RW using a conven-
tional way as
RW
CW = (5)
0.5ρU 2 S wet
and CF is the frictional drag coefficient evaluated
using ITTC 1957 Model-Ship Correlation Line as
follows
0.075
CF = (6)
[lg( Re) − 2]2
The simple CFD tool (computer code SSF) is
developed based on the NM theory and the ITTC 1957
Model-Ship Correlation Line. This simple CFD tool
has been used to evaluate the wave drag and the total
drag for various monohull forms and catamarans. Nu-
merical results predicted by this simple CFD tool are
in fairly good agreement with experimental measure-
ments[24-28,30,31]. Therefore, the simple CFD tool, SSF,
is employed to evaluate the total drag of the ship hull
form in constructing the surrogate model.
2.2 Design variable selection and ship hull surface
modification method
In the present study, the Series 60 hull model is
considered for the hull form optimization for reduced
drag. Two hull modification steps are employed to
generate new hull forms in the optimization process.
The first one is to generate and modify a bulbous bow
using radial basis function interpolation method, the
second one is to modify the entire hull body using a
shifting method based on the modifications of the
sectional area curve of the hull.
A radial basis function (RBF) based interpolation
method can be used to deform the shape of the geome-
try. It has been used to generate candidate geometries
in the shape optimization, such as ship hull form opti-
mization[15,17-18]. A detailed description of the method
can be found in authors’ previous work[15].
In order to modify the hull form, two types of
control points (fixed and movable) are employed in the
RBF based interpolation method. These control points
can be defined either on or off the hull surface. The
fixed control points are used to keep the hull surface
near them unchanged. The movable control points are
used as design variables to modify the ship hull surfa-
ce in the shape optimization process. Their positions
are determined by a given optimization algorithm to
minimize the objective functions.
In the present study, the surface modification
technique based on RBF interpolation method is used
in the first step for the bulbous bow generation and
modification. Specifically, an initial bulbous bow is
generated first from the initial hull using the geometry
modification tool developed in the present study. The
size of the bulbous bow is then optimized in terms of
the hydrodynamic performance, i.e., the minimization
of the total drag, in the present study. The top figure in
Fig.4 depicts a new initial hull with a bulbous bow
generated from the Series 60 hull model, and the
bottom figure in Fig.4 depicts the new initial hull and
a definition sketch for design variables (black dot) used
in the bulbous bow optimization. Specifically, the
shape of the bulbous bow is modified through three
design variables, i.e., the movable control point (black
dot) can be repositioned along lateral, longitudinal, and
vertical directions.
Fig.4 Fixed (a) and movable (b) control points (design varia-
bles) of the radial basis function interpolation method for
the modification of the ship hull with the initial bulbous
bow
The shifting method is adopted to modify the
entire ship hull body in the second step. In the shifting
method, the longitudinal position of sections is shifted
to modify the prismatic coefficient, the longitudinal
center of buoyancy, and the parallel mid-body of the
initial hull. In the CFD-based hull form optimization,
the sectional area curve of the initial hull form is
modified during the optimization process. The new
hull form is obtained by moving the stations of the
initial hull form along the longitudinal direction. The
amount of the movement is determined by comparing
the modified sectional area curve and the original one.
When the hull surface is defined by a discrete triangu-
lation, the new hull surface can be obtained by moving
the nodes of the triangular meshes according to the
movement defined at given stations.
The sectional area curve can be described in va-
rious ways, e.g., spline polynomials. In the present
study, the following formulation has been used to
describe the sectional area curve:
f n ( x) = f 0 ( x) + g ( x, a1a , a 2 a , a1 f , a 2 f ) (7a)
  x − x1  
1/ 2
g = a1a 0.5 1 − cos 2π  , x1 ≤ x ≤ a 2a
  a 2 a − x1  
(7b)
1/ 2
  x − a 2a 
g = −a1a 0.5 1 − cos 2π  , a 2 a ≤ x ≤ x2
  a 2 a − x2  
(7c)
 177

