Journal of

Marine Science
and Engineering

Article
A Mesh Deformation Method for CFD-Based Hull
form Optimization
Kwang-Leol Jeong 1 and Se-Min Jeong 2, *
1 Research Center, NEXTfoam Co., Ltd., Seoul 08512, Korea; kl.jeong@nextfoam.co.kr
2 Department of Naval Architecture and Ocean Engineering, Chosun University, Gwangju 61452, Korea
* Correspondence: smjeong@chosun.ac.kr; Tel.: +82-62-230-7218




Received: 8 June 2020; Accepted: 24 June 2020; Published: 26 June 2020


Abstract: Computational fluid dynamics (CFD) is an effective tool for ship resistance prediction
and hull form optimization. A three-dimensional volume mesh is essential for CFD simulation,
and mesh generation requires much time and effort. Mesh deformation can reduce the time for
mesh generation and simulation. The radial basis function (RBF) and inverse distance weighted
(IDW) methods are well-known mesh deformation methods. In this study, the two methods are
compared and a novel mesh deformation method for hull form optimization is proposed. For the
comparison, a circular cylinder polyhedral mesh was deformed to the National Advisory Committee
for Aeronautics (NACA) 0012 mesh. The results showed that the RBF method is faster than the IDW
method, but the deformed mesh quality using the IDW method is better than that using the RBF
method. Thus, the RBF method was modified to improve the deformed mesh quality. The centroids
of the boundary layer cells were added to the control points, and the displacements of the centroids
were calculated using the IDW method. The cells far from the ship were aligned to the free surface to
minimize the numerical diffusion of the volume of fluid function. Therefore, the deformable region
was limited by the deformed boundary, which reduced the time required for mesh deformation.
To validate its applicability, the proposed method was applied for varying the bow shape of Japan
Bulk Carrier (JBC). The resistances were calculated with the deformed meshes. The calculation time
was reduced to approximately one-third using the result of the initial hull form as the initial condition.
Thus, the proposed mesh deformation method is efficient and effective enough for CFD-based hull
form optimization.

Keywords: mesh deformation; computational fluid dynamics (CFD); radial basis function (RBF)
method; inverse distance weighted (IDW) method; hull form optimization

1. Introduction
Computational fluid dynamics (CFD) is one of the general tools for estimating the resistance
of a ship in calm water. Naval architects iterate the hull form variation, grid generation, and CFD
calculation to minimize the resistance. Even though the hull form variation is extremely localized and
low, the grid must be regenerated. Many shipbuilding and design companies are exerting efforts to
automate the procedure to reduce the time and cost. Moreover, many studies on CFD-based design
optimization have been conducted. An optimization algorithm to minimize the iterations is the most
important and the hull form variation method according to the design parameter is very essential.
Kim and Yang [1] applied two surface modification methods for hull form optimization. One was
based on a radial basis function (RBF), while the other was based on a sectional area curve. Kim and
Yang’s [1] RBF method uses only 6 control points as design variables to minimize the resistance of Korea
Research Institute for Ships and Ocean Engineering (KRISO) Container Ship (KCS) in three speeds.
The resistance of the modified hull was evaluated using a method based on the Neumann–Michell

J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2020, 8, 473; doi:10.3390/jmse8060473 www.mdpi.com/journal/jmse

