See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/282366386

Hull form design optimisation for improved efficiency and hydrodynamic

performance of 'ship-shaped' offshore vessels

Conference Paper · September 2015

CITATIONS READS

8 3,966

3 authors:

Joo Hock Ang Cindy Goh

Sembcorp Marine University of Glasgow
10 PUBLICATIONS   79 CITATIONS    46 PUBLICATIONS   456 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Yun Li
University of Glasgow
261 PUBLICATIONS   8,752 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Ignition Timing Control for HCCI Engine View project

Customisation for Industry 4.0 and smart manufacturing View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Joo Hock Ang on 07 October 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

International Conference on Computer Applications in Shipbuilding 2015, Bremen, Germany

HULL FORM DESIGN OPTIMISATION FOR IMPROVED EFFICIENCY AND

HYDRODYNAMIC PERFORMANCE OF ‘SHIP-SHAPED’ OFFSHORE VESSELS
J H Ang, Sembcorp Marine Ltd., Singapore, and University of Glasgow, UK, C Goh and Y Li, University of Glasgow,
UK

SUMMARY

‘Eco-friendly shipping’ and fuel efficiency are important issues and challenges faced by marine and offshore industry
today. This is primary due to increasing stringent environmental regulations and the pressure to reduce fuel cost to stay
competitive. Furthermore, the technical requirements of offshore vessels have also increased significantly. Recent
developments in advance optimisation techniques and High Performance Computing (HPC) are key enablers for
Simulation Based Design (SBD) in ship and offshore applications, where overall efficiency of design process and
hydrodynamic performance can be greatly improved. This paper integrates a geometry modification technique with
advance optimisation and evaluation algorithms, with the aim to improve the overall efficiency and hydrodynamic
performance of ‘ship-shaped’ offshore vessels. By incorporating concepts from Free-Form Deformation (FFD) and
Genetic Algorithm (GA), the proposed approach is applied to optimise the hull form design of a heavy-lift and pipe-lay
vessel to reduce the overall resistance while improving its sea-keeping performance.

1. INTRODUCTION refer to ship design spiral in Figure 1 [2] for better

understanding of ship design process and its relation to
Ship and offshore structure design is a complex process hull form.
that is becoming increasingly complicated. This is
especially the case for ‘ship-shaped’ offshore vessels
which combine the requirements of both sea-going vessel
and fixed offshore structures. Examples of these vessels
include exploration and well-simulation vessels, drill-
ships, pipe-laying vessel, offshore accommodation, lift-
boat, platform as well as offshore support vessels. As oil
and gas exploration ventures into deeper waters and
harsher environment, the demand and technical
specification of offshore vessels have also increased
significantly. The shape of hull affects the overall
performance efficiency and stability of ships. It is thus
crucial to obtain optimum hull form design at initial
design stages as any changes along the design and
construction process will have serious cost and design
implications. In marine and offshore applications,
simulation based design (SBD) can be used to analyse
and improve the design of ship and offshore structures Figure 1: Ship design spiral [2]
for improved resistance, sea-keeping, maneuvering and
so forth. It is particularly useful for the ship designer to Despite the benefits that SBD offers, its take-up rate in
perform initial investigation and reiteration of designs at the HFDO of marine and offshore vessel design remains
an early stage to improve the design so as to meet the limited. There are many reasons: limitation of existing
design specifications or objective functions. This can aid geometry definition and modification method that could
in reducing the overall design time where sufficiently accurately represent and modify complex shapes such as
‘optimum’ designs can be achieved. ship hull form; lack of robust and effective optimisation
method to produce meaningful and feasible solution;
While SBD is not new to marine and offshore design high computational requirement for computational fluid
applications, optimisation of hull form design remains an dynamics (CFD) solvers; blackbox function and so forth.
informal process where ship designer uses manual and Due to space constraints, it is not possible to address all
time-consuming ‘trial and error’ approach to produce the challenges in this paper. Specifically, this paper
new designs [1]. This paper addresses the need for a focuses on three key issues that are important to the
more automated and systematic approach to hull form design for ’ship-shaped’ offshore vessels. Firstly, most
design optimisation (HFDO). It should be noted while attention in ship design optimisation are still confined to
HFDO focus on optimising hydrodynamic performance single objective problem [3], largely focusing on either
that are closely related to shape of hull such as resistance reduction of resistance or improving sea-keeping but not
and sea-keeping, it can also be extended to ship design both. In the design of ‘ship-shaped’ offshore vessels,
optimisation by incorporating other design parameters improving both the resistance and sea-keeping
such as powering, structure, weight and so on. One can performance are important considerations due to their

