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

net/publication/267594651

The Design of High Speed Planing Craft Using an Optimization Framework

Conference Paper · November 2012

DOI: 10.1115/IMECE2012-85844

CITATIONS READS
7 306

3 authors:

Warren Ferrers Smith Ahmad Faisal Mohamad Ayob

UNSW Sydney Universiti Malaysia Terengganu
67 PUBLICATIONS   1,218 CITATIONS    23 PUBLICATIONS   92 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Tapabrata Ray
UNSW Sydney
293 PUBLICATIONS   5,929 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

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

Supporting students in their transition to university studies by building learning communities View project

Many Objective Computationally Expensive Constrained Optimization View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Ahmad Faisal Mohamad Ayob on 03 June 2021.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Proceedings of the ASME 2012 International Mechanical Engineering Congress & Exposition
IMECE2012
November 9-15, 2012, Houston, Texas, USA

IMECE2012-85844

THE DESIGN OF HIGH SPEED PLANING CRAFT

USING AN OPTIMIZATION FRAMEWORK

Warren F. Smith Ahmad F. Mohamad Ayob Tapabrata Ray

School of Engineering and IT Maritime Technology Department School of Engineering and IT
University of NSW Faculty of Maritime and Marine Science University of NSW
Australian Defence Force Academy University Malaysia Terengganu Australian Defence Force Academy
Canberra, Australia Malaysia Canberra, Australia

ABSTRACT basis ship. This work has significant purpose and relevance in
High speed planing craft as a unique vessel type play key both ab-initio and reverse engineering contexts. It also has
commercial roles in niche passenger ferrying and high value natural extensions in both depth of analysis and breadth of
cargo transport. In addition, they are used to support several application.
critical maritime activities such as coastal surveillance,
reconnaissance, and life-saving operations and many NOMENCLATURE
recreational pursuits. Formal optimization frameworks, despite B Beam (m)
their significant use across a range of domains, have rarely L Length (m)
been proposed and developed to deal with the design T Draft (m)
∇ Volume (m3)
challenges of high speed planing craft. Highlighted in this
Δ Displacement (t)
paper is an optimization framework drawing on both domain GM Metacentric height (m)
dependent and domain independent elements for the cb, cp, cwp Form coefficients (block, prismatic, waterplane)
conceptual and preliminary design of high speed planing craft. WSA Wetted surface area (m2)
A summary of the principal components of the optimization FN Froude number
framework are presented, followed by several case study η Vertical impact acceleration
examples. The solvers developed and employed are classified Cv Speed coefficient
as being population based, evolutionary and stochastic in RT Total resistance (kN)
nature. These characteristics are well suited to design space RC Calm water resistance (kN)
FC Fuel consumption
exploration in all engineering and decision making contexts.
t Operational tempo
Within the case studies presented, the sample key STD Steady turning diameter
performance indicators include calm water resistance, SD Standard deviation
resistance in waves, seakeeping and manoeuvring. The concept COM Component Object Model
of scenario-based hydrodynamic design optimization is NSGA-II Non-dominated Sorting Genetic Algorithm II
introduced using an example of a small rescue craft operating SA-EA Surrogate Assisted Evolutionary Algorithm
in a predefined sea-state. Finally, a multi-objective IDEA Infeasibility Driven Evolutionary Algorithm
optimization case study considering total resistance, steady USCG United States Coast Guard
turning diameter and vertical impact acceleration is presented WPB Notional name for USCG patrol boat
to demonstrate the capability to explore trade-offs while at the 1 INTRODUCTION
same time providing an understanding of the design intent of a High speed planing craft play key commercial roles in
niche passenger ferrying and high value cargo transport in