J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2020, 8, 473 2 of 13

theory, which uses only a surface mesh. Kim et al. [2] applied the same method used by Kim and
Yang [1] to improve the resistance and seakeeping performance of the US Navy surface combatant David
Taylor Model Basin (DTMB) 5415. Mahmood and Huang [3] optimized a bulbous bow to minimize
the total resistance using a genetic algorithm. They used ANSYS FLUENT and GAMBIT (Ansys,
In., Canonsburg, PA, USA) for resistance calculation and mesh generation, respectively. A GAMBIT
journal file was created to automate the hull form variation and volume mesh generation in accordance
with the design parameters. Zhang et al. [4] proposed an improved particle swarm optimization
algorithm, where Siemens STAR-CCM+ (Siemens Industry Software Ltd., Plano, TX, USA) was used for
volume mesh generation and resistance calculation. The hull form was varied using an arbitrary shape
deformation (ASD) technique proposed by Sun et al. [5]. The ASD technique is based on a B-spline
and requires that the volume is set up outside the body with many control points and connections.
The volume mesh deforming method has been developed to simplify the optimization process
and reduce the turnaround time as shown in Figure 1. Mesh deformation is much faster than grid
generation, and the simulation with a deformed mesh uses the results of the original mesh as the
initial condition. Successive calculation also reduces the calculation time. Morris et al. [6] developed
a mesh deformation method based on the RBF method. The control points of the RBF method
were used as design parameters. The method was independent of both the flow solver and grid
generator. Morris et al. [6] applied a method for optimizing airfoils with feasible sequential quadratic
programming. They concluded that the method was extremely fast and efficient, and the deformed
mesh quality was very high. Sieger et al. [7] compared the classical free-form deformation (FFD), direct
manipulation FFD, and RBF methods with each other. They concluded that the RBF method was much
faster and more precise than the other two methods. Luke et al. [8] proposed a mesh deformation
method based on inverse distance weighted (IDW) interpolation. Their method interpolated the
translational displacement and rotational displacement using the IDW method. The parallelization of
the algorithm was also described. They showed that the non-orthogonality of the boundary layer of
the deformed mesh using the IDW method is better than that by the RBF method if the rotation of the
body surface is high. He et al. [9] applied the IDW method to optimize an airfoil that starts with a
circle. To show the robustness of the IDW method, a two-dimensional (2D) mesh for the circle was
deformed to the mesh of NACA 0012. They concluded that the IDW method is better than the RBF
method in terms of non-orthogonality of the boundary layer. TransFinite Interpolation (TFI) method is
also a popular and efficient method for structured grid. However, the TFI method is difficult to apply
to polyhedral mesh because of the irregular distribution of mesh points [10].
In this paper, Section 2 introduces the RBF, IDW and improved RBF methods. To compare the
quality and time for deformation, a polyhedral mesh for circular cylinder are deformed to the mesh for
NACA 0012. The results show that the RBF method have problem with non-orthogonality in boundary
layer cell. The IDW method takes much longer time than that of the RBF method. The non-orthogonality
of the improved RBF method is as good as IDW method and the turnaround time is shorter than
any other methods. To check the applicability of the improved RBF method, the polyhedral mesh for
Japan bulk carrier (JBC) resistance calculation is deformed and the mesh is calculated in Section 3.
Because of the mesh topology is identical with the original mesh, the result of the original mesh is
used as the initial condition of deformed mesh. Therefore, the time for solution converging is reduced
by two-thirds.
r than the RBF method in terms of non-orthogonality of the boundary layer. TransF
polation (TFI) method is also a popular and efficient method for structured grid. However
method is difficult to apply to polyhedral mesh because of the irregular distribution of m
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2020, 8, 473 3 of 13
ts [10].

. Sci. Eng. 2020, 8, 473 3

(a)

(b)
Figure 1. Procedure of computational fluid dynamics (CFD)-based optimization. (a) Re-meshing
Figure 1. Procedure of computational fluid dynamics (CFD)-based optimization. (a) Re-meshing
method. (b) Mesh deforming method.
method. (b) Mesh deforming method.
2. Mesh Deformation Methods
In this section, the RBF and IDW methods are introduced and compared. In addition, an improved
In this paper,
RBFSection
method to2remedy
introduces the RBF,
its shortcomings IDWA and
is proposed. improved
mesh for RBFwas
a circular cylinder methods.
deformed To compar
ty and time tofor
the deformation,
mesh of NACA 0012ausing polyhedral
the RBF, IDW,mesh for circular
and proposed methods.cylinder are
The red points deformed
in Figure 2 to the m
denote the control points on the surface of the circle and the blue ones indicate the displaced points
NACA 0012.onThe results
the surface show
of NACA 0012.that the RBF
The number method
of control points ishave
256 andproblem with
the points move onlynon-orthogonali
in the
dary layer cell. The
vertical IDWThe
direction. method takes much
vertical movements make thelonger time of
normal vectors than that offaces
the boundary therotate.
RBF method. The
The initial grid for the circular cylinder is shown in Figure 3. The grid is a polyhedral mesh
ogonality of generated
the improved RBF method
using snappyHexMesh, is as built-in
a standard good utility
as IDW method(The
of OpenFOAM and the turnaround tim
OpenFOAM
er than anyFoundation
other Ltd.,methods. To The
London, U.K.). checknumber the applicability
of cells is 103,160 and theofthickness
the improved
of first boundaryRBF method
layer cell is 1% of the cylinder diameter. The top, bottom, right, and left boundaries were set as fixed
hedral meshboundary
for Japan bulkThecarrier
conditions. front and (JBC) resistance
back boundaries were setcalculation is deformed
as symmetric boundary conditions.and the me
lated in Section 3. the
To satisfy Because of the
fixed boundary meshthetopology
condition, grid points ofis identical
the fixed boundarywith
werethe
addedoriginal mesh, the resu
to the control
points. The displacements of the fixed boundary were set as zero.
riginal mesh is used as the initial condition of deformed mesh. Therefore, the time for solu
erging is reduced by two-thirds.