© 2015: The Royal Institution of Naval Architects

 International Conference on Computer Applications in Shipbuilding 2015, Bremen, Germany
unique operating requirements, both in transit and
stationary mode. Unfortunately, reducing resistance and
improving sea-keeping are two seemingly conflicting
objectives, where improving one will worsen the
performance of the other. Secondly, it was highlighted
earlier most design improvement are currently conducted
manually and hence makes it very difficult for the
designer to investigate and obtain optimum design with
mainly conflicting objectives. Therefore, what is required
is the development of a fully automated optimisation
process that can effectively investigate and obtain the
optimal design in an efficient manner. Thirdly, there are
common skepticisms within ship design firms and
shipyards on the use of optimisation and CFD procedure
in the design process due to lack of expert knowledge on
the concept behind the methods. At same time, ship
design firms and shipyard uses different types of
software for hull modeling and hydrodynamic or
structural analysis. Familiarity and inter-portability of
computer aided design (CAD) model using different
software for various analyses become an important
consideration before new optimisation software solution
can be adopted and applied to hull form optimisation in
the design process.
By automating an integrated geometry modification
technique with an evolutionary algorithm and evaluation
process, we demonstrate the usefulness of the proposed
framework to the hull form design optimisation of ‘ship-
shaped’ offshore vessel for reduced resistance and
improved sea-keeping performance. This paper first
provides the background and challenges to hull form
optimisation, followed by related literatures in Section 2.
Section 3 will covers proposed HFDO framework and
the detail methodologies for optimisation, geometry
modification and performance evaluation. Finally, a case
study on optimising the hull form design of heavy-lift &
pipe-lay vessel for reduced resistance and improved sea-
keeping will be carried out in section 4, followed by
conclusion.
2. RELATED WORKS
As computer becomes more readily available and
powerful in the 1970s, there was rapid development and
application of computer aided design (CAD) and
computational fluid dynamics (CFD) in ship design.
During the same period, optimisation was also
introduced and first applied in ship design by
Schneekluth, Nowacki and Soding in mid-1970s [4].
Some early examples of techniques developed for hull
form optimisation includes systematic hull variation by
directly correlated new hull form with parametric
modification of prismatic curve (Cp curve) by H.
Lackenby [5]. In 1980s, C.C. Hsuing [6] applied Kochin
function to evaluate wave resistance and optimisation
using Lagrange multiplier. T. Ray et al [7] carried out
global optimisation using multi-start method and
simulated annealing for ship design optimisation as early
as 1990s. In optimisation of offshore structures, L. Birk
and G.F Clauss [8-11] applied hydrodynamic shape
optimisation procedure and parametric modeling to
improve sea-keeping qualities based on rational sea-
keeping criteria.
With introduction of parallel computing, evolutionary
strategies such as Genetic algorithm (GA) proved to be
very useful and became standard techniques used in
many hull optimisation studies. GA was first developed
by Holland et al. [12], which is a nature-inspired search
heuristic method based on Darwinian Theory of natural
selection and the ‘survival of the fittest’ principle [13].
Y. Tahara et al [14] developed a hull form design system
using GA, successive quadratic programming (SQP) and
Rankine-source panel method for minimum wave-
making resistance of a container ship. Several other
works also applied GA for ship design optimisation [15-
17]. Particle swarm optimisation (PSO) is another
evolutionary strategy that is applied to solve global
optimisation problem. It simulates the social behavior of
swarm of birds or bees which are capable to share
information while looking for food. PSO was used by
E.F. Campana et al. [18] in combination with filled
function based approach and Bezier patch to improve
sea-keeping performance of container ship. This
technique became increasingly popular for global
optimisation as applied in [19-21].
For any successful hull optimisation, geometry
modification plays an important role to manipulate and
transform the hull lines in order to investigate and
increase the chances of obtaining an ‘optimum’ hull. One
of the main techniques used is Free-from deformation
(FFD), which was first introduced by Sederberg and
Parry [22] based on scheme of trivariate Bernstein
polynomials. Y. Tahara et al [23] applied FFD and non-
uniform rational B-splines (NURBS) to modify the hull
geometry, in combination with GA and uniform covering
approach to reduce total resistance and improve sea-
keeping merit function of a surface combatant. FFD was
also applied for geometry modification in [19, 20, 24].
Another geometry modification technique that is applied
in hull shape transformation is blending or morphing
method. In [25], Y. Tahara et al combines hull-form
blending and prismatic-curve control using NAPA to
modify the hull form of tanker to improve propulsion and
maneuverability performance. This geometry
modification technique was also applied in [26].
In hydrodynamic evaluation, potential flow theory are
used widely to estimate and analyse the flow around ship
hull as well as determining the wave-induced resistance
[27]. It is based on Laplace and Bernouli equation. H.
Nowacki [28] combines potential flow solver with free
surface and Navier stokes solver in an optimisation
problem to reduce wave and total resistance of a Wigley
hull. For sea-keeping analysis, various numerical
methods are developed and they includes strip theory,
unified theory, green function method, Rankine
singularity method, as highlighted in [29]. Of which,
© 2015: The Royal Institution of Naval Architects
International Conference on Computer Applications in Shipbuilding 2015, Bremen, Germany
strip theory is still the most popular technique used today
for calculation of wave induced motion of ship [30]. The
approach is based on slender body theory and originated
from Korvin-Kroukovsky and Jacobs in late 1950 [29].
Further variations of strip theories were developed, with
the most widely used as proposed by Salvesen et al. in
1970 [31]. Example of sea-keeping evaluation include
work by Hassan Bagheri and Hassan Ghassemi [13]
where they applied strip theory and GA to minimise
vertical bow motion of a Wigley hull.
3. METHODOLOGY- HULL FORM DESIGN
OPTIMISATION FRAMEWORK
Moving away from conventional approach towards hull
form design optimisation (HFDO), a new framework
which integrates the merits of evolutionary computation,
geometry modification and advanced performance
evaluation techniques is proposed. The main aim here is
to automate the hull form design optimisation process
using minimal user intervention. The proposed
framework must be able to effectively explore the design
space to produce optimal and feasible solutions that
meets industry standards. The framework described in
this section thereby represents an important step towards
this endeavor, as illustrated in Figure 2.
Figure 2: Proposed hull form design optimisation
(HFDO) framework
Figure 2 provides an illustration of the proposed HFDO
framework. It is made up of five modules: (1) Problem
Formulation (PF), (2) Design Space Exploration (DSE),
(3) Geometry Modification (GM), (4) Performance
Evaluation (PE) and (5) Optimal Solutions (OS).
Modules 1 and 5 are input and output sections
respectively, while modules 2, 3 and 4 form the core
design components. Together, these modules are central
to automate the entire hull form design optimisation
process and are described in detail below.
I) PROBLEM FORMULATION (PF)
© 2015: The Royal Institution of Naval Architects
To begin the optimisation, the user first defines the
problem in PF module where inputs such as design
specifications and key design parameters are specified,
including objective function and design variables.
Objective function is defined here as a function that can
be maximize or minimise and the number of objective
function can varies depending if it is single or multi-
objectives problem. Design variables are used for
controlling the hull geometry during the optimisation
procedure and constraints can be applied to restrict the
design variables in order to ensure it keeps within the
design limits. Depending if it is a new hull design or
modification from existing vessel model, the designer
will prepare the CAD model that would be used as an
initial design for the optimisation.
II) DESIGN SPACE EXPLORATION (DSE)
At the core of the ‘Design Space Exploration’ (DSE)
module is a Multi-Objective Genetic Algorithm (MOGA)
based optimisation engine. The purpose of this module is
twofold: it serves as an optimiser to explore the design
search space and (ii) automates the entire design
optimisation process.
Most real-world engineering problems consist of
multiple design objectives which often have conflicting
characteristics. To search for globally non-dominated
solutions that can satisfy each design criteria is not a
trivial task. This is a common pitfall for many classical
search algorithms [32]. MOGA, on the other hand, is
well suited for this class of optimisation problems [33].
In comparison to conventional optimisation method,
MOGA has many desirable traits and offer significant
advantages to efficiently navigate multi-dimensional,
large and challenging design search space to produce
globally optimal non-dominated solutions. Key to the
workings of the optimisation algorithm is the principle of
‘genes’ and ‘chromosomes’. Similar to biological
evolution, a chromosome is made up of a discrete
number of genes. It contains (encodes) all the
information to describe a potential solution to the design
problem. For any design problem, a number of
chromosomes are first randomly created to form a
population of candidate solutions. Through the use of
genetic operators - selection, crossover and mutation -
information exchange takes place between these
chromosomes over a number of iterations, typically with
the fittest solutions replacing weaker ones, eventually
leading to a set of optimal solutions. In this paper,
solutions are ranked using Pareto dominance [34] as it
provides a non-bias way of ranking solutions. Figure 3
[33] provides an illustration of the MOGA approach used
in the proposed framework.
 International Conference on Computer Applications in Shipbuilding 2015, Bremen, Germany