1 Copyright © 2012 by ASME

Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 05/18/2014 Terms of Use: http://asme.org/terms

 addition to supporting several critical maritime activities such
as coastal surveillance, reconnaissance, and life-saving
operations. Since the 1930’s there has been significant interest
in building planing craft, in particular Patrol Torpedo boats
[1]. It followed that some rigorous research of planing craft
design was conducted in the 1970s [2]. Although the
motivation for the authors’ work has been aimed at improving
seakeeping while retaining as much speed as possible, it is
interesting to note that an inquest into an incident off
Christmas Island, Australia, that resulted in the deaths of 30
asylum seekers in December 2010, concluded that ‘life-saving
rescue vessels (that have been) designed are not capable of
being operated in adverse weather’ [3]. Such rescue vessels
are predominantly planing craft.
Over the course of history, the development of vessels
that can operate well in their intended environment has
evolved. Traditionally, such improvement was based on the
knowledge gained through incremental change and trial and
error. In the mid 1900’s a more systematic analysis of the
process gave rise to the ship design spiral as originally
proposed in [4]. Further advances flowed from the use of
design optimization, which provides the opportunity to
promote the identification of superior solutions, rather than
simply satisfactory designs. There are a significant number of
optimization frameworks for the design of displacement
vessels. Examples include the works [5, 6] on container ships,
[7, 8] on destroyer and frigate forms, [9] on offshore patrol
vessels, and [10, 11] on fishing vessels. Other recent studies of
other displacement craft optimization are: [12-19].
The development of ship design optimization
frameworks has generally been targeted towards displacement
craft rather than planing craft. Factors contributing to this
include the wide application of displacement forms which
represent the bulk of the world’s shipping, the availability of
standard naval architectural tools applicable to this form and
the commercial demand for producing designs that minimize
the use of resources in competitive environments (e.g. pressure
to reduce fuel and building costs). In contrast, the development
of optimization frameworks for high speed planing craft has
been minimal. Reasons for this are likely the limited sources of
published experimental data, the specialized use of the hull
form in restricted commercial, recreational and military
domains and the lack of tailored analysis tools specifically for
planning craft. However, several articles dedicated to planing
craft optimization are [20-22].
In order to support design optimization of planing craft,
an underlying framework should:
1. Allow easy incorporation of different scenarios, design
criteria etc. with analysis modules providing different
levels of fidelity.
2. Allow shape representation and shape manipulation that
is able to generate different variants of hull forms
within the required fairness and defined chines.
3. Include an optimization method that is capable of
dealing with single and multi-objective optimization
problems with constraints. Furthermore, since the
performance evaluations may be computationally
expensive, the optimization algorithms employed
should be efficient.
2 Copyright © 2012 by ASME
Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 05/18/2014 Terms of Use: http://asme.org/terms
Presented in this paper is a summary of the accumulated
knowledge gained during the development of a state-of-the-art
high speed planing craft optimization framework by the
authors at the University of New South Wales at the Australian
Defence Force Academy. Discussed are the proposed methods
for dealing with typical coast guard vessel optimization
problems having single and multiple objectives, leading to
improved and innovative designs that can operate in calm
water and in a seaway with the consideration of various
operational profiles. Case study problem statements are
outlined and followed by highlights of the results to date. The
intent is to demonstrate a capability that could be leveraged to
explore future designs more thoroughly.
2 DESIGN OPTIMIZATION FRAMEWORK
A planing craft design optimization framework as
described in [23, 24] has been developed. The framework
incorporates a surface information retrieval module, an
optimizer module and several accepted naval architectural
performance estimation methods. The framework utilizes a
basis ship (or parent ship) approach. To begin, an initial design
represented by a standard offset table, which is an ordered set
of x, y, z coordinates, is entered into the framework. This is
then parsed by the framework to generate representative
surface information using B-splines. This approximation of the
original surface using splines is then interpreted within the
framework as the surface geometry of the model based so
called basis hull form. Using this technique the basis hull form
is then geometrically stretched to match new parameter values
of a candidate design which in turn leads to an updated set of
characteristic and performance values for each candidate
design. The naval architectural tools that are incorporated in
the framework include: hydrostatics calculations, calm-water
resistance [25], seakeeping estimation (resistance due to waves
and vertical impact acceleration) [26, 27], and manoeuvring