esh Deformation Methods

In this section, the RBF and IDW methods are introduced and compared. In addition
oved RBF method to remedy its shortcomings is proposed. A mesh for a circular cylinder
rmed to the mesh of NACA 0012 using the RBF, IDW, and proposed methods. The red poin
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2020, 8, 473 4 of 13
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2020, 8, 473 4 of 14

Figure 2.
Figure Control points
2. Control points (red)
(red) and
and displaced
displaced points
points (blue).
(blue).

2.1. RBF Method

The RBF method is an interpolation method that uses the distance between the grid point and
control points. It was proposed by Sieger et al. [7], Boer et al. [11], Botch and Kobbelt [12], Jakobsson
and Amoignon [13], and Michler [14]. The basic formula for displacement is presented in Equation (1).
X
D(x, y, z) = a1 + a2 x + a3 y + a4 z + wi U(Ri ) (1)
  
Ri =  xi , yi , zi − (x, y, z) (2)

Here, Ri is the distance between the grid point and the i-th control point, and U is a basis function.
In this study, a thin plate spline (TPS) is applied as a basis function. The TPS provides a minimal and
smooth displacement distribution. The details about basis functions can be found in [15].

Thin plate spline : U (R) = |R|2 log R (3)

(a) (b)
The unknowns of Equation (1), ai and wi , are obtained by calculating Equation (4). The partitioned
matrix K is determined by the distance between the control points, and P is composed of coordinates
→
of the control points. Column vector v contains the displacements of control points. Equation (4) is
calculated with LU decomposition instead of an iterative method because the matrix is dense and small.
Because the size of the matrix in Equation (4) is proportional to the number of control points,
every four points on the fixed boundary is added to the control points. Sheng and Allen [16] applied a
greedy data reduction algorithm to reduce the matrix size and calculation time. Coulier and Darve [17]
developed the inverse fast multipole method to reduce the computational time. After the mesh
deformation, the normal component of displacement of the grid points on the symmetric plane is
removed to satisfy the symmetric boundary condition.
" # →   → 
K P  w   v 
 =  → 
 → (4)
PT O  a  
o


  
Kij = U (xi , yi , zi ) − x j , y j , z j  (5)
(c) (d)

Figure 3. Initial grid shape for circular cylinder. (a) whole domain (side view), (b) surface mesh
(perspective view), (c) around front part of the body (leading edge), (d) around rear part of the body
(trailing edge).
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2020, 8, 473 5 of 13

 1 x1 y1 z1
 

 1 x2 y2 z2
 

J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2020, 8, 473 4 of 14
P =  .. ..
 
.. ..  (6)
 . . . .


 
1 xp yp zp


 
 0 0 0 0 
 
 0 0 0 0 
O =   (7)
 0 0 0 0 


0 0 0 0


 → 

 w1



a1 
 
 D1  
0

 →   
w2
   
 →  D2  → 
  
→
 a2  →  0 
w =  , a =  , v =  , o =  (8)
  
.. .. 

 .   a3  
. 

 0 

   
a4 0
  
wp
  →  
Dp
 
Figure 2. Control points (red) and displaced points (blue).

(a) (b)

(c) (d)

Figure 3. Initial grid shape for circular cylinder. (a) whole domain (side view), (b) surface mesh
Figure 3. Initial grid shape for circular cylinder. (a) whole domain (side view), (b) surface mesh
(perspective view), (c) around front part of the body (leading edge), (d) around rear part of the body
(perspective view),
(trailing (c) around front part of the body (leading edge), (d) around rear part of the body
edge).
(trailing edge).