deformation can be applied either globally or locally,

while maintaining derivative continuity. Based on [22],
deform position of an arbitrary point can be found
by evaluating the vector valued trivarate Bernstein
polynomial given as:

∑ ( )( ) [∑ ( )(

) [∑ ( )( ) ]] (1)

Where ( ) are coordinates of point , with control

point location indicated as ( ) and ( ). in
this case is a vector containing the Cartesian coordinate
of the displaced point and is a vector containing the
Cartesian coordinates of the control point.

To apply FFD, the 3D ship model are first enclosed in an

imaginary box shape to create a parametric space
embedding the hull form to be deformed, as illustrated in
Figure 4 [24]. The parametric space inside can then be
deformed by modifying the control points, known as
lattice, where it will be mapped automatically into the
targeted ship model [35]. The number and position of the
control points can be adjusted easily to suit the
requirement of the optimiser. It should be noted while
FFD provides the designer much flexibility and ease of
application, the search space are very much dependent on
the experience and knowledge of the user and can be
somehow limited in obtaining ‘optimum’ design [1].
Figure 3: GA procedure [33]

III) GEOMETRY MODIFICATION (GM)

Under this framework, GM will be coupled with DSE

which in turn transform the hull shape according to the
parameters assigned from the optimiser and prepares it
for evaluation. As highlighted earlier, a hull form can be
modelled either from scratch or modify from existing
design. In practice, unless it is a novel design, most
designer would prefer to use existing ‘proven’ hull
design for conducting hull form optimisation. After a hull
form is modelled, the hull shape would need to be
transformed by manipulating from the initial hull
geometry in order to search for the ‘optimum’ hull shape Figure 4: Example of FFD [24]. Parametric box are seen
using optimisation procedure. This task is again by no here at the forward of hull and control point represented
means trivial where the ship’s main geometry or control by symbols.
points must be tightly linked to the optimiser so as to
ensure every transformation is of feasible design- where IV) PERFORMANCE EVALUATION (PE)
the ship lines are sufficiently streamlined for positive
hydrodynamic effect. In a typical optimisation case, the Performance evaluation is an important part of HFDO
hull geometry could be transformed from few hundreds framework to assess the quality of the solutions
to few thousand times in order for the optimiser to generated, i.e. if they are true global optima. In the PE
evaluate and establish the optimal design. Hence, the module, hydrodynamic performances of all candidate
selected geometry modification method should be robust design solutions are assessed using numerical methods or
for any hull shape and efficient to minimise the CFD analysis. For each solution, a fitness value which
computational time. measures its performance is fed back to the DSE module.
To assess the quality of a design solution, it needs to be
Free-form deformation (FFD) was selected in this case benchmarked against some user-defined design criteria
study due to its intuitiveness and flexibility where or objectives, for example, to improve resistance,

© 2015: The Royal Institution of Naval Architects

International Conference on Computer Applications in Shipbuilding 2015, Bremen, Germany
stability, powering, maneuvering and so forth. Due to
space constraint, only the two design objectives which
are crucial to the case study presented in this paper will
be discussed.
IV (a) Ship resistance
Using Computation fluid dynamic (CFD), ship resistance
can be evaluated at early design stage. CFD are
interpreted to be a numerical simulation of fluid flow,
which are modelled by solving a set of field equation
describing the dynamic of fluid flow [36]. The most
common CFD technique used for evaluating resistance
are linear potential code and Reynolds Averaged Navier-
Strokes Equation (RANSE). In this study, we will only
focus on potential code due to its efficiency and fairly
good estimation for early ship design.
As the viscosity effect are often limited to small
boundary layer, potential flow model are particularly
useful for free surface flow, such as flow around ship
hull [37]. The fluid is assumed incompressible, inviscid
and irrotational flow and the total velocity potential of
the flow can be expressed below as per [38]:
( ) ( ) ( ) (2)
Subject to Laplace’s equation: (3)
Where ( ) is the perturbation potential, ( ) is
the time-dependent velocity of translation and gradient
operator ( )
IV (b) Sea-keeping performance
Sea-keeping is an important design performance criteria
for ‘ship-shaped’ offshore vessels, due to its effect on i)
comfort and safety of crew onboard, especially for long
period of time during offshore deployment, ii) ship safety
such as risk of vessel capsizing, large roll motion and
slamming and iii) operational limit for ships such as
loading/offloading and landing of helicopter [29].
Strip theory is used to evaluate the sea-keeping
performance of the vessel. It computes the ship’s rigid-
body motions, also known as motion for 6 degree of
freedom. The equation of motion for 6 degrees of
freedom is based on Newton’s second law of dynamics.
Based on [30], taking origin of ship’s centre of gravity,
these equations are given as:
∑ {( ) ̈ ̇ } (4)
Where represents the coupled surge, heave and
pitch motion, represents the coupled sway,
roll and yaw motions, ̈ ̇ and are the acceleration,
velocity and displacement of harmonic oscillation in
direction, harmonic exciting wave force or moment in
direction, solid mass or inertia coefficient,
hydrodynamic mass or inertia coefficient,
© 2015: The Royal Institution of Naval Architects
hydrodynamic damping coefficient and the spring
coefficient.
V) OPTIMAL SOLUTIONS (OS)
Once the design criteria are met, the optimiser will
terminate the calculation and identify the optimal
solutions as part of optimisation output. This includes a
range of ‘non-dominated’ hull forms known as Pareto
optimal solutions, which had been evaluated in PE
module and identified by the optimiser to provide
potentially superior performances relative to other design
solutions found. The designer can then select the hull
form which best meets the design requirement. It is
recognised that the hull form may not be fixed during
early design stage where other design parameters such as
powering or payload also play an important role. These
inter-dependent parameters often require constant
updating and modification during the entire project
duration. For this purpose, proposed HFDO framework
can also be extended by adding more design parameters
or objective functions so as to achieve an overall
integrated ship design optimisation solution.
4. CASE STUDY: MULTI-OBJECTIVE
OPTIMISATION OF PIPE-LAY AND HEAVY-
LIFT VESSEL
In order to demonstrate the efficiency of the proposed
framework, it is applied to optimise the design of a
heavy-lift and pipe-lay vessel. The proposed framework
is implemented in NAPA [39], a well-known commercial
ship design software that is used by many design
companies and shipyards around the world. This
demonstrates the feasibility to seamlessly integrate the
proposed methodology into existing commercial software
packages; offering the ease of use and familiarity to the
designer, which could potentially increase its adoption
rate in the ship design community. More importantly, it
meets industry standards - the design solutions are
validated by commercial CAD modeling and simulation
tools.
Through integration of macros and manager functions,
this is the first time automated design optimisation of an
offshore vessel for both resistance and sea-keeping
performances have been conducted using NAPA.
Specifically, four separate modules in NAPA namely
‘General optimisation’, ‘FFD’, ‘Sea-keeping’ and ‘CFD’
functions are integrated, with each performing a core
function within the proposed HFDO framework as
detailed in Section 2. Two design objectives which are
crucial for heavy-lift and pipe-lay vessel are selected in
this case study, namely ship resistance and sea-keeping
performance.
4.1 OPTIMISATION PROBLEM SET UP
4.1 (a) Initial model
 International Conference on Computer Applications in Shipbuilding 2015, Bremen, Germany