performance estimation [28, 29]. The optimizer module
included in this framework consists of a set of population-
based, stochastic algorithms, namely the Non-dominated
Sorting Genetic Algorithm (NSGA-II) [30], the Infeasibility
Driven Evolutionary Algorithm (IDEA) [31, 32], and the
Surrogate Assisted Evolutionary Algorithm (SA-EA) [33]. For
the sake of brevity, the specific details of the optimization
algorithms are not included herein but can be found in the
respective references. However, as they are stochastic, the
general approach is to run a number of cases and present
results including statistical characteristic measures.
A flowchart of the planing craft optimization framework
is shown in Figure 1. The planing craft optimization process
starts with the offset data that is fed into the surface
information retrieval module, where the resulting surface
representation of the basis hull form is generated. The chosen
optimizer (NSGA-II, IDEA or SA-EA) generates candidate
designs with new values of length (L), beam (B) and draft (T)
which are subsequently used to generate new hull form
geometries. The performance of the candidate designs are
evaluated on the basis of a chosen set of analysis (covering for
example hydrostatics characteristics, calm-water resistance,
seakeeping quality and manoeuvring predictions) and these are
used by the optimizer as a measure of fitness. The planning
craft framework is built using the Microsoft Component
 Object Model (COM©) framework that allows for flexibility
future expansion of the analytical modules. This modularity
easily facilitates the tailoring of analysis and supports the
generality of application of the framework. For example,
Figure 1: Planing craft optimization framework
3 RESISTANCE MINIMIZATION OF HIGH SPEED
PLANING CRAFT
Hull resistance minimization has been a popular subject
in ship design optimization studies. In the quest for speed and
economic efficiency, minimizing resistance is a dominant
objective. Several works [10, 17-19, 34] also tackle resistance
minimization in calm water and in a seaway using genetic
algorithms. The presence of waves can significantly change the
speed (and motion) of a vessel. With respect to high speed
planing craft design optimization, minimization of calm water
resistance has been demonstrated using a well known patrol
craft, the USCG WPB-110ft, where the published data can be
found in [35].
The profile of the patrol craft is shown in Figure 2.
Graphically, a vessel’s offsets can be represented in an
orthogonal drawing and a view showing overlaid transverse
sections of the hull is known as the body plan. Shown in Figure
3(a) and 3(b) are the body plans of the actual vessel and that of
the mathematical model of the WPB-110ft craft generated
using the proposed framework. Prior to optimization of the
model, the 3-dimensional mathematical model of the patrol
craft was validated through comparison with the published
numerical experimental data. As discussed in [36], between the
original hull and the mathematical model, the geometric values
Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 05/18/2014 Terms of Use: http://asme.org/terms
costing algorithms could be easily interfaced if they became
available.
(of length, beam and draft) are matched within 1.3% and
displacement is matched with a 2.23% of error. A small error in
the speed coefficient, Cv, and the calm water resistance, RC,
which is less than 5% is argued to demonstrate the match
between the actual vessel and the model is acceptable.
Following the basis ship approach method, the numerically
optimized candidate designs are later compared with the
modeled craft, hereafter referred to as the ‘basis ship’.
Calm water resistance minimization of the basis ship
has been conducted using the proposed framework resulting in
a significant reduction of RC as shown in Table 1. The
proposed framework was capable of identifying a candidate
design which possesses lower calm water resistance, up to a
10% reduction, when compared to the basis ship. The best,
mean, and median designs and the standard deviation of the
designs across 30 individual runs are reported to indicate
consistency in the stochastic results obtained using the
proposed algorithms. For comparison, shown in Table 2 are
values of geometric parameters of the basis ship and the best
candidate solutions generated by each of the three algorithms.
While the speed (30kts) and displacement (118.22 t) have been
held constant, the improvements are clearly a function of
increasing length and decreasing beam and draft. While the
calculated wetted surface area has increased, the total
3 Copyright © 2012 by ASME
 resistance has decreased due to a reduction in wave making
from the finer form.
Shown in Table 3 are the results of the minimization of
resistance of the basis WPB-110ft ship operating in a seaway.
The experiment was aimed to identify a superior candidate
design to operate in conditions modeling Northern Australian
coastal waters. The results indicate significant reduction of
total resistance, RT, is possible – up to 7.74%, 6.11% and
4.19% (indicated by bold typeface) for operations in sea-states
3, 4 and 5 respectively. When compared to the results for calm
water resistance in Table 1 and across rising sea-states in Table
2, it is observed that the possible resistance reduction Figure 2: Outboard Profile View of the USCG WPB-110ft
percentage was reduced due to the influence of the demand to (reproduced from [35])
maintain speed in higher seas.

