Ocean Engineering 38 (2011) 1054–1064

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Ocean Engineering
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/oceaneng

Optimization of fishing vessels using a Multi-Objective Genetic Algorithm

Mark A. Gammon 1
Defence R&D Canada—Atlantic, Dartmouth, Nova Scotia, Canada

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: A fishing boat hull is used as an example of how hull form optimization can be accomplished using a
Received 17 August 2010 Multi-Objective Genetic Algorithm (MOGA). The particular MOGA developed during this study allows
Accepted 5 March 2011 automatic selection of a few Pareto Optimal results for examination by the designers while searching
Editor-in-Chief: A.I. Incecik
the complete Pareto Front. The optimization uses three performance indices for resistance, seakeeping
Available online 23 May 2011
and stability to modify the hull shape to obtain optimal hull offsets as well as optimal values for the
Keywords: principal parameters of length, beam and draft. The modification of the 148/1-B fishing boat hull, the
Optimization parent hull form of the _Istanbul Technical University (_ITÜ) series of fishing boats, is presented by first
Multi-objective fixing the principal parameters and allowing the hull offsets to change, and secondly by simultaneously
Fishing vessel
allowing variation of both the principal parameters and the hull offsets. Improvements in all three
Resistance
objectives were found. For further research the methodology can be modified to allow for the addition
Seakeeping
Stability of other performance objectives, such as cost or specific mission objectives, as well as the use of
enhanced performance prediction solvers. In addition, one or more hulls could be evaluated by
experiment to validate the results of using this particular optimization approach.
& 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction percent can lead to substantial savings, especially in large ships.

Hull form optimization is a process that involves changing a
ship or boat hull in order to improve performance such as
resistance, seakeeping, stability and so forth. The hull is a funda-
mental component of a vessel and has a significant influence on the
performance and consequently on overall success of the design.
A single design optimization problem optimizes a single objective
function while satisfying some design requirements, while multi-
ple objective design optimization examines trade-offs between
often conflicting aspects of the design problem. The individual
objective or ‘cost’ functions, such as minimization of resistance by
Day and Doctors (1997) or minimization of the total catamaran
resistance by Danisman et al. (2001) or minimization of the wash
from high speed vessels by Zaraphonitis et al. (2003), represent
different aspects of design optimization.
The shape of the hull impacts every aspect of a design. Three
performance objectives are considered as examples from among
the numerous issues facing a design team, namely stability,
resistance and seakeeping. Stability must satisfy or exceed certain
constraints and is often modeled as a constraint rather than an
objective function. Seakeeping obviously impacts human safety
and comfort. Resistance is one of the chief costs in the operation
of the vessel, such that minimizing resistance by even a few
For example, using a bunker fuel charge of approximately $450/
metric ton,2 given a ship that burns 150 ton/day over a 14 day trip
across the Pacific,3 the overall cost for fuel alone would be
$945,000. An improvement of even 2% would represent a savings
of $18,900 per trip. Minimizing resistance by creating a slender
hull, for example, conflicts with stability performance, which is
increased by the greater beam. Greater beam in turn increases
viscous resistance. An optimized design requires that these
conflicting performance criteria can reach compromise.
Evolutionary Algorithms (EA) and Artificial Neural Networks
(ANN or NN) offer effective methods for conducting optimization
and data analysis. EA techniques may be separated into Genetic
Algorithms (GAs), Evolution Strategies (ESs) and Evolutionary
programming (EP). In this study, the term GA is predominantly
used to reflect the encoding and characteristics of the algorithm,
unless reference is made to a specific technique. For example, Day
and Doctors (1997) studied hull form optimization using a GA
technique in which the objective was to minimize resistance.
Their study varied a wide range of hull displacements and
examined the optimization trends that occurred on the basis of
variation of the principal parameters. Yasukawa (2000) and
Dejhalla et al. (2002) have both conducted a resistance optimiza-
tion analysis of a hull form using GA methods where the objective
was also to minimize wave resistance. Those studies focused on

E-mail addresses: mark.gammon@drdc-rddc.gc.ca, mark.gammon@forces.gc.ca

1 2
Research conducted while on leave at Yildiz Technical University, Istanbul, http://www.bunkerworld.com/markets/surcharges/tsa
3
Turkey. http://www.tsacarriers.org/fs_bunker.html