The initial model of the vessel is first created in NAPA represent the initial hull, solid line represents modified
using patch surface, based on the following principle hull, bolded line represent bounding box and dotted line
dimensions: represent the shifting or blending direction.

 Length overall (LoA): 182m

 Length between perpendiculars (Lpp): 168m
 Moulded breath: 46m
 Mean draft: 9.6m

4.1 (b) Objective functions

The first objective function is concerned with the

minimisation of the total resistance acting on the hull of
vessel during transit. To estimate the total pressure due to
resistance, pressure resistance coefficients as a function
of the total resistance coefficient are set within NAPA.
For purpose of evaluating the resistance, the potential Fig 5: FFD transformation at 225 (inboard), comparing
flow method was selected to estimate and evaluate the initial and optimised hull.
flow field around the ship hull. Prior to running the
potential flow function, the model was panelised using
1960 hull panels and 1000 free surface panels are
selected for evaluating the fluid region.

The second objective function looked at the sea-keeping

performance of the vessel, i.e. to minimise the motion of
the ship when stationary. In this case study, strip theory
is used to evaluate the sea-keeping performance of the
vessel, by computing the ship’s rolling response in
regular wave. For both objectives, the goal is to minimise
the cost functions as follow:

( ) (5)
Where f is the vector of design objectives, x is vector of
design variables and X is the feasible design variable
space.
The GA settings are given as follows:
 Number of individuals in a population: 10
 Number of generations: 20
 Number of genes per variables: 10
 Mutation probability: 0.1
 Crossover probability: 0.3
4.1 (c) Geometry modification- FFD
Using binary coding scheme, FFD blending parameters
which controls the amount of transformation applied to
the shape of the hull are optimised in the DSE module.
The new ‘control points’ are then parsed to the GM
module to manipulate the shapes. Two FFDs are applied
to increase the ‘variety’ of shape combination in order to
increase the search space for optimal solution. This is a
two-step process. Firstly, the bounding box is created
around the forward section of the ship model and control
point set along the Y-direction. Following this, FFD is
used to ‘drag’ the control points at 225 inboard as
illustrated in Figure 5 and then at 180 outboard as
shown in Figure 6. In both figures, the dashed line
Fig 6: FFD transformation at 180 (outboard), comparing
initial and optimised hull.
4.2 RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS
We demonstrated in this case study the multi-objective
optimisation of a heavy-lift and pipe-lay vessel. The
proposed HFDO was implemented in NAPA. The entire
design optimisation process took approximately 3 hours
on a standard Intel i7 workstation. Figure 7 shows the
distribution of solutions found in the design search space
for the total pressure resistance coefficient and the roll
motion. Dominated solutions are denoted by empty
circles while non-dominated solutions are shown in solid
diamond shape. The initial design solution is denoted by
a solid triangle. At the end of the optimisation, there are
altogether 5 non-dominated design solutions found.
Although there were far fewer Pareto optimal solutions
found in comparison to the entire solution set generated
by the DSE module (~1%), it can be seen that the non-
dominated solutions offered a good trade-off between the
two design objectives.