(a) Lines of the WPB-110ft (b) B-spline surfaces defining

(reproduced from [35]) WPB-110ft Model

Figure 3: Body plan of the USCG WPB-110ft (actual and basis ship)

Table 1: Summary for the best candidate solutions (calm water resistance minimization)
obtained using NSGA-II, IDEA and SA-EA

NSGA-II IDEA SA-EA

Best (kN) 122.38 122.43 122.40
Mean (kN) 123.14 122.95 122.84
Median (kN) 122.87 122.68 122.64
SD 0.693 0.778 0.523
% RC reductions 10 9.9 10

4 Copyright © 2012 by ASME

Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 05/18/2014 Terms of Use: http://asme.org/terms

 Table 2: Summary of characteristics for the best candidate solutions (calm water resistance minimization)
obtained using NSGA-II, IDEA and SA-EA

Basis Ship NSGA-II IDEA SA-EA

Δ (t) 118.22 118.22 118.22 118.22
L(m) 32.93 35.92 35.93 35.93
B(m) 7.52 7.28 7.28 7.27
T(m) 1.60 1.50 1.50 1.50
GM(m) 1.64 1.83 1.83 1.82
cb 0.292 0.294 0.294 0.294
cp 0.680 0.686 0.686 0.686
cwp 0.614 0.623 0.623 0.623
WSA (m2) 183.83 194.09 194.15 194.06
Fn 0.86 0.82 0.82 0.82
V (knots) 30.00 30.00 30.00 30.00
RC (kN) 135.93 122.38 122.43 122.40

Table 3: Summary for the best candidate solutions (minimization of resistance in a seaway)
obtained using NSGA-II, IDEA and SA-EA – Function Evaluations and Improvement

NSGA-II SA-EA IDEA

Avg. Num. of Function.Eval. 720 688.4 720
Sea State 3
% of Minimized Resistance 7.35 7.71 7.74
Avg. Num. of Function.Eval 880 856.6 880
Sea State 4
% of Minimized Resistance 5.69 5.94 6.11
Avg. Num. of Function.Eval 760 744.3 760
Sea State 5
% of Minimized Resistance 4.19 4.02 3.99

4 SCENARIO-BASED HYDRODYNAMIC DESIGN
OPTIMIZATION
When considering reality, it is preferable to design a
ship based on a defined operational profile. It is rare in the
maritime sector for an operational environment to represent a
single state. Therefore, there is value in a capability that allows
tradeoffs to be explored.
Several operational scenarios that include seaway
conditions, survivability objectives, energy consumption
targets and emergency events can be simulated in the early
design stage. The operating scenarios can be derived from the
required operational profile combined with performance
measures of the ship such as survivability [37, 38], fuel
consumption [39] and electrical generation [40]. Scenario
consideration based on an operational profile is referred to by
the authors as scenario-based optimization. Although
increasing interest in including operational profiles in ship
design optimization has been observed, these studies have
been limited to minimizing fuel consumption and increasing
the probability of survival. Furthermore, limited studies on the
investigation of scenario-based design optimization of high
speed planing craft are reported in the literature. Therefore,
the framework has been exercised in an effort to address this
shortcoming.
The numerical experiments conducted at UNSW
Canberra contributed to the study of scenario-based
hydrodynamic design optimization through the introduction of
several possible scenarios. These include; (i) a multiple speed
operation in a single sea-state [41], (ii) a single speed
operation in multiple sea-states [23], and (iii) the investigation
of the effect of vertical impact acceleration, η, to small craft
performance [42].
As an example, shown in Table 4 is the comparison of
fuel consumption between the candidate and basis ship designs