The deformed mesh using the RBF method is illustrated in Figure 4. The overall domain is
deformed smoothly, but the boundary layer is thinner than the initial grid and the non-orthogonality is
worse than in the initial grid. The maximum skewness and maximum non-orthogonality are compared
in Table 1. The mesh deformation takes approximately 45 s. The results are similar to those of
He et al. [9], who conducted similar mesh deformation using the RBF and IDW methods with a 2D
structured grid.
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2020, 8, 473 6 of 13
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2020, 8, 473 6 of 14

(a) (b)

(c) (d)

Figure
Figure 4. 4. Deformed
Deformed meshmesh using
using thethe radialbasis
radial basis function
function (RBF)
(RBF)method.
method.(a) whole domain
(a) whole (side view),
domain (side view),
(b) near body (side view), (c) around leading edge (side view), (d) around trailing edge (side view).
(b) near body (side view), (c) around leading edge (side view), (d) around trailing edge (side view).
Table
Table 1. Quality
1. Quality ofofdeformed
deformed mesh
meshbybythethe
RBF method.
RBF method.
Maximum Average Non- Maximum Non- Turnaround Time
Maximum
Skewness
Average
Orthogonality
Maximum
Orthogonality (s)
Turnaround Time (s)
Initial
Skewness
0.376
Non-Orthogonality
7.233
Non-Orthogonality
50.435 -
RBF
Initial 0.376 7.233 50.435
4.742 18.992 86.545 45 -
method
RBF method 4.742 18.992 86.545 45

2.2. IDW Method

2.2. IDW Method
The IDW method is an interpolation method. The displacement of the grid points is calculated
The IDW
using method
Equation (9),iswhere
an interpolation
denotes themethod.
distance asThe displacement
defined in Equation of
(3).the grid
and points is calculated
in Equation
(10) are the
using Equation (9),rotation
where R matrix
i and
denotes translation
the displacement
distance as defined ofin the boundary
Equation (3).face,
M i respectively.
and T i in The
Equation (10)
weighting function is given by Equation (11). Luke et al. [8] suggested these
are the rotation matrix and translation displacement of the boundary face, respectively. The weighting values: = 3, =
5, and = 0.25. is recommended as the maximum distance of mesh points, and is the area
function is given by Equation (11). Luke et al. [8] suggested these values: a = 3, b = 5, and α = 0.25.
of the boundary face. In this study, , , and are set as 3, 0, and 0, respectively. Because of the
Lde f is recommended
irregular face areaas distribution
the maximum of thedistance of mesh
boundaries, points, of
the thickness theAboundary
and i is the arealayerofbecomes
the boundary
face. Inuneven.
this study, a, b, and time
The calculation α are set as
is also 3, 0, and
reduced since 0,
therespectively.
second term is Because of the irregular face area
not calculated.
distribution of the boundaries, the thickness of the boundary layer becomes uneven. The calculation
time is also reduced since the second term is not calculated.
P
w(Ri )s(Ri )
D(x, y, z) = P (9)
w (Ri )

s(Ri ) = Mi Ri + Ti − Ri (10)
 Lde f a αLde f b 
 ! ! 
w(Ri ) = Ai ×  +  (11)
Ri Ri

J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2020, 8, 473 7 of 13

Figure 5 depicts the deformed mesh using the IDW method. The non-orthogonality of the
boundary cell is much better than that by the RBF method. The thickness of the boundary cell is almost
equal to that of the initial grid except for the leading and trailing edges. The thickness around the
leading and trailing edges is slightly larger than that of the initial grid. The displacements of grid
points far from the deformed boundary are smaller than those by the RBF method. The grid quality of
deformed mesh is compared with that of the initial grid in Table 2. The time for mesh deformation is
approximately 115 s, which is ≈2.6 times larger than that by the RBF method.

Table 2. Quality of deformed mesh using the IDW method.