 
1/ 2 variables as well as the modification methods associa-
x − x3   ted with each design variable are defined in Table 2.
g = α1 f 0.5 1 − cos 2π  , x3 ≤ x ≤ α 2 f
  α 2 f − x3  
Table 2 Summary of the design variables
(7d)
No. Definition Modification Range
1/ 2
  x − α 2 f  1
Bulbous
RBF 1 ( x) [0.508, 0.52]
g = −α1 f 0.5 1 − cos 2π  , α 2 f ≤ x ≤ x4 bow length
  α 2 f − x4  
Bulbous
(7e) 2 RBF 1 ( y ) [0.00198, 0.00698]
bow width
Bulbous
g = 0 , elsewhere (7f) 3 RBF 1 ( z ) [−0.0316, − 0.0146]
bow height
Entrance
where f n ( x) denotes the new sectional area curve, 4 SAC α1 f [−0.012, 0.012]
angle
f o ( x) the initial sectional area curve, g ( x, a1a , a 2 a , Fore-body
5 SAC α 2 f [0.2, 0.35]
αα variation
1 f , 2 f ) the shape function, a1a , a 2a , α1 f and α 2 f

the parameters determined during the optimization, x1 6 Run angle SAC a1a [−0.015, 0.015]
and x4 are the end positions of the deformable after- After-body
7 SAC a 2a [−0.1, − 0.3]
body and fore-body, respectively, x2 and x3 are the variation

end positions of fixed middle body. The slopes of the

sectional area curve at the fore-body and after-body 2.3 Surrogate model construction
To further accelerate the optimization process, a
are defined by the parameters α1 f and a1a , respecti-
radial basis function based surrogate model is develo-
vely, and the locations of the fixed station at the fore- ped to approximate the objective functions during the
body and after-body are controlled by the parameter optimization process. The details of the RBF based
a 2a and α 2 f , respectively. By changing parameters surrogate model can be found in authors’ previous
work[19]. Four main steps are required to build a surro-
α1 f , α 2 f , a1a and a 2a , various sectional area curves
gate model in the ship hull form optimization for redu-
can be obtained, and the new hull forms can be produ- ced drag. Figure 6 shows the flowchart of these steps.
ced accordingly from the initial hull form by the shi-
fting method. A demonstration figure of the shifting
method is shown in Fig.5. The advantages of this
modification method are explained and illustrated by
Kim et al.[15].