5 Copyright © 2012 by ASME

Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 05/18/2014 Terms of Use: http://asme.org/terms

 for an operational time, where t = 3000 hours/year, as
indicated to be the original design intent in [43, 44]. The
optimization formulation aims to identify the superior
candidate designs given three operational speeds of: patrol (16
knots); transit (25 knots); and intercept (30 knots). A
predefined lifetime operational spectrum is also required. The
operational tempo is set arbitrarily for the case study as 60% at
16 knots, 20% at 25 knots and 20% at 30 knots. Four
optimization problems were executed which cater for
minimization of resistance at 16 knots only, 25 knots only, 30
knots only and finally using the defined lifetime operational
tempo which leads to candidate designs being labelled D16,
D25, D30 and DL, respectively. It can be observed in Table 4
that a significant fuel saving of 10.2% can be achieved if the
basis ship is optimized to operate at 16 (D16) or 30 knots (D30).
However, a savings of 10.1% over the basis ship is also
achievable in considering the defined operational speed
profile.
Presented in Table 5 is a summary of the characteristics
of the best candidate solutions in comparison with the Basis
Ship. With the focus again being driven by resistance
minimization, the solutions have been morphed to be of greater
length and lesser beam and draft.
Fundamentally and conceptually, the proposed
framework enables a ship designer to identify candidate
designs for operations across different speeds with an assumed
lifetime operational profile. This would obviously facilitate a
range of tradeoff studies to a level deemed appropriate for the
decisions being addressed.

Table 4: Fuel consumption comparisons among candidate and basis designs (scenario case study)
(t=3000 hours/year)

FC [kg/hr] Fuel saving (%)

Basis ship 175.39 -
16
D 157.48 10.21
25
D 160.33 8.58
30
D 157.5 10.2
L
D 157.66 10.11

Table 5: Summary of characteristics for the best candidate solutions (scenario case study)

Basis Ship D16 D25 D30 DL

∇ (m3) 115.4 115.4 116.54 115.4 115.5
L (m) 32.93 35.92 35.91 35.92 35.93
B (m) 7.52 7.16 7.29 7.16 7.17
T (m) 1.6 1.52 1.51 1.52 1.52
GM (m) 1.64 1.64 1.80 1.65 1.65
cb 0.291 0.295 0.295 0.295 0.295
cp 0.680 0.686 0.686 0.686 0.686
cwp 0.614 0.623 0.623 0.623 0.623
2
WSA (m ) 193.82 192.75 194.71 192.77 192.91

5 MULTI-OBJECTIVE OPTIMIZATION CASE
STUDY
Summarized in this section is the capability of the
proposed framework to conduct a multi-objective optimization
exercise, again using the example of the WPB-110ft planing
craft. The multi-objective optimization problem posed is
described as the identification of planing craft hull form
geometries with minimum total resistance, RT, vertical impact
6 Copyright © 2012 by ASME

Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 05/18/2014 Terms of Use: http://asme.org/terms

 acceleration, η, and steady turning diameter, STD, subject to
constraints on displacement and stability (transverse
metacentric height), operating with a speed of 30 knots. The
seakeeping scenario for sea-state 3 was modeled using a
Pierson-Moskovitz energy spectrum with a significant wave
height of 1.34m.
All the solver algorithms (NSGA-II, IDEA and SA-EA)
were able to obtain non-dominated solutions. The non-
dominated solutions from all algorithms were combined to
form a pool of non-dominated solutions which consists of a
well-spread solution surface with good diversity as shown in
Figure 3 (a), (b) and (c) and Figure 4. The results indicate a
range of designs with RT varying between 162.58kN and
235.21kN, STD between 245.37m and 505.52m and η between
0.549g and 0.987g. The basis hull has a RT of 176.65kN, STD
of 373m and η of 0.75. A tabular representation of these results
is provided in Table 5.
It can be observed in Figure 4 in particular that the
design with minimum RT has maximum STD. Similarly the
design with minimum STD has maximum RT. This finding is
not surprising. The third axis not shown reflects the seakeeping
performance. However, in Figures 3(b) and 3(c) it is evident
that the minimum vertical acceleration is not driven to an
extreme value of resistance or turning diameter.
As shown in Figure 4, the basis ship is positioned on
the non-dominated front of two objectives, RT and STD.
However, in other pair wise comparisons involving vertical
acceleration, the basis ship is not on the non-dominated front
(see Figure 3(b) and 3(c)), indeed its value of 0.75g is well
above what seems possible, approximately 0.6g.