0029-8018/$ - see front matter & 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.oceaneng.2011.03.001
 M.A. Gammon / Ocean Engineering 38 (2011) 1054–1064
existing hulls that were modified by varying the hull offsets
slightly while maintaining the same principal characteristics of
the length, beam, draft and displacement. While other optimiza-
tion methods such as simulated annealing, Lipshitz Global Opti-
mization and other methods are routinely used, as stated by Gen
and Cheng (2000), the inherent characteristics of genetic algo-
rithms, i.e. multiple directional and global search, lack of math-
ematical requirements, ability to handle all types of objective
functions and ability to be combined with conventional methods,
make MOGA techniques well suited to multiple objective optimi-
zation problems.
The MOGA approach presented in this study can be extended
to any hull form optimization problem in which the design
requirements are known and can be formulated as a multiple
objective problem. As an example, the MOGA methodology was
applied to fishing boats in order to determine whether a more
optimal boat hull could be derived. The current study represents
one example of how this specific MOGA can be applied during the
initial and concept stages of vessel design. The significant pro-
blem faced by the designer, whether the vessel is small or large, is
the choice of the optimal principal parameters that will lead to a
successful design. Most, if not all, MOGA methodologies conduct
design optimization by searching out the entire Pareto Front,
which will be described later. While effective in determining the
optimal candidates, the plethora of possible solutions leads to a
solution space nearly equal to the population sample size, which
can number in the hundreds. It is usually left to the designer to
choose the more favoured design, which can be a daunting task.
The current methodology allows an automatic selection of the
number of optimal compromise solutions to give to the designer.
In addition, the calculation of the performance objectives in this
study is deliberately not computer intensive, enabling cost-
effective initial boat design studies to be conducted as in
Gammon (2004). Future research would focus on the use of more
advanced functional representations of the performance objec-
tives as in Maisonneuve et al. (2003) using this MOGA approach,
as additional resources become available.
This paper is structured as follows. Section 2 is concerned with
the problem formulation and in particular the definition of the
multi-objective problem along with the development of the
relevant indices that represent the individual cost or performance
functions for each of the objectives. Then, a particular form of
MOGA is presented in Section 3 with some methods for encoding
the problem. Section 4 presents results of application of this
methodology using two different examples of the Istanbul Tech-
nical University (ITU) fishing hull, the first with fixed principal
parameters of length, beam and draft, and the second allowing
these parameters to change simultaneously with the hull offsets.
The fishing boat series as described by Kafalı et al. (1979) was
developed by ITU for Turkish fishermen in order to have a
standard series with known and measured characteristics in
terms of seakeeping and resistance, for which experimental data
is well known. Finally, Section 5 gives some conclusions regarding
this particular approach along with the scope for future work.
2. Optimization problem formulation
Determining the optimal principal parameters for length (L), beam
(B) and draft (T), as well as volumetric displacement (r), is most often
accomplished by parametric variation of a parent hull. Usually hull
form optimization consists of only changing offsets of an already
suitable hull in order to optimize a particular performance objective.
However, at the preliminary design stage, the principal parameters of
the vessel must be determined. These are often determined through
regression based analyses predicting performance attributes from a
1055
database of known designs. The focus of this study is to compute the
performance factors directly for each candidate hull. In addition to the
principal parameters, the optimal hull offsets for the hull shape or
hull form should be determined simultaneously. That is to say, the
near-optimal hull form should also include the near-optimal length,
beam and draft, as well as satisfy a displacement requirement, in
order to create a near-optimal design.
2.1. General multi-objective problem definition
In generic terms, the functional form of the problem is given as
follows. We need to determine the vector of decision variables as
described in Coello Coello (1996):
!
x ¼ ½x1 ,x2 ,x3 ,. . .,xn T
where xj , j ¼ 1,2,. . .,n are the decision variables. As an example,
for this study, the decision variables include the principal para-
meters of the vessel and the hull offsets, i.e.
x1 ¼ L; x2 ¼ B; x3 ¼ T; x4 ¼ W
where L, B and T are the length, beam and draft, respectively. The final
decision variable W is the hull offsets represented as a matrix.
The solution must satisfy the m number of inequality con-
straints:
gi Z 0, i ¼ 1,. . .,m
and p the number of equality constraints:
hi ¼ 0, i ¼ 1,. . .,p
where p as the number of equality constraints should be less than
the number of decision variables n in order to avoid being over-
constrained. Most design factors can be captured as constraints,
as well as limits of the solution domain. The constraints are
discussed further under the design requirements.
The solutions must optimize the vector function:
! ! ! !
f ¼ ½f1 ð x Þ,f2 ð x Þ,. . .,fk ð x ÞT
! ! !
The objective functions f1 ð x Þ, f2 ð x Þ and f3 ð x Þ represent
resistance, seakeeping and stability indices, respectively. In shor-
tened form:
! !!
f ¼ opt f ð x Þ
x¼O
!
f : O-Rk
! !! !
O ¼ f x A Rn 9 g ð x Þ Z 0, hð x Þ ¼ 0g
where k is the number of objectives.
The multi-objective definition of optimality, known as Pareto
Optimality, is defined as a point in n-dimensional space repre-
sented by
!
x AO
!
such that for every, x  A O and I¼{1,2,y,k}, I¼ either
! !
8i A I ðfi ð x Þ ¼ fi ð x ÞÞor there is at least one iAI such that
! ! ! !
fi ð x Þ 4 fi ð x Þ (for maximization problems) or fi ð x Þ o fi ð x Þ (for
minimization problems).
In this study, the term near-optimal is used to describe a
design choice that achieves some compromise in the performance
objectives while satisfying constraints for the design features.
2.2. Formulation of performance indices
2.2.1. Objective 1—resistance performance index
The non-dimensional total resistance coefficient CT)ship is
CT Þship ¼ Cv þ CW Þship þ ca ¼ ð1 þ kÞCF þ CW þ ca
1056 M.A. Gammon / Ocean Engineering 38 (2011) 1054–1064
where Cv is the viscous resistance coefficient, CW)ship is the wave
making resistance coefficient and ca is a correlation allowance. Cv
can be represented in terms of the frictional resistance coefficient
CF and form factor k, i.e. Cv ¼(1þk)CF. The form factor k is
determined from the model test and is assumed independent of
speed and scale. For example, in the ITU fishing hull forms the
tow tank test for the parent form of the ITU series, ITU 148/1-B,
showed a form factor of 0.25 whose tests were done with
5 models with different scales as described by Kafalı et al.
(1979). The same form factor is assumed for the full-scale ship.
The non-dimensional form of the total resistance RT)ship is a
function of the ship speed V and wetted surface area S of the ship:
RT Þship
CT Þship ¼
0:5rV 2 S
where r is the density of water.
The International Towing Tank Conference (ITTC) proposed a
frictional resistance formula based on the Reynolds number. The
ITTC 1957 frictional line is calculated as follows:
0:075
CF ¼
ðlogðRnÞ2Þ2
where Rn is the Reynold’s number given by
rVL
Rn ¼
m beam and may also be regarded as part of the stability criteria.
where m is the viscosity, V is the ship speed and the length of the
vessel is L.
In order to determine CT)ship, we need to determine CW)ship, the
wave making resistance coefficient. CW)model for a model is
assumed to be equal to the full scale ship Cw)ship, i.e.
CW Þship ¼ CW Þmodel
Hence
CT Þship ¼ CW Þmodel þ ð1 þ kÞCF þ ca
For the example in this study, wave resistance CW is calculated
using a transom modified Michell integral using potential flow
theory, as described in Gammon (1990). A comparison of wave
resistance with experimental, Michell integral and the modified
transom integration is shown in Fig. 1. It would appear that the
transom effect is considerable for vessels with a low L/B ratio as in
Gammon and Alkan (2001). At the higher Froude number (Fn) of
0.5 the effect is over pronounced using the transom theory, but as
the normal vessel speed is approximately 10 knots, the prediction
up to Fn 0.4 is in good agreement, and considerably closer to the
experimental curve as compared to the unmodified Michell integral.
A Resistance Coefficient Index (RCI) is formulated from each CT
value at each speed or Froude number as a representation of the
area under the resistance curve to measure the overall resistance
performance. In the current approach, the speeds are treated
Michell
0.030 Gammon
Experimental
Cw,Cr
0.020
0.010
0.000
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6
Fn
Fig. 1. Comparison of Michell and Transom-modified wave resistance with
experimental result for ITU Fishing Boat ITU 148/1-B at a particular load case
(L.C.1).
equally. The RCI is calculated as follows:
X
N 1
1
RCI ¼ ðCT þ CTi þ 1 ÞðFni þ 1 Fni Þ
i¼1
2 i
where N is the number of Froude numbers, CTi the resistance
coefficient at speed i and Fni the Froude number at speed i.
!
The resulting objective for f1 ð x Þ is then represented as
follows:
!
opt f1 ð x Þ ¼ min½RCIðL,B,T,WÞ
2.2.2. Objective 2—seakeeping performance index
Seakeeping performance is a complex area of analysis and needed
resolution into a single seakeeping performance index similar to the
resistance coefficient index in order to be useful in the current multi-
optimization problem. In ship motion, numerous seakeeping factors
are relevant including acceleration at various points on the vessel,
slamming effects, crew response and motion sickness index. Since
there are numerous seakeeping factors, and these represent aspects of
this particular performance attribute of the hull form, it was prudent
to resolve these into a single performance index.
The hull form optimization hypothesis is that the best hull
form is the one that minimizes all of the motions. While there
may be conflicting influences in the motions between heave, pitch
and rolling, the latter was considered to be characterized by the
The focus for the seakeeping performance is the heave and pitch
motions as shown in Fig. 2.
For the purpose of comparing candidate hull forms, the problem is
then simplified by considering only the vertical motion from the pitch
and heave. The total vertical motion, measured at the bow, is
combined from the maximum heave and pitch motions. This is
multiplied by the heave acceleration to give a pseudo-equivalent
momentum. The result is averaged over each ship speed to determine
pseudo energy density. The mass of the vessel is deliberately left out
as the combined pitch and heave are figurative and the maximum
values of each motion do not frequently occur simultaneously.
Vertical motion could be combined into one vertical seakeeping
motion index by integrating the values obtained at each heading
but just head seas were utilized over each ship speed. The equation
for the seakeeping index is given as
X
N 1
1
SKI ¼ ðVerti þVerti þ 1 ÞðVi þ 1 Vi Þ
2
i¼1
where Vert represents the vertical calculation at each ship speed (V)
€ rms ):
using the heave (Hrms), pitch (frms) and heave acceleration (H
  