Fig.6 Flowchart of the RBF surrogate model construction

The design of experiments (DOE) is a strategy for

Fig.5 Shape function (a) and the sectional area curves (b)
By combing two surface modification methods,
there are seven design variables in total used in the
present study. The definition and range of these design
selecting sample points in the design space that aim at
maximizing the amount of information acquired. In the
present study, the Latin hypercube sampling (LHS)
technique[32] is adopted to allocate 70 data points in
the design space. Once the sample points in the design
space are generated, the candidate hull forms can be
produced using the surface modification tool. The total
resistance can then be evaluated for these hull forms at
178
three given design speeds using the simple CFD tool
SSF to construct three RBF based surrogate models.
After the RBF based surrogate model is constru-
cted, the cross validation is performed to examine the
accuracy of the model. The basic idea of the cross
validation is to leave out one sample point, and then
predict it using the model constructed by the remaining
sample points. The difference between the exact value
of the objective function at the given sample point
evaluated by the CFD tool and the approximate value
of the objective function at the given sample point
predicted by the RBF based surrogate model constru-
cted with other sample points is calculated. If the
difference is small enough, the model is valid. Other-
wise, increase the number of sampling points, and
repeat the steps shown in Fig.6. In addition to the
evaluation of three objective functions for each sample
hull form generated, the displacement of each sample
hull form is also calculated and recorded. Therefore, a
total of four RBF based surrogate models are constru-
cted to predict the resistance at three design speeds
and the displacement of the hull forms generated in
the optimization process. The cross validations for
these models are performed and the results are shown
in Fig.7. It can be observed from Fig.7 that the estima-
ted objective function values ( f E ) given by the surro-
gate model show a good agreement with the exact
objective function values ( f C ) calculated by the CFD
tool directly or calculated in terms of the hull geome-
try directly.
Fig.7 Cross validations of the surrogate models about three
objective functions (a-c) and the constraint (d)
2.4 Multi-objective artificial bee colony optimizer
The artificial bee colony (ABC) optimization al-
gorithm is based on the intelligent foraging behavior
of the honey bee swarm and was proposed by
Karaboga[33] to solve single objective optimization
problems. The details of the algorithm can be found in
the references[33,34]. Compared with other population
based optimization algorithms, one of the advantages
of the ABC algorithm is that it requires only a few
parameters: population size, i.e., the bee colony size
(CS), the maximum number of iterations (maxCycle),
and the maximum number of trials for the bees (limit).
In the present study, a multi-objective artificial
bee colony (MOABC) algorithm is developed based
on the single objective ABC algorithm proposed by
Huang et al.[34] by introducing the dominated solution
conception and an external archive for storing non-
dominated solutions. As a result, the present MOABC
algorithm only requires one more parameter in compa-
rison with the single-objective ABC algorithm. This
new parameter defines the external archive size (AS),
i.e., the maximum number of non-dominated solutions
during the iterations.
Numerical experiments are conducted for the op-
timization of typical benchmark functions using the
MOABC optimizer developed in this study. The resu-
lts show that CS = 100 , maxCycle = 100 , limit = 100
and AS = 100 are the appropriate choices and there-
fore such settings are used in the present study.
3. Results and analysis
3.1 Optimization results
The design optimization of the Series 60 hull
model for reduced drag at three given speeds is carried
out on a desktop PC (OpenSuse 12.1, CPU: Intel R
Xeon(R) X5260 @3.33G Hz, Memory: 24GB). After
the RBF based surrogate model is constructed, it takes
less than 10 s to obtain the optimal solutions using the
MOABC optimizer. The computing time for the entire
optimization that includes the construction of the RBF
based surrogate model is about 40 min on the PC with
above configurations.
The optimal solution set, i.e., Pareto-front, obtai-
ned by the MOABC optimizer for three objective fun-
ctions defined in Eq.(1b), is plotted in Fig.8 with
empty squares. It can be observed from Fig.8 that the
relationships between objective functions f1  f 2 ,
and f1  f3 show a strong trade-off in the Pareto-
front. This implies that the hull form with the mini-
mum resistance at lower speeds does not have mini-
mum resistance at higher speeds. The hull form with
the minimum resistance at higher speeds does not
have the minimum resistance at lower speeds either. It
can also be seen from Fig.8 that the relationship
between objective functions f 2  f3 is almost linear.
Therefore, a special attention is required when desi-
gners select optimal designs from the solution of the
Pareto-front. For example, the optimal solution deno-
ted as Case 3 in Fig.8 represents an optimal hull form
 179

that has a 2%, 8%, and 9% reduction of the drag at
three design speeds, respectively, with respect to the
original hull. Two other hull forms, denoted as Case 1
and Case 2 in Fig.8, are so chosen that the hull form in
Case 1 has the largest drag reduction at the high speed
and the hull form in Case 2 has the largest drag redu-
ction at the low speed. The value of the objective fun-
ctions for the original Series 60 hull model should be
zero according to the definition given in Eq.(1b),
which is denoted as Case 0 in Fig.8.
at given design speeds with respect to the original hull
is listed in Table 3. It can be observed from Table 3
that the maximum reduction of the displacement of
the optimal hull with respect to the original hull is
0.76%, which is consistent with the constraint that the
relative reduction of the displacement should be less
than 1%.
Table 3 Relative changes of the displacement (V ) , wetted
surface area ( S wet ) , and the total resistance at
given design speeds ( RT1 , RT2 , RT3 ) of each optimal
hull with respect to the original hull
Case V/% S wet / % RT1 / % RT2 / % RT3 / %