Maximum Average Maximum

Turnaround Time (s)
Skewness Non-Orthogonality Non-Orthogonality
Initial 0.376 7.233 50.435 -
IDW method 0.571 11.644 73.849 115
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2020, 8, 473 7 of 14

2.3. Improved RBF Method

∑ ( ) ( )
( , , )= (9)
∑ ( )
The drawback of the RBF method is the non-orthogonality of the boundary layer. To reduce
the non-orthogonality, the centroids of the ( ) =first +boundary
− cells are added (10) as control points.
The displacements of the new control points are calculated using the IDW method. To calculate the
w( ) = × + (11)
translational and rotational displacement, the RBF calculation is repeated twice. First, the boundary
face is deformed with only the initial control points. The displacements of the centroids of the first
Figure 5 depicts the deformed mesh using the IDW method. The non-orthogonality of the
boundary cellsboundary
are calculated
cell is muchwith
better the displacements
than that by the RBF method. of the deformed
The thickness of theboundary
boundary cell face
is by the IDW
almost equal to that of the initial grid except for the leading and trailing edges.
method. Second, the displacements of the volume mesh grid points are calculated with the grid points The thickness around
the leading and trailing edges is slightly larger than that of the initial grid. The displacements of grid
of the deformedpoints
boundary and
far from the the centroids
deformed boundary are ofsmaller
the first
thanboundary
those by the RBFcells. To reduce
method. the calculation time,
The grid quality
every 4 points of the gridmesh
of deformed points and centroids
is compared isinitial
with that of the usedgrid
asincontrol points.
Table 2. The time for mesh deformation
is approximately 115 s, which is ≈2.6 times larger than that by the RBF method.

(a) (b)

(c) (d)

Figure 5. Deformed mesh using the inverse distance weighted (IDW) method. (a) whole domain (side
Figure 5. Deformed mesh using the inverse distance weighted (IDW) method. (a) whole domain
view), (b) near body (side view), (c) around leading edge (side view), (d) around leading trailing (side
(side view), (b) near body (side view), (c) around leading edge (side view), (d) around leading trailing
view).

(side view).
displacements of the new control points are calculated using the IDW method. To calculate the
translational and rotational displacement, the RBF calculation is repeated twice. First, the boundary
face is deformed with only the initial control points. The displacements of the centroids of the first
boundary cells are calculated with the displacements of the deformed boundary face by the IDW
method. Second, the displacements of the volume mesh grid points are calculated with the grid points
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2020, 8, 473 8 of 13
of the deformed boundary and the centroids of the first boundary cells. To reduce the calculation
time, every 4 points of the grid points and centroids is used as control points.
ItIt is
is difficult
difficulttotoapply
applyboth
boththe theRBF
RBFand andIDW
IDW methods
methods to to
problems
problems involving
involvingthe the
freefree
surface
surface
because
because the the grid
gridaround
aroundthethefree
free surface
surface hashas to aligned
to be be aligned tofree
to the the surface
free surface to minimize
to minimize the
the numerical
numerical diffusion of the volume of fluid function (VOF). Therefore, the deformable
diffusion of the volume of fluid function (VOF). Therefore, the deformable region must be limited. region must be
limited. The cells around the deformed boundary are designated as deformable
The cells around the deformed boundary are designated as deformable cells, while those outside of thecells, while those
outside
regions of arethe
setregions are cells.
as frozen set as The
frozen cells.
faces The faces
sheared sheared
by the by the deformable
deformable and frozen and
cellsfrozen cells are as
are designated
designated as fixed faces. The points on the fixed faces are added to the fixed control points.
fixed faces. The points on the fixed faces are added to the fixed control points.
Figure 6 displays the deformed mesh. The non-orthogonality of the boundary cell is better than
Figure 6 displays the deformed mesh. The non-orthogonality of the boundary cell is better than
those by the RBF and IDW methods. The thickness of the boundary cells around the leading and
those by the RBF and IDW methods. The thickness of the boundary cells around the leading and
trailing edges is well preserved. The cells in yellow circle are deformable cells.
trailing edges is well preserved. The cells in yellow circle are deformable cells.

J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2020, 8, 473 9 of 14

(a) (b)

(c) (d)

Figure
Figure 6. 6.Deformed
Deformedmesh
meshusing
usingthe
theRBF
RBFmethod
method with
with additional
additional control
control points.
points.(a)
(a)whole
wholedomain
domain
(side
(side view),(b)
view), (b)near
nearbody
body(side
(sideview),
view),(c)
(c)around
around leading
leading edge
edge (side
(side view),
view),(d)
(d)around
aroundtrailing
trailingedge
edge
(side view).
(side view).

Thequality
The qualityofofthe
thedeformed
deformedmesh
mesh is
is compared
compared with
with the
the initial
initial mesh
meshin
inTable
Table3.3.The
Thedeformed
deformed
mesh quality using the proposed method is as good as that by the IDW method. Moreover,the
mesh quality using the proposed method is as good as that by the IDW method. Moreover, the
proposed
proposed methodisismuch
method muchfaster
fasterthan
thanthe
theothers
othersowing
owing to
to the
the limited
limited deformation
deformationregion.
region.