€ rms Hrms þ L sinðf Þ
Vert ¼ H rms
2
As for the first objective, the optimization for the second
!
objective f2 ð x Þ is represented as follows:
!
opt f2 ð x Þ ¼ min½SKIðL,B,T,WÞ
2.2.3. Objective 3—stability performance index
Stability is an area of ship research that is by itself too large to
treat in detail. It is a fundamental performance criterion that is
regulated by various ship classification societies such as the American
Bureau of Shipping (ABS) and Lloyd’s and must be part of the
evaluation of any concept design. A stability performance index is
used in the hull form optimization program that was developed by
Gammon and Yilmaz (2003) using design model parameters for
stability that had previously been modeled using regression-based
formulas from Grubisic (2001) and Yilmaz (1999). These parameters
take the form of stability constraints defined for the particular ship
design problem, given requirements from the International Maritime
 M.A. Gammon / Ocean Engineering 38 (2011) 1054–1064
HEAVE
Total Vertical Motion
HEAVE
Fig. 2. Pitch and heave motion combined into total vertical motion.
GZ [m]
GM [m]
GZmax
Φm 1 rad Φv
Φ  A genetic representation of solutions to the problem;
Fig. 3. GZ curve with stability index elements.
Organization (IMO) codes on intact stability or other regulation
sources.
A single measure for the stability index in order to minimize
the number of design objectives was required in order to develop
a similar metric as used in other hull design problems such as for
sailing yachts given in Larrson and Eliasson (2000), but which
could still provide a general indication of stability performance.
The use of the stability index based on a single stability char-
acteristic such as either the area under the GZ curve or the
vanishing angle can be erroneous as these single measurements
may be the same for different hulls. As the objective is to compare
different hulls then the stability index should have the ability to
differentiate between different hulls. A stability index that uses
multiple stability characteristics provides a better assessment for
the purpose of evaluating which hulls should be considered as
more optimal, when considering multiple objectives.
As a result the use of both the GM as a constraint according to
regulations and also a GZ curve is utilized as depicted in Fig. 3.
The positive area under the GZ curve up to the vanishing angle fn
gives a good measure of the kinetic energy that can be absorbed
by the hull. The angle at which maximum GZ occurs, fm, is an
indication of the angle after which the hull may have a tendency
to capsize as a result of a diminishing GZ.
The hydrostatics are calculated for each hull form and the GZ
curve is used to generate a stability index as follows:
Rf
STIX ¼ fm 0 v GZðfÞdf
This is taken as the area under the GZ curve up to the
vanishing angle multiplied by the angle at which maximum GZ
occurs. The resulting stability index is indicative of the overall
stability of the hull form, but does not preclude other stability
requirements. For example, additional constraints to limit stabi-
lity in order to avoid unwanted stiffness in the optimal results
could be used, though the current study only used a constraint
based on minimum GM requirements. For the third objective
!
f3 ð x Þ, the optimization is then represented as
! number of generations, and then allowed to mix. That method
opt f3 ð x Þ ¼ max½STIXðL,B,T,WÞ
1057
Wave
PITCH
DWL
PITCH
3. Genetic algorithm approach
Multi-objective problems exist in a wide range of practical
applications. Though other methods such as weighted averaging
techniques can be used, multiple objective problems can be
treated by the determination of the Pareto Front, in which no
solution is dominated by another in one or more performance
criteria as described by Gen and Cheng, (2000). Genetic Algo-
rithms are stochastic search and optimization techniques that
have the following five basic components:
 A way to create an initial population of solutions;
 An evaluation function rating solutions in terms of their
fitness;
 Genetic operators that alter genetic composition of offspring
during reproduction; and
 Values for parameters of Genetic Algorithms.
For the ship designer, finding solutions all along the Pareto
Front using these techniques raises the problem of choosing the
near-optimal compromise solutions, from which some will have
to be considered as more favorable as a compromise than others.
Most often, the choice of a compromise solution is left to the
designer. The need to automate this approach or at least provide
some assistance in achieving a compromise or near-optimal
solution has been a significant driver in the development of the
current optimization methodology.
For this study investigation into a particular MOGA was used
to address the multiple objective issues by automatically deter-
mining a compromise solution. The purpose of generating this
MOGA solver was alluded to earlier, that is, the problem facing
the designer is not, conversely, the search for all solutions from
the entire Pareto Front, which is usually the only optimal strategy
available in multi-objective problems. While aggregation or other
preferential and interactive techniques are used, the goal of this
study was to achieve some level of automation, i.e. to be able to
come up with a few compromise solutions, which could then be
examined by the design team.
3.1. Multi-Objective Genetic Algorithm (MOGA)
The following was developed in order to address some of these
specific issues. The canonical Genetic Algorithm by Goldberg
(1989) is modified as shown in Fig. 4 by treating each objective
sequentially. For each objective the population is evaluated
separately, and the genetic operations applied after each evalua-
tion to generate the next population. The current optimum, if
there is one, is returned at each evaluation. In some ways this
approach is similar to the VEGA approach presented by Schaffer
(1985) where different subpopulations are kept separate for a
allowed the population to approach a compromise solution that
1058 M.A. Gammon / Ocean Engineering 38 (2011) 1054–1064