© 2015: The Royal Institution of Naval Architects

International Conference on Computer Applications in Shipbuilding 2015, Bremen, Germany

To ascertain the improvements gained, the roll response

of the optimised hull form was compared with that of the
initial solution as shown in Figure 9. A slight reduction
in the maximum roll response was observed for
optimised design solution (solid line).

Figure 7: Distribution of solutions found for design

objectives: (i) total pressure resistance coefficient and (ii)
roll motion.
Figure 9: Comparison chart between optimised and initial
This is also evident from Table 1 which shows the
hull for roll response in regular wave.
performance of all the non-dominated solutions and the
initial model (INI) for the two design objectives. For
Lastly, we compared the wave profiles of the initial and
example, design solution ID 103 outperforms the initial
optimised hull forms as shown in Figure 10. The waves
design in both the total pressure resistance coefficient
along the designed water line are indicated in red while
and roll motion by 6.28% and 1.59% respectively.
waves below and above the water line are indicated in
blue and green respectively. It is observed from the
ID Blend 1 Blend 2 Resistance Roll motion
INI 0 0 -3.3428 0.9105
Figure 10 that wave contour above waterline (in green) at
resistanc the forward of optimised hull form are much smaller than
103 -9.3352
e 8.2795 -3.5492 0.9029
initial model.
96 -9.5698 9.5307 -3.3464 0.8996
160 -9.5698 9.8045 -3.3447 0.8991
175 -9.5698 9.8045 -3.3432 0.8991
199 -9.9609 9.6480 -3.3430 0.8989
Table 1: Optimisation result comparing initial and non-
dominated solutions

Using design solution ID 103 as illustration of optimised

hull, the difference in forward hull geometry as
compared to initial hull is provided in Figure 8.

Figure 8: Geometry comparison of forward hull between Figure 10: Wave profiles of hull form before and after
initial (INI) and optimised model (ID: 103) optimisation.