1 −0.76 0.70 0.92 −14.21 −13.48

2 0.98 1.77 −2.07 3.95 −1.02
3 −0.02 1.02 −1.41 −8.84 −9.14

Fig.9 Comparisons of the total drag among the original hull

(Case 0) and three optimal hulls (Case 1-Case 3)

Fig.8 The Pareto-front in the objective function space

In order to compare the drag reduction, three

optimal hulls and the original hull, denoted as Cases
1-3 and Case 0 in Fig.8, respectively, are evaluated
using simple CFD tool SSF. The relative changes of
the displacement (V ) , wetted surface area ( S wet ) , and
Fig.10 Comparisons of the profiles between the original hull
the total resistance ( RT1 , RT2 , RT3 ) of each optimal hull (Case 0) and three optimal hulls (Case 1-Case 3)
180
In order to examine the performance of the
chosen optimal hull forms at off design speeds, the
total drag of the optimal hull forms are evaluated by
the simple CFD tool SSF for a range of speeds. The
comparisons of the total drag between the original hull
and the optimal hulls are plotted in Fig.9. It can be
observed from Fig.9 that the hull form in Case 3
results in a reduction of the drag in the entire speed
range, while the hull forms in Case 1 and Case 2
provide maximum reduction of the drag at high speeds
and low speeds, respectively.
Fig.11 Comparisons of the body plans between the original hull
(Case 0) and three optimal hulls (Case 1-Case 3)
The comparisons of the profiles between the ori-
ginal hull (Case 0) and three optimal hulls (Case 1-
Case 3) are plotted in Fig.10, respectively. The com-
parisons of the body plans between the original hull
(Case 0) and three optimal hulls (Case 1-Case 3) are
plotted in Fig.11, respectively. The comparison of the
sectional area curves (SAC) from the original hull and
three optimal hulls are plotted in Fig.12. As shown in
Figs.10-11, a large modification of the entire hull
form can be observed in all three optimal hulls. This is
consistent with the fact that both local and global hull
surface modifications are allowed in this study. It can
also be observed that the fairness and the practical
manufacturability are well preserved for the optimal
hull forms obtained, which demonstrates that the pre-
sent hull form modification technique is very effecti-
ve.
Fig.12 Comparisons of the sectional area curves from the ori-
ginal hull (Case 0) and three optimal hulls (Case 1-Case
3)
It should be noted that the shape of the optimal
hull forms, i.e., the size of the bulbous bow, the longi-
tudinal distribution of the displacement, depends on
the definition of the objective function, i.e., the design
speeds. The hull form with a fat bulbous bow shows
the better drag reduction at the high speed (Case 1),
but worse performance at the low speed, vice versa
(Case 2). Narrow sectional shapes of the after-body
are obtained in Case 1, while a wider sectional shape
is obtained in Case 2. Finally, a combination of the
modification of the Case 1 and Case 2 can be obse-
rved in Case 3, which results in a moderate reduction
of the drag in the entire design speed range.
3.2 Validation of the optimal hulls using a high-
fidelity CFD tool
The present simulation-based design of the opti-
mal hull forms is based on the simple (low-fidelity)
CFD tool for the evaluation of the objective functions
that define the hydrodynamic performance of the hulls.
Therefore, it is necessary to validate the hydrodyna-
mic performance of the optimal hull forms obtained
using a high-fidelity CFD tool. In the present study, a
high-fidelity open source CFD solver, called
OpenFOAM (www.openfoam.com), is used to evalua-
te the total drag of the original hull and the optimal
hull obtained from Case 1 that has the largest drag
reduction at high speeds. OpenFOAM has been vali-
dated in authors’ work for the prediction of the total
drag of a ship advancing in calm water at a constant