Fig. 4. Multi-Objective Genetic Algorithm approach.

would perform well in more than one objectives. Unlike VEGA,
the proposed methodology selects parents that are based only one
objective. The next objective in the sequence is evaluated with
the population generated from parents that performed well from
the previous objective. The treatment of the multi-objective
problem is reduced to single objectives in sequence, similar to a
gradient method in which each function’s evaluation leads to a
determination of the direction of search. The relative importance
of which objective is used was found to be immaterial, as long as
the requisite number of iterations, of a minimum of approxi-
mately 10 generations, was used. However, this could vary with
the design problem and only the specific design problem here is
discussed. Further research in the generic application of this
method would be required. It should be noted that the require-
ment to have a sufficient population size, as well as a minimum
number of generations, means that the efficiency of the genetic
algorithm is quite subject to the degree of processing required to
evaluate each objective. Furthermore, the accuracy of the results
is also subject to the individual solutions provided by the
functional evaluations of each objective.
3.2. Hull modeling using chromosomes
In order to be able to use evolutionary algorithms for hull form
optimization, it is necessary to develop a scheme to map the
problem into a format that can be utilized by the algorithm. The
parameters of the problem need to be defined. In every applica-
tion of an GA, the problem of mapping the parameters for
candidate solutions follows from the development of the Genetic
Algorithm. As stated by Gen and Cheng (2000), encoding the
solutions may require further development of heuristics to
manage the solution properties. For the first part of the hull form
 M.A. Gammon / Ocean Engineering 38 (2011) 1054–1064 1059