We successfully demonstrated in this case study the

multi-objective optimisation of a heavy-lift and pipe-lay

© 2015: The Royal Institution of Naval Architects

 International Conference on Computer Applications in Shipbuilding 2015, Bremen, Germany
vessel using NAPA. Although the improvement in the
roll response is marginal, the improvement obtained in
the reduction of the total resistance is particularly
encouraging. The case study clearly demonstrated that by
modifying the geometry of the hull form, the proposed
framework is able to effectively explore the design space
to come up with design solutions that are able to reduce
the resistance while at the same time maintain good sea-
keeping performances.
While potential flow is widely used in ship resistance
evaluation, it is not very accurate in capturing the flow
on the stern of hull due to large turbulence [40] and
hence can only serve as a coarse estimate for resistance
calculation. Nonetheless, for more accurate resistance
analysis, RANSE can be applied under this framework,
which will be included in author’s future work. In
addition, more design variables can be included in the
GM module for a larger range of transformation which
could lead to better designs. To further improve the
accuracy of the result, the sea-keeping performance can
be further evaluated using response amplitude operator
(RAO) analysis for other ship motion such as heave and
pitch.
Finally, this case study has demonstrated the feasibility
of a fully automated optimisation process and
performance improvement as compared to conventional
manual hull improvement process. More importantly, the
time taken to carry out this optimisation is significantly
lower from weeks to hours when compared to traditional
methods where hull forms are individually modified
using conventional CAD tools.
5. CONCLUSIONS
In this paper, a formal hull form optimisation framework
which integrates geometry modification techniques,
advanced performance evaluation process with an
evolutionary algorithm is introduced. By integrating this
processes into NAPA, we demonstrated the feasibility to
automate the hull form design optimisation of an
offshore heavy-lift and pipe-lay vessel. Specifically, the
proposed framework was applied to two crucial design
objectives for such class of vessels, i.e. resistance and
sea-keeping performances.
Results obtained ascertained the usefulness of the
proposed methodology to effectively explore the design
space where design solutions found are in line with
industry standards and are more superior to modified
designs generated based on designer’s experience. In
comparison to conventional design approaches, the
proposed methodology also provides huge cost savings
both in terms of time and computational resources.
Despite the demonstrated efficiency of the proposed
framework, it is important to note that while the
integration of FFD and MOGA has been demonstrated to
be a useful tool, it was observed that the design search
space are, to some extent, limited and constrained as only
the FFD blending parameters are optimised. Our future
work will look into a more robust and effective shape
manipulation method that can be linked seamlessly to the
optimiser and further improve on the application of
HFDO process. With these new developments, we
envisaged that significant advancements can be made to
revolutionaries the way ships are design in future;
moving from traditional Computer Aided Design (CAD)
to Computer Automated Design (CAutoD).
6. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This research is funded under Economic Development
Board (EDB) of Singapore and Sembcorp Marine Ltd.
(SCM) under Industrial Postgraduate Programme (IPP)
grant no: COY-15-IPP/140002. The authors would also
like to thank NAPA for the technical support provided
for the case study applied in this paper.
7. REFERENCES
1. ANG, J.H., C. GOH, AND Y. LI, ‘Key
Challenges and Opportunities in Hull Form
Design Optimisation for Marine and Offshore
Applications’, to appear in 21st International
Conference on Automation & Computing, 2015.
2. ‘Ship design process’, available in MarineWiki
at URL:
http://www.marinewiki.org/index.php/SHIP_DE
SIGN_PROCESS, accessed 20 July 2015.
3. PERI, D., A. PINTO, AND E.F. CAMPANA,
‘Multi objective optimisation of expensive
objective functions with variable fidelity
models’, Nonconvex Optimization and Its
Applications, 2006.
4. HOCHKIRCH, K. AND V. BERTRAM, ‘Hull