(a) Overall non-dominated set

(b) η versus RT (2D View) showing Basis Ship (c) STD versus η (2D View) showing Basis Ship

Figure 3: Collected Non-dominated set from Multi-objective Optimization

7 Copyright © 2012 by ASME

Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 05/18/2014 Terms of Use: http://asme.org/terms

 Figure 4: Non-dominated set for RT and STD

Table 5: Summary Data from Multi-objective Optimization Case

Design with: RT (kN) η (g) STD (m)

Minimum RT 162.58 0.613 505.52
Maximum RT 235.21 0.936 245.83
Minimum η 186.71 0.55 428.19
Maximum η 215.94 0.987 261.58
Minimum STD 235.13 0.938 245.37
Maximum STD 162.58 0.613 505.52
Basis Ship 176.65 0.75 373

This is an interesting revelation that implies that the
basis ship is among the superior candidate designs in some
respects but not others. From the figure, what is evident is that
the original designer chose a good compromise between
resistance and steady turning diameter and did not select a
design representative of a single-objective analysis (either
extreme). However, significant seakeeping improvements could
have been made with little change to resistance and turning
diameter.
Using the proposed framework, demonstrated here is the
capability to capture the design decision trade-off while at the
same time providing an understanding of the design of the
USCG WPB-110ft basis ship. Perhaps there is a forensic aspect
to this case study but the benefit of pursuing a holistic approach
to design is rather obvious in this light.
6 CONCLUSION
The aim of the work summarized in this paper was to
develop a framework for optimum design of high speed planing
craft in conceptual and preliminary design stages. To achieve
this, a flexible geometry modeler and several experimentally
derived naval architectural analysis tools were combined with
state-of-the-art optimization algorithms. This optimization
framework utilized a full geometric representation of hard chine
8 Copyright © 2012 by ASME

Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 05/18/2014 Terms of Use: http://asme.org/terms