model the principal parameters are considered. Given the length, automatically generated, given the fact that a B-spline surface
beam and draft the basic dimensions of the hull are defined. Gen was in fact used for modeling of the hull, a more direct and
and Cheng (2000) show how the accuracy and the upper and the accurate interpretation of the hull surface could have been
lower limits are defined for a single chromosome. Using the achieved using the control points of the B-spline surface directly
following representation for the domain [aj,bj] for each variable xj: in the optimization, rather than the use of varying hull offsets, as
one of the input parameters sets that were varied during the
2mj 1 o ðbj aj Þ  103 r 2mj 1 1
optimization.
where the accuracy of 0.001 represented by the range from aj to bj
is multiplied by 103 to move the decimal point by the required
number of digits. The power mj then represents the number of 4. Fishing vessel optimization
bits required in the chromosome. The mapping of each variable is
obtained by Fishing vessels have typically developed from what were
historically small inshore fishing vessels that gradually evolved
ðbj aj Þ
xj ¼ aj þ dchr into larger vessels, as depicted in Fig. 5. Possibly as a result of this
2mj 1 1 historical evolution, Turkish fishing vessels often have a wide
where dchr is the decimal value between 0.0 and 1.0 determined high beam and low depth, as well as low draft as described by
by the chromosome. Alkan (2004), and for the fishing vessels that were the focus of the
The parameters for the principal parameters of the hull are put study, this could result in the possibility of reduced large angle
into a format for the GA. The length, beam and draft can be stability and higher block coefficients, that as one detrimental
described by a binary representation where the limits above are factor can lead to higher resistance. It is the author’s observation
used to determine binary values. Using the equation above to that their evolution from small craft that was built and hauled up
determine the number of bits required for the ranges assumed for on shore has resulted in shallow draft and broad beam. Hull forms
the length, beam and draft and a decimal accuracy of 0.001 gives for small boats originally built up to 10 m in length have been
the following, for an example of length limitation between 10 and scaled up to vessels as large as 60 m in length for commercial
30 m, a breadth limitation between 3 and 5 m, and a draft fishing. Scaling the hull form has provided large working areas for
limitation between 1 and 3 m: the decks and shallow draft, but this has not always proven
advantageous in terms of the resistance, stability and seakeeping
Length : 2mj 1 oð3010Þ  103 r 2mj 1, m1 ¼ 15
characteristics.
Beam : 2mj 1 oð53Þ  103 r 2mj 1, m2 ¼ 11 The problem formulation begins with the requirement to
Draft : 2mj 1 o ð31Þ  103 r 2mj 1, m3 ¼ 11 satisfy some particular design characteristics, in this case the
owner’s requirements for a fishing boat hull. The fishing boat can
To represent the hull offsets, the matrix W is formed from m
be considered a difficult design problem for optimization because
stations and n waterlines such that
it is a small craft relative to ordinary cargo vessels, and require-
0 1
station 1, waterline 1 . . . station m, waterline 1 ments such as the working conditions on the deck are critical for
B ^ ... ^ C safety concerns. The fishing boat example uses a number of
W¼@ A
station 1, waterline n . . . station m, waterline n factors representing the design criteria and the owner’s require-
ments that are given next.
Recombination is approached by choosing a random point in
the matrix and in the string representing only the hull offset at
4.1. Fishing boat design characteristics
that position. The recombination can be done in several ways,
however in keeping with the GA methodology; the matrices are
The resistance, seakeeping and stability evaluations all have a
recombined following the point in the offset, swapping the
large impact on the design. For fishing boats, stability is a primary
remaining row after the offset point and the remaining column
concern and regulations concerning stability are dictated by
below the offset point.
While it is simple to use the offsets directly in the chromo-
some, in order to create hulls that are at least somewhat fair in
shape, without compromising on the use of offsets versus math-
ematical hull shapes, a method was adopted to use both iterative
B-Spline surfaces as described in Gerald and Wheatley (1999),
and a representation of the offsets using offset intervals. The
method transforms the offsets into an array of offset intervals,
with the premise being that a station can be drafted using each
neighbor. The matrix W is then transformed from the offsets at m
stations and n waterlines into differences between offsets. Using
yij as an individual element in the array of offsets
yij þ 1 ¼ yij þ Dy w ij

where Dy is the difference between adjacent offsets; wij is the

chromosome representation of next change in offset and
wij ¼ wl þ ðwu wl Þ dchr
where wl is the lower limit for difference; wu the upper limit for
difference; dchr the decimal value between 0.0 and 1.0 determined
by chromosome.
It should be noted that while for convenience the hull was Fig. 5. Typical Turkish fishing trawler 49 m in length (http://www.maritimesales.
modeled in terms of offsets, so that a table of offsets could be com/EU10.htm).
1060 M.A. Gammon / Ocean Engineering 38 (2011) 1054–1064