Optimization for Fuel Efficiency – Past, Present
and Future’, COMPIT, 2012.
5. LACKENBY, H., ‘On the systematic
geometrical variation of ship forms’,
Transactions of RINA, 1950.
6. CHI-CHAO, H., ‘Optimal Ship Forms for
Minimum Wave Resistance’, Journal of Ship
Research, 1981.
7. T. RAY, R.P.G., O.P. SHA, ‘A global
optimization model for ship design’, Computers
in Industry, 1995.
8. BIRK, L., ‘Application of Constrained Multi-
Objective Optimization to the Design of
Offshore Structure Hulls’, Journal of Offshore
Mechanics and Arctic Engineering, 2009.
© 2015: The Royal Institution of Naval Architects
International Conference on Computer Applications in Shipbuilding 2015, Bremen, Germany
9. BIRK, L. AND G.F. CLAUSS, ‘Automated hull
optimization of offshore structures based on
rational seakeeping criteria’, 11th International
Offshore and Polar Engineering Conference,
2001.
10. CLAUSS, G.F. AND L. BIRK, ‘Hydrodynamic
shape optimization of large offshore structures’,
Applied Ocean Research, 1996.
11. BIRK, L, ‘Parametric Modeling and Shape
Optimization of Offshore Structures’,
International Journal of CAD/CAM, 2006.
12. HOLLAND, J.H., ‘Adaptation in Natural and
Artificial Systems’, University of Michigan
Press, 1975.
13. BAGHERI, H. AND H. GHASSEMI,
‘Optimization of Wigley Hull Form in order to
Ensure the Objective Functions of the
Seakeeping Performance’, J. Marine Sci. Appl.,
2014.
14. TAHARA, Y., ET AL., ‘Development of
CAD_CFD optimizer integrated hull form
design system’, J. Kansai Soc, 2003.
15. JACQUIN, E., ET AL, ‘Hull form optimisation
using free surface RANSE solver’, 25th
symposium on naval hydrodynamics, 2004.
16. BAIWEI, F., ET AL., ‘Ship resistance
performance optimization design based on
CAD_CFD’, 3rd International Conference on
Advanced Computer Control, 2011.
17. KIM, H., ‘Multi-Objective Optimization for
Ship Hull Form Design’, George Mason
University, Computational and Data Sciences
Department, 2012
18. CAMPANA, E.F., ET AL., ‘New global
optimization methods for ship design problems’,
Optimization and Engineering (OPTE), 2009.
19. TAHARA, Y., ET AL., ‘Single and
multiobjective design optimization of fast
multihull ship’. J Mar Sci Technol, 2011.
20. XI CHEN, ET AL., ‘High-fidelity global
optimization of shape design by dimensionality
reduction, metamodels and deterministic particle
swarm’, Engineering Optimization. 2014.
21. CHUN, H. H., ‘Hull form parameterization
technique with local and global optimization
algorithm’, International Conference on Marine
Technology (MARTEC), 2010
© 2015: The Royal Institution of Naval Architects
22. T, S. AND P. S., ‘Free-form deformation of
solid geometric models’, ACM SIGGRAPH,
1986.
23. TAHARA, Y., ET AL., ‘Computational fluid
dynamics based multiobjective optimization of
surface combatant using global optimization
method’, J Mar Sci Technol, 2008.
24. PERI, D., ET AL., ‘Potential Flow Based
Optimization Of A High Speed, Foil-Assisted,
Semi-Planning Catamaran For Low Wake’, 10th
International Conference on Fast Sea
Transportation (FAST), 2009.
25. TAHARA, Y., S. TOHYAMA, AND T.
KATSUI, ‘CFD based multiobjective
optimization method for ship design’,
International Journal For Numerical Methods
In Fluids, 2006.
26. FENG, B., ET AL., ‘Ship hull automatic
optimization techniques research based on
CFD’, IEEE, 2009.
27. BRONSART, R., G. KNIELING, AND M.
ZIMMERMANN, ‘Automatic generation of a
panel-based representation of ship hulls for
wave resistance calculations’, Practical Design
of Ships and Mobile Structures (PRADS), 2004.
28. NOWACKI, H., ‘Hydrodynamic design of ship
hull shapes by methods of CFD’, Progress in
Industrial Mathematics at ECMI, 1996.
29. BERTRAM, V., ‘Practical Ship
Hydrodynamics’, Butterworth-Heinemann,
2000.
30. JOURNÉE, J.M.J., ‘Quick strip theory
calcuations in ship design’, Practical Design of
Ships and Mobile Structures (PRADS), 1992.
31. SALVESEN, N., E.O. TUCK, AND O.M.
FALTINSEN, ‘Ship motions and sea loads
Trans’, SNAME, 1970.
32. BACK, T., FOGEL D.B., MICHALEWICZ, Z.
(Editors), ‘Handbook of Evolutionary
Computation’, IOP Publishing Ltd, 1997.
33. KONAK, A., D.W. COIT, AND A.E. SMITH,
‘Multi objective optimisation using
GA_tutorial’, Reliability Engineering and
System Safety, 2006.
34. ZITZER, E., THIELE, L., ‘Multiobjective
evolutionary algorithms: a comparative case
study and the strength Pareto approach’, IEEE
 International Conference on Computer Applications in Shipbuilding 2015, Bremen, Germany