speed[35].
According to the prediction results from the
OpenFOAM, the relative drag of the optimal hull form
obtained in Case 1 with respect to the original hull is
reduced by 8.07% at Fr = 0.27 and by 14.5% at
Fr = 0.32 and increased by 3.8% at Fr = 0.22 The
trend predicted by the high fidelity solver is consistent
with the results obtained from the simple CFD tool
based optimization tools.
Fig.13 Comparison of wave patterns between the original hull
and the optimal hull obtained from Case 1 at three
speeds
The comparison of the wave patterns between the
original hull and the optimal hull obtained in Case 1 at
three speeds is shown in Fig.13. It can be seen from
Fig.13 that the waves generated by the optimal hull
form at high speeds ( Fr = 0.27 and 0.32) are smaller
than these by the original hull form. The waves gene-
181
rated by the original hull form and the optimal hull
form obtained in Case 1 at the low speed ( Fr = 0.22)
are comparable, which implies that there is very small
change in the wave resistance between these two hulls.
So the increase of the total resistance at the low speed
is mainly from the friction resistance due to the in-
crease of the wetted surface area. The results of wave
pattern comparison are consistent with these of wave
resistance predictions.
3.3 Validation of the optimal hulls by model tests
In order to validate the optimal hull forms obtai-
ned, a series of model tests were conducted at Wuhan
University of Technology. The initial hull model and
the optimal hull model obtained for the best perfor-
mance at the high speed (Case 1) were built and tested
in the towing tank that is 102 m long, 10.5 m wide,
and 2 m deep for a series of speeds ranging from
Fr = 0.18 to 0.34. Figure 14 shows the original hull
model and the optimal hull model used in the model
tests.
Fig.14 The optimal hull model (a) and the original hull model
(b) used in the model tests
Fig.15 Comparison of the total resistance obtained from the
experimental measurements for the original hull model
and the optimized hull model from Case 1
The comparison of the total resistance obtained
from the experimental measurements for two models
is plotted in Fig.15. It can be observed from Fig.15
that the optimal hull model obtained from Case 1 has
better performance at high speeds but worse performa-
nce at low speeds, which is consistent with the results
from the initial numerical predictions and the late vali-
dations with the high-fidelity CFD tool. Specifically,
the total resistance of the optimal hull obtained from
Case 1 is increased by 5.93% at Fr = 0.22 with respe-
ct to the original hull, while the total resistance of the
182
optimal hull obtained from Case 1 is reduced by 6.42%
and 13.10% at speeds Fr = 0.27 and 0.32 with respe-
ct to the original hull.
4. Conclusions
A simulation based design tool is further develo-
ped and enhanced in this study and applied to the
design optimization of a cargo ship for reduced drag.
This design process employs two simple ship hull
surface modification methods to modify the hull form
locally and globally during the optimization process.
The NM-theory based simple CFD tool is used for the
drag (objective function) evaluation and for the const-
ruction of a RBF based surrogate model to approxi-
mate the objective functions. A newly developed
MOABC optimizer is used together with RBF based
surrogate model to determine the optimal designs very
efficiently. A set of optimal designs, i.e., optimal hulls,
are obtained and analyzed. For the purpose of valida-
tion, a high-fidelity solver is used to evaluate the
performance of the optimal hull forms obtained. The
model tests are conducted to validate the performance
of the optimal hull forms as well.
The comparison of the numerical results and
experimental measurements show that the present op-
timization tools can produce superior hull forms with
reduced drag. This study also demonstrates that the
present multi-objective optimization tools can be used
in the simulation based design of hull forms for redu-
ced drag in the preliminary and early stage design due
to its simplicity and efficiency.