regulation societies. As an example in this study, a typical GM Table 1

requirement is assumed of 0.40 m. For prediction of the GM Fishing boat design characteristics.
pertaining to stability an empirically derived formula for fishing
Characteristic Requirement Formulation
boat models can be used (Grubisic, 2001).
The GM formula is given as follows using breadth (B) and GM Minimum GMmax ¼ 0:163e0:742B=D
depth (D): GM¼ 0.40
Depth As relates to VFH Dmin ¼ 0:266L0:77
GMmax ¼ 0:163e0:742B=D Fish hold volume (VFH) VFH ¼95.2 m3 VFH ¼ 0:38 LFH ðB DÞ1:08
Fish hold length As related to VFH LFH ¼ 0:157 L1:26
The minimum depth (Dmin) that can be used is a function of the wl
Depth Related to draft (T) D ¼1.27T
length (L): Waterplane coefficient Cwpl ¼ 0.80 Cwpl ¼waterplane area/(L B)
(Cwpl)
Dmin ¼ 0:266L0:77
Length (L) 10.0r Lr 30.0 m Change in parameter
In addition to the stability requirement, an owner’s require- example 2
Beam (B) 3.0r Br 5.0 m Change in parameter
ment is assumed by specifying a fish-hold volume as used by
example 2
Grubisic (2001). Fish hold volume (VFH) is largely governed by the Draft (T) 1.0r Tr 3.0 m Change in parameter
size of the vessel, and is directly related to the economic value of example 2
the bull. For comparison, a design value is assumed as an example
for a fish hold volume of 95.2 m3 as in the study by Grubisic
(2001). In that model the fish hold is obtained by the following the following conditions and limits are imposed, and are sum-
relation by first obtaining a fish hold length (LFH). This is marized in Table 1 along with the other criteria.
calculated using a correlation formula with respect to the length In order to include these constraints in the optimization
of the waterline (Lwl): process, the penalty method is utilized. The penalty is found per
candidate using a method by Gen and Cheng (2000) according to
LFH ¼ 0:157L1:26
wl the two main design requirements for fish hold volume and GM:
Fish hold volume is then obtained by  
1 DVFH DGM
penalty ¼ 1 þ
VFH ¼ 0:38  LFH ðB  DÞ1:08 2 DVFH max DGM max
One parameter that is not included specifically is the depth of where DVFH is the deviation of the fish hold from the required and
the model. For our purpose, as we are mostly concerned with the DGM is the deviation of GM from the required. For example, for the
underwater portion of the hull, the depth is simply modeled as a fish hold volume:
function of draft (T) according to the following relation:
D ¼ 1:27  T if rVFH ¼ Required VFH VFH
( )
In addition to the minimum fish hold requirement and the GM rVFH , if rVFH 4 0
DVFH ¼
requirement, a desired volumetric displacement can be used, 0, if rVFH o 0
which can also be considered as an owner’s requirement. An
additional design requirement, in the form of a constraint, was The maximum and minimum are from among the population
imposed for a waterplane coefficient of 0.80. This represents a in each generation. The penalty times the performance objective
secondary hull form coefficient, rather than a principal parameter, gives the fitness function for the hull for the particular objective.
which is used as a means of maintaining a workable deck area, For example, for RCI, the fitness function is then given by
but not directly to influence the hull form. If other methods for  
ensuring deck area are used as a constraint then this waterplane RCIRCImin
Fitness ¼ 1  penalty
coefficient restriction does not have to be used. RCImax RCImin
The fishing boat example introduced some restrictions on the
As the previous outline shows, each objective can be tested
hull for the length, beam and draft. Grubisic (2001) used a length
accordingly with each of the design requirements included as a
restriction between 10 and 30 m. In all of the runs in this study, it
constraint. Alternatively if there is the possibility of maximizing
was shown that the length tends towards the maximum limit.
or minimizing a particular design requirement, then these can be
Unless the optimization penalizes length, possibly due to cost or
included as objectives. However additional objectives take addi-
another restriction, which could be based on restrictions accord-
tional computation time whereas using constraints take almost
ing to the type of fishing as imposed by quotas, or port restric-
no additional time at all, therefore, where possible, the use of
tions, as well as by the cost of the vessel, the tendency is for the
constraints should be considered rather than objectives. This does
length to move towards the maximum allowable length. Hence,
not preclude the fact that design requirements could be modeled
should a shorter vessel be required then a limit must be imposed
as objectives.
by the maximum allowable length.
In some cases the displacement was considered as a require-
It should be noted that cost has not been included in this
ment. It is modeled in a similar way as the previous constraints,
study, though this will an overriding consideration in any real
but because of the importance of displacement as a design
optimization problem. For our study, reliable costing data was
requirement, it was given a larger priority. Taking it as a separate
unobtainable for fishing boat construction, as most of the data is
term rather than averaging it together with other constraints
commercial and propriety information. Also in the current meth-
resulted in the following formulation:
odology, imposing arbitrary limits on the hull form using known
coefficients is replaced by a search of the design space driven by   
Dr 1 DVFH DGM
performance indices. Since these secondary coefficients are not penalty ¼ 1 þ
Drmax 2 DVFH max DGM max
used it is prudent to limit the main dimensions so as to
investigate a reasonable design space. In addition to restricting The deviation is calculated in a similar manner for the fish hold
the beam, limits are also imposed on the draft. Besides the design volume or GM requirement and the penalty is again used as
requirements, for the example fishing vessel used in this study multiplication factor of the fitness for each objective.
 M.A. Gammon / Ocean Engineering 38 (2011) 1054–1064 1061

4.2. Exploration of genetic algorithm functionality 0.0018

0.00175

Resistance Index
Because using a Genetic Algorithm is a stochastic and heuristic 0.0017 20 Hulls
approach, it is useful to conduct some initial investigations that 0.00165
determine to what extent the algorithm can be used to change 50 Hulls
0.0016 100 Hulls
parameters and produce useful results. ITU fishing hull series
0.00155
have been used mainly to compare the optimal hulls derived with
the well-known resistance characteristics of the original series. As 0.0015
a series, the different hull forms are similar enough in application 0.00145
to test the methodology for the development of an optimal fishing 0.0014
boat. Since none of the hulls are exactly alike, they represent a 0 20 40 60 80 100
good series of offsets to use for the optimization. Generations
Using the ITU 1B hull for comparison, the optimization was
Fig. 8. Comparison of number of hulls for each generation using ITU 1B.
first conducted at a single of Froude number (Fn¼0.28176) to
examine the feasibility of the optimization. As shown in Fig. 6,
length, beam and draft, as well as fish hold volume and displaced
volume, vary for the best or increasingly optimal hull forms. The
optimal stability characteristic is shown in the GM value given in
Fig. 7 is near the required value.
In addition to the optimization of a single hull some investiga-
tion into the GA aspect was conducted. A comparison of the
number of hulls per generation indicates that while according to
GA practice 100 hulls would yield superior results, even 20 hulls
can provide good results as shown in Fig. 8.

4.3. ITU fishing boat with fixed principal parameters

The ITU fishing boat (ITU 148/1B) is optimized with the given
constraints on the length, beam, and draft. It is convenient for
Fig. 9. ITU 148/1-B original and modified hull with fixed principal parameters.
comparison to look at the resulting hull form if the principal
parameters remain constant and the displacement is set as a target
objective in the form of a constraint, as previously described. In this Performance for ITU 1B with Fixed Dimensions
case the only change is the hull form and in the offsets. As the
displacement is set as a constraint, the fish hold constraint can
0.0520
STIX

actually be removed. Two iterations of the B-spline surface are used

to obtain a fair hull, and the maximum variation in the offsets 0.0500
is 790% of each offset interval. Fig. 9 shows the change in the hull
form in which the principal dimensions are fixed for ITU 148/1B using
an initial population of 20 hull variants that are optimized over 100 4.6000
SKI

150 4.3000
L (m) V,FHV (m3)

120 0.0072
Fish Hold Volume
90 Volume
RCI

Length
0.0070
60
30
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
0 Generation
1 3 5 6 9 10 12 15 16 21 37 38 40 48 49
Generations Fig. 10. Stability, Seakeeping and resistance index performance by generation.