 planing craft, where superior designs were identified based on
stated operational requirements.
Through the use of the proposed planing craft geometry
representation method, combined with experimentally derived
naval architectural tools, a validated 3D mathematical model to
represent the complete geometry of a high speed planing craft
was identified and shown to compare favorably with
experimental data published in the literature. Such a capability
is valuable for ship designers for visualization. Furthermore, it
provides for valid model generation capability within an
optimization framework.
Indicative case studies in the optimization of high speed
planing craft have been thoroughly explored. The investigation
started with the minimization of calm water resistance and
resistance in a seaway, followed by a multi-objective
optimization case study of total resistance, vertical impact
acceleration and steady turning diameter. Later, optimization
problems based on operational scenarios were explored. The
capability offered by the proposed framework provides
unlimited possibilities for creating designs for specialized
missions of high speed planing craft.
REFERENCES
1. Rottman, G., US Patrol Torpedo Boats, World War II. .
2008: Osprey Publishing.
2. Clark, D.J., W.M. Ellsworth, and M.J. R., The Quest
for Speed at Sea. 2004, Naval Surface Warfare Center,
Carderock Division.
3. Jones, L., Emergency Vessels not 'Equipped' for High
Seas, in Canberra Times. 2011: Canberra.
4. Evans, J.H., Basic Design Concepts. Naval Engineers
Journal, 1959. 71: p. 671–678.
5. Ray, T., Preliminary Ship Design in the Multiple
Criteria Decision Making Framework. 1995, Indian
Institute of Technology: Kharagpur.
6. Ganesan, V., A Model for Multidisciplinary Design
Optimization of Containership. 1999, Virginia
Polytechnic Institute and State University: Blacksburg,
Virginia.
7. Mistree, F., et al., Decision-Based Design: A
Contemporary Paradigm in Ship Design. Transactions
of the Society of Naval Architects and Marine
Engineers (SNAME), 1990. 98: p. 565-597.
8. Smith, W.F., The Modeling and Exploration of Ship
Systems in the Early Stages of Decision-Based Design.
1992, University of Houston.
9. Peacock, D.A., Decision-Based Hydrodynamic Design
of Displacement Monohulls, in School of Mechanical
and Manufacturing Engineering. 1998, University of
New South Wales: Sydney.
10. Gammon, M.A., Ship Hull Form Optimization by
Evolutionary Algorithm. 2004: Istanbul.
Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 05/18/2014 Terms of Use: http://asme.org/terms
11. Majumder, M., A. Akinturk, and S.M. Calisal,
Optimized Design of Small Craft. Marine Technology,
2002. 39(2): p. 67-76.
12. Neu, W.L., et al. A Prototype Tool for
Multidisciplinary Design Optimization of Ships. in
Ninth Congress of the International Maritime
Association of the Mediterranean. 2000. Naples, Italy.
13. Zaraphonitis, G., A. Papanikolaou, and D.
Mourkoyannis. Hull-Form Optimization of High Speed
Vessel with respect to Wash and Powering. in
Proceeding of the 8th International Marine Design
Conference. 2003. Athens.
14. Grigoropoulos, G.J., Hull Form Optimization for
Hydrodynamic Performance. Marine Technology,
2004. 41(4): p. 167-182.
15. Wolf, R., J. Dickmann, and R. Boas. Ship Design
using Heuristic Optimization Methods. in 46th
AIAA/ASME/ASCE/AHS/ASC Structures, Structural
Dynamics and Materials Conference. 2005. Austin,
Texas: Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
16. Neti, S.N., Ship Design Optimization using Asset.
2005, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State
University: Blacksburg, Virginia.
17. Koh, L., et al., Novel Design and Hydrodynamic
Optimisation of a High-Speed Hull Form, in 5th
International Conference on High Performance
Marine Vessels. 2005: Shanghai, China.
18. Mason, A. and G. Thomas. Stochastic Optimisation of
IACC Yachts. in 6th International Conference on
Computer and IT Application in the Maritime
Industries (Compit 2007). 2007. Cortona.
19. Grigoropoulos, G.J. and D.S. Chalkias, Hull-Form
Optimization in Calm and Rough Water. Computer-
Aided Design, 2010. 42(11): p. 977 – 984.
20. Jons, O.P., J. Koelbel, and R. Sheldon, A New
Generation of High-Performance Planing Craft.
Naval Engineers Journal, 1985: p. 234-247.
21. Almeter, J.M. Resistance Prediction and Optimization
of Low Deadrise, Hard Chine, Stepless Planing Hulls.