Acknowledgements
This work was sponsored by the Office of Naval
Research (ONR). Ms. Kelly Cooper is the technical
monitor. The authors would also like to thank Dr.
Baiwei Feng and Dr. Haichao Chang for conducting
the model tests sponsored by the National Natural
Science Foundation of China (Grant Nos. 51279147,
51179143 and 51479150) and providing the experime-
ntal data for the validation.
References
[1] PERCIVAL S., HENDRIX D. and NOBLESSE F. Hydro-
dynamic optimization of ship hull forms[J]. Applied
Ocean Research, 2001, 23(6): 337-355.
[2] HINO T. Shape optimization of practical ship hull forms
using navier-stokes analysis[C]. Proceedings of the 7th
International Conference on Numerical Ship Hydrody-
namics. Nantes, France, 1999.
[3] PERI D., ROSSETTI M. and CAMPANA E. Design opti-
mization of ship hulls via CFD techniques[J]. Journal of
Ship Research, 2001, 45(2): 140-149.
[4] YANG C., SOTO O. and LOHNER R. et al. Hydrodyna-
mic optimization of a trimaran[J]. Ship Technology Re-
search, 2002, 49(2): 70-92.
[5] PERI D., CAMPANA E. Multidisciplinary design optimi-
zation of a naval surface combatant[J]. Journal of Ship
Research, 2003, 47(1): 1-12.
[6] CHEN P., HUANG C. H. An inverse hull design problem
in optimizing the desired wake of ship[J]. Journal of ship
Research, 2002, 46(2): 138-147.
[7] TAHARA Y., STERN F. and HIMENO Y. Computational
fluid dynamics–Based optimization of a surface combata-
nt[J]. Journal of ship Research, 2004, 48(4): 273-287.
[8] SAHA G. K., SUZUKI K. and KAI H. Hydrodynamic
optimization of ship hull forms in shallow water[J]. Jour-
nal of Marine Science and Technology, 2004, 9(2): 51-
62.
[9] HARRIES S., ABT C. and HOCHKIRCH K. Modeling
meets simulation-process integration to improve design[C].
Honorary Colloquium for Prof. Hagen, Prof. Schluter
and Prof. Thiel. Duisburg, Germany: University of
Duisburg-Essen, 2004 .
[10] TAHARA Y., TOHYAMA S. and KATSUI T. CFD based
multi-objective optimization method for ship design[J].
International Journal for numerical methods in fluids,
2006, 52(5): 499-527.
[11] CAMPANA E. F., PERI D. and TAHARA Y. et al. Shape
optimization in ship hydrodynamics using computational
fluid dynamics[J]. Computer Methods in Applied Me-
chanics and Engineering, 2006, 196(1): 634-651.
[12] ZALEK S. F., PARSONS M. G. and BECK R. F. Evolu-
tionary multicriterion optimization for propulsion and sea-
keeping[C]. 26th ONR Symposium on Naval Hydrody-
namics. Rome Italy, 2006.
[13] KIM H. Y., YANG C. and LÖHNER R. et al. A practical
hydrodynamic optimization tool for the design of a mono-
hull ship[C]. The 18th International Offshore and Polar
Engineering Conference. Vancouver, Canada, 2008.
[14] KIM H., YANG C. and KIM H. Y. et al. Hydrodynamic
optimization of a modern container ship using variable
fidelity models[C]. The Nineteenth International Off-
shore and Polar Engineering Conference. Osaka, Japan,
2009.
[15] KIM Hyunyu1 Y., YANG Chi. A new surface modifica-
tion approach for CFD-based hull form optimization[J].
Journal of Hydrodynamics, 2010, 22(5Suppl.): 520-525.
[16] KIM H. Y., YANG C. Hydrodynamic optimization of
multihull ships[C]. Proceedings of the FAST2011.
Honolulu, Hawaii, USA, 2011.
[17] KIM H. Y., YANG C. Design optimization of bulbous
bow and stern end bulb for reduced drag[C]. The Twenty-
third International Offshore and Polar Engineering
Conference. Anchorage, Alaska, USA, 2013.
[18] HUANG F., KIM H. Y. and YANG C. A new method of
ship bulbous bow generation and modification[C]. The
Twenty-fourth International Offshore and Polar Engi-
neering Conference. Busan Korea, 2014.
[19] HUANG F., WANG L. and YANG C. Hull form optimi-
zation for reduced drag and improved seakeeping using a
surrogate based method[C]. The Twenty-fifth Internatio-
nal Offshore and Polar Engineering Conference. Kona,
Big Island, Hawaii, USA, 2015.
[20] HUANG F., WANG L. and YANG C. et al. Hull form
optimization of a TriSWACH for reduced drag[C]. Pro-
ceedings of the FAST2015. Washington DC, USA, 2015.
[21] WANG L., HUANG F. and YANG C. et al. Hydrodyna-
mic optimization of a wedge hull[C]. Proceedings of the
FAST2015. Washington DC, USA, 2015.