Fig. 6. Volume, length and fish hold volume for increasing optimal hulls.
generations. The last optimal hull (in solid lines) is overlaid with the
original hull (in dashed lines) in Fig. 9. The changes in the hull form
6
are not very great, as expected, though some difference in the sections
5 can be seen. The extreme ends of the hull appear to have widened
whereas the mid-ship sections, though nearly the same, have
GM,B,T (m)

4 Beam
narrowed.
Draft
3 The waterline except at the mid-section shows a tendency to
GM
2 narrow. This is probably in response to the objective to minimize
the resistance, which is subsequently made up in the rest of the
1 body by having fuller sections elsewhere. However, since the
0 optimization is not solely a function of resistance, this observa-
1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 tion is made on the basis of only one performance index, and may
Generations in fact be subject to other performance factors.
The performance indices for resistance, seakeeping and stabi-
Fig. 7. Maximum GM with beam and draft for increasingly optimal hull forms. lity are plotted in Fig. 10 to show how the results evolve over the
1062 M.A. Gammon / Ocean Engineering 38 (2011) 1054–1064

different generations. The stability index at the top graph starts ITU 1B Heave Motion for Original and Modified
low and increases rapidly, over 60 generations. The seakeeping given Fixed Dimensions
index also starts off high and is lowered over subsequent genera- 0.7
tions as seakeeping motion is minimized. Finally, the resistance Original Heave
0.6
index also starts off high and lowers, quite quickly, becoming Modified Heave
more or less the same after 10 generations and is maintained over 0.5
the course of the next 60 generations. After 60 generations, no

Heave
0.4
further Pareto Optimal hulls were found.
Comparing the actual performance from the evolved hull with 0.3
the original ITU 148/1-B hull, for resistance, the total and wave
0.2
resistance coefficients are shown in Fig. 11. The wave resistance
at higher Froude numbers is lower, from 3.85  10  2 to 0.1
3.28  10  2 at a Froude number of 0.5, which corresponds to a
reduction of 14.8% of the wave resistance. 0
The pitch is somewhat larger at lower Froude numbers but is 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6
reduced at higher Froude numbers, as seen in Fig. 12. The heave Froude Number
as shown in Fig. 13 is lower at smaller Froude numbers and is
Fig. 13. ITU 148/1-B original and modified heave motion.
coincidental at larger Froude numbers. The overall result is to
lower the seakeeping index.
Though the stability index increased, these improvements in GZ Curve fro ITU 1b Original and Modified
resistance and seakeeping come with a nominal cost in the GZ with Fixed Dimensions
stability from the original hull form, as dynamic stability as given 0.3
by the area under the GZ curve, shown in Fig. 14, is reduced. The 0.25 Original
stability can vary and a different optimal form having good
Modified
resistance and seakeeping, as well as stability characteristics, 0.2
can also be chosen. For the ITU 1B example the GM of 1.111 m
GZ (m)

was used for the original hull form while a GM of 1.057 m was 0.15
obtained for the modified hull. The KM, which is independent of 0.1
KG, is 2.749 m and 2.65 m for the original and modified hulls,
respectively. 0.05

0
Resistance Coefficients for ITU 1B given Fixed Dimensions 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
-0.05
0.045
Original Wave resistance Heel (deg)
0.040 Modified Wave resistance
Resistance Coefficients

0.035 Original Total Fig. 14. GZ curve for original and modified ITU 148/1-B given fixed dimensions.
Modified total
0.030
0.025
0.020
0.015
0.010
0.005
0.000
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6
Froude Number

Fig. 11. ITU 148/1-B original and modified total and wave resistance.