in Ship Technology and Research Symposium (STAR).
1995: Society of Naval Architectures and Marine
Engineers.
22. Herrington, P.D. and R.G. Latorre, Development of an
Aluminum Hull Panel for High Speed Craft. Marine
Structures, 1998. 11: p. 47–71.
23. Mohamad Ayob, A.F., T. Ray, and W. Smith,
Hydrodynamic Design Optimization of a Hard Chine
Planing Craft for Coastal Surveillance, in Pacific
2010 International Maritime Conference (Pacific
2010). 2010: Sydney, Australia. p. 10.
24. Mohamad Ayob, A.F., T. Ray, and W.F. Smith,
Uncovering Secrets Behind Low-resistance Planing
Craft Hull Forms Through Optimization. Engineering
Optimization, 2011. (in press).
9 Copyright © 2012 by ASME
 25. Savitsky, D., Hydrodynamic Design of Planing Hull. 39. Radan, D., et al., Probability Based Generator
Marine Technology, 1964. 1(1): p. 71-95. Commitment Optimization in Ship Power System
26. Savitsky, D. and P. Brown, Procedures for Design. WSEAS Transactions on Systems, 2006.
Hydrodynamic Evaluation of Planing Hulls in Smooth 40. NAVSEA, Report to Congress on Alternative
and Rough Water. Marine Technology, 1976. 13(4): p. Propulsion Methods for Surface Combatants and
381-400. Amphibious Warfare Ships. , U.S.N. Naval Sea
27. Savitsky, D. and J. Koelbel, Joseph G., Seakeeping of Systems Command, Editor. 2007.
Hard Chine Planing Hull. 1993. 41. Mohamad Ayob, A.F., T. Ray, and W.F. Smith,
28. Denny, S.B. and N.E. Hubble, Prediction of Craft Scenario-based Hydrodynamic Design Optimization of
Turning Characteristics. Marine Technology, 1991. High Speed Planing Craft for Coastal Surveillance, in
28(1): p. 1-13. 2011 IEEE Congress on Evolutionary Computation
29. Lewandowski, E.M., The Dynamics of Marine Craft: (CEC). 2011: New Orleans, LA.
Maneuvering and Seakeeping. Advanced Series on 42. Mohamad Ayob, A.F., T. Ray, and W. Smith. A
Ocean Engineering. 2004: World Scientific, Computer Framework for Scenario-Based Hydrodynamic Design
Sciences Corporation. 411. Optimization of Hard Chine Planing Craft. in 9th
30. Deb, K., et al., A Fast and Elitist Multiobjective International Conference in Computer and IT
Genetic Algorithm: NSGA-II. IEEE Transactions on Applications in the Maritime Industries (COMPIT'10).
Evolutionary Computation, 2002. 6: p. 182-197. 2010. Gubbio, Italy: Technische Universitat Hamburg-
31. Singh, H.K., et al. Infeasibility Driven Evolutionary Harburg, Hamburg.
Algorithm (IDEA) for Engineering Design 43. USCG, United States Coast Guard Acquisition
Optimization. in 21st Australasian Joint Conference Directorate. 2010.
on Artificial Intelligence: Advances in Artificial 44. Karafiath, G., et al., Hydrodynamic Efficiency
Intelligence. 2008. Auckland, New Zealand: Springer- Improvements to the USCG 110 ft WPB ISLAND Class
Verlag Berlin, Heidelberg. Patrol Boats. Transaction of Society of Naval
32. Ray, T., et al., Infeasibility Driven Evolutionary Architects and Marine Engineers (SNAME), 2001.
Algorithm for Constrained Optimization, in 109: p. 197–220.
Constraint-Handling in Evolutionary Optimization.
2009, Springer Berlin / Heidelberg. p. 145-165.
33. Isaacs, A., T. Ray, and W. Smith, An Evolutionary
Algorithm with Spatially Distributed Surrogates for
Multiobjective Optimization, in Progress in Artificial
Life. 2007, Springer Berlin / Heidelberg. p. 257-268.
34. Day, A.H. and L.J. Doctors, Resistance Optimization
of Displacement Vessels on the Basis of Principal
Parameters. Journal of Ship Research, 1997. 41(4): p.
249–259.
35. White, J.A. and D. Savitsky. Seakeeping Predictions
for U.S.C.G Hard Chine Patrol Boats. in N.Y.
Metropolitan Section of SNAME. 1988.
36. Mohamad Ayob, A.F., T. Ray, and W.F. Smith, Beyond
Hydrodynamic Design Optimization of Planing Craft.
Journal of Ship Production and Design, 2011. 27(1): p.
1–13.
37. Boulougouris, E. and A. Papanikolaou, Optimisation
of the Survivability of Naval Ships by Genetic
Algorithm, in In Proceedings of the 3rd Conference on
Computer Applications and Information Technologies
in the Maritime Industries (COMPIT’04). 2004:
Siguenza, Spain.
38. Akhil, K.R., D. Ghose, and R.S. Koteswara,
Optimization Deployment of Multiple Decoys to
Enhance Ship Survivability, in In Proceedings of the
2008 American Control Conference. 2008.

10 Copyright © 2012 by ASME

DownloadedViewFrom:
publicationhttp://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/
stats on 05/18/2014 Terms of Use: http://asme.org/terms