[22] HAN S., LEE Y. S. and CHOI Y. B. Hydrodynamic hull
form optimization using parametric models[J]. Journal of
Marine Science and Technology, 2012, 17(1): 1-17.
[23] PARK J.-H., CHOI J. E. and CHUN H. H. Hull-form opti-
mization of KSUEZMAX to enhance resistance performa-
nce[J]. International Journal of Naval Architecture and
Ocean Engineering, 2015, 7(1): 100-114.
[24] YANG C., KIM H. Y. and NOBLESSE F. A practical
method for evaluating steady flow about a ship[C]. Pro-
ceedings of the FAST2007. Shanghai, China, 2007, 118-
126.
[25] NOBLESSE F., HUANG F. and YANG C. The
Neumann–Michell theory of ship waves[J]. Journal of
Engineering Mathematics, 2013, 79(1): 51-71.
[26] YANG Chi, HUANG Fuxin and NOBLESSE Francis.
Practical evaluation of the drag of a ship for design and
optimization[J]. Journal of Hydrodynamics, 2013 25(5):
645-654.
[27] HUANG F., YANG C. and NOBLESSE F. Numerical
implementation and validation of the Neumann–Michell
theory of ship waves[J]. European Journal of Mechani-
cs-B/Fluids, 2013, 42: 47-68.
[28] NOBLESSE F., HUANG F. and YANG C. Evaluation of
ship waves at the free surface and removal of short
waves[J]. European Journal of Mechanics-B/Fluids,
2013, 38: 22-37.
183
[29] ZHANG C., HE J. and ZHU Y. et al. Stationary phase and
numerical evaluation of far-field and near-field ship
waves[J]. European Journal of Mechanics-B/Fluids,
2015, 52: 28-37.
[30] HUANG F., LI X. and NOBLESSE F. et al. Illustrative
applications of the Neumann–Michell theory of ship
waves[C]. 28th Workshop on Water Waves and Floa-
ting Bodies. L’Isle sur la Sorgue, France, 2013.
[31] YANG Chi, HUANG Fuxin and KIM Hyunyul. Hydrody-
namic optimization of a TriSWACH[J]. Journal of Hy-
drodynamics, 2015, 26(6): 856-864.
[32] MCKAY M., CONOVER W. and BECKMAN R. A com-
parison of three methods for selecting values of input
variables in the analysis of output from a computer code[J].
Technometrics, 1979, 21(2): 239-245.
[33] KARABOGA D. An idea based on honey bee swarm for
numerical optimization[R]. Vol. 200. Technical report tr06,
Kayseri, Turkey: Erciyes university, 2005.
[34] HUANG F., WANG L. and YANG C. A new improved
artificial bee colony algorithm for ship hull form optimiza-
tion[J]. Engineering Optimization, 2016, 48(4): 672-686.
[35] YANG Chi, HUANG Fuxin and WANG Lijue et al.
Numerical simulations of highly nonlinear steady and
unsteady free surface flows[J]. Journal of Hydrodynami-
cs, 2011, 23(6): 683-696.