ITU 1B Original and Modified Pitch

8 Fig. 15. ITU 148/1-B original and evolved hull form with change in principal
7 parameters.

6
5 4.4. ITU fishing boat with change in principal parameters
Pitch

4
If the principal parameters are allowed to vary according to the
3
limits described previously, some quite different and unusual
2 results occur. Using a fish hold volume requirement of 95.2 m3, as
Original Pitch
1 in the example by Grubisic (2001), and re-running the ITU 148/1-B
Modified Pitch
example yields the optimal hull as shown in Fig. 15. No constraint is
0 set for the actual displaced volume in this particular run. The beam in
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6
Froude Number this case is quite wide and the draft quite shallow. The limits in the
main dimensions explored a space with a minimum draft of 1.5 m, a
Fig. 12. ITU 148/1-B original and modified pitch motion. maximum beam of 8 m and a maximum length of 30 m. In trying to
 M.A. Gammon / Ocean Engineering 38 (2011) 1054–1064
Fig. 16. RCI optimal performance by generation for ITU 148/1-B with change in
principal parameters.
Fig. 17. SKI optimal performance by generation for ITU 148/1-B with change in
principal parameters.
achieve minimum resistance the hull is evolving towards maximum
length, while for stability the hull tends towards the maximum beam.
The shallow draft is driven by the minimization of resistance given
that there is no restriction on displacement. The displacement
achieved in this case was only 110 m3. However much that this wide
flat hull is notable in Turkish fishing fleets, the results may be
impractical.
As in the previous case, only 100 generations with a popula-
tion of 20 variants was run. Two iterations of the B-spline surface
are used to obtain a smooth hull and 790% variation in the
offsets interval is allowed. The body plan shown in Fig. 15 for the
optimal hull shows a larger beam to achieve a larger vessel to
match the requirement for the fish hold volume. This results in a
vessel with more displacement but, interestingly, a somewhat
shallower hull.
Resistance index trends for optimal RCI versus generation is
shown in Fig. 16. Large improvements in the RCI is seen in the
first 10 generations, with nominal changes after 10 generations
and no change after 70 generations. Similarly, the SKI perfor-
mance by generation is shown in Fig. 17 and indicates improve-
ments in the SKI up to 65 generations. The stability index is
shown in Fig. 18 and also shows an increase in stability index.
Fig. 19 shows one view into the performance for resistance and
seakeeping as they tend towards their respective minimums, with
1063
Fig. 18. STIX optimal performance by generation for ITU 148/1-B with change in
principal parameters.
Fig. 19. SKI versus RCI optimal for ITU148/1-B with change in principal parameters.
the last Pareto Optimal 67th generation data point plotted
indicating how the optimization is working.
5. Conclusions
A method for conducting optimization of hull forms was
applied to Turkish fishing vessels with the intent of improving
the resistance, seakeeping and stability performance for a given
set of constraints. A fishing boat hull is used as an example of how
hull form optimization can be accomplished using a Multi-
Objective Genetic Algorithm (MOGA). The particular MOGA
developed during this study allows automatic selection of a few
Pareto Optimal results for examination by the designers while
searching the complete Pareto Front. The optimization uses the
three performance indices for resistance, seakeeping and stability
to modify the hull shape and obtain optimal hull offsets, as well as
optimal values for the principal parameters of length, beam and
draft. The modification of the Istanbul Technical University (ITU)
148/1-B fishing boat series hull was presented by first fixing the
principal parameters and allowing the hull offsets to change, and
secondly by simultaneously allowing variation of both the princi-
pal parameters and the hull offsets. Improvements in all three
objectives were found. For further research the methodology can
be modified to allow for the addition of other performance
objectives, such as cost or specific mission objectives, as well as
the use of enhanced performance prediction solvers. In addition,
1064 M.A. Gammon / Ocean Engineering 38 (2011) 1054–1064
one or more hulls could be evaluated by experiment to validate
the results of using this particular optimization approach.
References
Alkan, A.D., 2004. The Turkish fishing fleet: technical features and design
evaluations. Brodogradnja 52 (1), 21–29.
Coello Coello, C.A., 1996. An Empirical Study of Evolutionary Techniques for
Multiobjective Optimization in Engineering Design. Ph.D. Thesis. Tulane
University, New Orleans, Louisiana.
Danisman, D.B., Goren, O., Insel, M., Atlar, M., 2001. An optimization study for the
bow form of high speed displacement catamarans. Marine Technology 38 (2).
Day, A.H., Doctors, L.J., 1997. Resistance optimization of displacement vessels on
the basis of principal parameters. Journal of Ship Research 48 (4), 249–259.
Dejhalla, R., Mrsa, Z., Vukovic, S., 2002. A genetic algorithm approach to minimum
ship wave resistance problem. Marine Technology 39 (3), 187–195.
Gammon, M.A., 1990. Modifying Thin-Ship Wave Resistance Computation for
Transom Stern Ships. Master of Applied Science Thesis. Dalhousie University,
Halifax, Canada.
Gammon, M.A., Alkan, A.D., 2001. A resistance study of low L/B vessels with
Transoms. In: Proceedings of the Techniques and Technology of Fishing
Vessels Conference, Ancona, Italy.
Gammon, M.A., 2004. Ship Hull Form Optimization by Evolutionary Algorithm.
Ph.D. Thesis. Yildiz Technical University, Istanbul, Turkey.
Gammon, M.A., Yilmaz, H., 2003. Stability evaluation for fishing boat hull
optimization. In: Proceedings of the Techniques and Technology of Fishing
Vessels Conference, Ancona, Italy.
Gen, M., Cheng, R., 2000. Genetic Algorithms and Engineering Optimization.
Wiley-Interscience, New York.
Gerald, G.F., Wheatley, P.O., 1999. Applied Numerical Analysis, 6th edition
Addison-Wesley Longman, Reading, Massachusetts.
Goldberg, D.E., 1989. Genetic Algorithms in Search, Optimization and Machine
Learning. Addison-Wesley Longman, Reading, Massachusetts.
Grubisic, I., 2001. Improvement of the fishing vessel concept design model. In:
Proceedings of the 7th Symposium on Techniques and Technology of Fishing
Vessels, Ancona, Italy.
Kafalı, K., S- aylan, Ö., S- alcı, A., 1979. Development of hull forms of fishing boats
suitable for Turkish Waters (in Turkish). TÜB_ITAK (The Scientific and Techno-
logical Research Council of Turkey), Project Number G-416, Istanbul, Turkey.
Larrson, L., Eliasson, R., 2000. Principles of Yacht Design, London. Adlard Nautical.
Maisonneuve, J.J., Harries, S., Marzi, J., Raven, H.C., Viviani, U., Piippo, H., 2003.
Towards optimal design of ship hull shapes. In: Proceedings of the 8th
International Marine Design Conference, National Technical University of
Athens, Athens, vol. 2, pp. 31–42.
Schaffer, J.D., 1985. Multiple objective optimization with vector evaluated genetic
algorithms. In: Genetic Algorithms and their Applications: Proceedings of the First
International Conference on Genetic algorithms, Pittsburgh, PA, pp. 93–100.
Yasukawa, H., 2000. Ship form improvement using genetic algorithm. Ship
Technology Research 47, 35–44.
Yilmaz, H., 1999. Effect of form parameters on stability of fishing vessels. In:
Proceedings of the 7th Symposium on Techniques and Technology in Fishing
Vessels, Ancona, Italy.
Zaraphonitis, G., Papanikolaou, A., Mourkoyannis, D., 2003. Hull form optimization
of high speed vessels with respect to wash and powering. In: Proceedings of
the 8th International Marine Design Conference, vol. 2. National Technical
University of Athens, Athens.