Transactions on Evolutionary Computation, IEEE Computer-Aided Control System Design

1999.
35. XU, G., G.-Z. WANG, AND X.-D. CHEN,
‘Free form deformation with rational DMS
spline volumes’, Journal Of Computer Science
And Technology, 2008.
36. BETRAM, V., ‘Appropriate tools for flow
analyses for fast ships’, HIPER, 2008.
Evolutionary Computation Working Group and the
European Network of Excellence in Evolutionary
Computing Workgroup on Systems, Control, and Drives
in 1998. He was invited to Kumamoto University, Japan,
as Visiting Professor in 2002 and is Visiting Professor to
UESTC and Sun Yat-sen University, China. Dr. Li is a
Chartered Engineer and has 200 publications.

37. WACKERS, J., ET AL., ‘Free surface viscous

flow solution methods for ship hydrodynamics’,
Arch Comput Methods Eng, 2011.

38. R. BECK, A.R., ‘Modern seakeeping

computations for ships’, 23rd Symposium on
Naval Hydrodynamics, 2001.

39. NAPA website, available at URL:

https://www.napa.fi/, accessed 20 July 2015.

40. VANGBO, P.O., ‘Computation fluid dynamic in

conceptual ship design’, MSc Thesis, NTNU-
Trondheim, 2014.

8. AUTHORS BIOGRAPHY

Joo Hock Ang is currently a project manager in

engineering design office at Sembcorp Marine Ltd. He
joined Sembcorp Marine in 2001 as an assistant engineer
and was involved on several specialised shipbuilding,
ferry lengthening, Floating-Production-Storage-
Offloading (FPSO) vessel conversion and niche ship
repair projects, under various functions such as project
management and ship production. Concurrently, he is
also a PhD candidate in University of Glasgow. His
research focuses on multi-objective optimisation and
computer simulations of ship hull form design.

Cindy Goh is an Associate Professor and the Director of

Research Programmes at the University of Glasgow
Singapore. She received her Ph.D. in Electronics
Electrical Engineering from the University of Glasgow in
2004. Her research interest is in intelligent optimisation
and data analytics for optimal decision making and
design to advance the state-of-the-art technology in early
detection of diseases, energy management systems and
complex engineering systems. Her work has been
published in internationally peer reviewed publications.
She has won several awards from the IEEE to present her
work at international conferences. She is a member of the
IEEE.

Yun Li is currently Professor of Systems Engineering at

University of Glasgow. Previously he was Founding
Director of University of Glasgow Singapore and has
been teaching at Glasgow since 1991. During 1989-1990,
he was with U.K. National Engineering Laboratory and
Industrial Systems and Control Ltd. He established the

© 2015: The Royal Institution of Naval Architects

View publication stats