Table 3. Quality of the deformed mesh using the proposed method.

Maximum Average Non- Maximum Non- Turnaround

Skewness Orthogonality Orthogonality Time (s)
Initial 0.376 7.233 50.435 -
Proposed
0.782 12.141 74.920 13
method

3. Mesh Deformation for Hull Form Variation

The proposed mesh deformation method was applied to the mesh for ship resistance calculation
to examine its applicability to CFD-based optimization. The ship used in the calculations is the JBC
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2020, 8, 473 9 of 13

Table 3. Quality of the deformed mesh using the proposed method.

Maximum Average Maximum

Turnaround Time (s)
Skewness Non-Orthogonality Non-Orthogonality
Initial 0.376 7.233 50.435 -
Proposed method 0.782 12.141 74.920 13

3. Mesh Deformation for Hull Form Variation

The proposed mesh deformation method was applied to the mesh for ship resistance calculation
to examine its applicability to CFD-based optimization. The ship used in the calculations is the JBC
model. The scale ratio and the draft are 1:40 and 0.4125 m (16.5 m in full scale), respectively. The speed
is 1.179 m/s (14.5 knots in the model).
The initial grid used for the JBC resistance calculation is illustrated in Figure 7. The number of
cells is 2,402,361. The Y+ of first layer thickness is approximately 50 and the number of boundary
layers is 4. The expansion ratio of the boundary layer is approximately 1.3. The running attitude of the
ship is fixed as even keel condition. The simulation was conducted using interFoam, a standard solver
J.ofMar.
OpenFOAM.
Sci. Eng. 2020,kOmegaSST
8, 473 and nutUSpaldingWallFunction were used as the turbulence model and
10 of 14
wall function, respectively.

(a)

(b)

Figure
Figure 7.
7. Grid
Gridshape
shapefor
forJapan
Japanbulk
bulkcarrier
carrier(JBC)
(JBC)resistance
resistance calculation.
calculation. (a)
(a)whole
wholedomain
domain(side
(sideview),
view),
(b)
(b) surface mesh of fore body (side view).

Three points on the forward perpendicular (F.P.) line were moved by 5 mm (0.2 m in full scale)
to make an alternative hull form. The hull surface is split by the yellow dashed line in Figure 8. The
hull surface in front of the line was set as deformable patch, while that behind the yellow line was set
as fixed patch.
 (b)
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2020, 8, 473 10 of 13
Figure 7. Grid shape for Japan bulk carrier (JBC) resistance calculation. (a) whole domain (side view),
(b) surface mesh of fore body (side view).
Three points on the forward perpendicular (F.P.) line were moved by 5 mm (0.2 m in full scale) to
Three points on the forward perpendicular (F.P.) line were moved by 5 mm (0.2 m in full scale)
make an alternative hull form. The hull surface is split by the yellow dashed line in Figure 8. The hull
to make an alternative hull form. The hull surface is split by the yellow dashed line in Figure 8. The
surface in front of the line was set as deformable patch, while that behind the yellow line was set as
hull surface in front of the line was set as deformable patch, while that behind the yellow line was set
fixedas
patch.
fixed patch.

Figure
Figure 8. Definitionsketch
8. Definition sketch of
of control
control points
pointsfor
forhull
hullform variation.
form variation.
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2020, 8, 473 11 of 14

The deformed
The
J. Mar.deformed
hull8,is473depicted
Sci. Eng. 2020,hull is depictedininFigure
Figure9.9. The redlines
The red linesindicate
indicate thethe
JBCJBC station
station lines,
lines, whereas
11 ofwhereas
14
the blue lineslines
the blue denote denotethethe
station
station lines
linesofofthe
thedeformed
deformed hull.hull.Figure
Figure1010 displays
displays a slice
a slice of deformed
of the the deformed
TheBecause
deformedof hull
meshmesh
on theonF.P.
the F.P. Because ofis the
the depicted
smallsmall in Figure 9. The
deformation,
deformation, redvariation
the lines
the indicate
variation in the JBCquality
in mesh station lines,
mesh quality whereas
isissmall
small enough
enough to to be
the blue lines denote the station lines of the deformed hull. Figure 10 displays a slice of the deformed
be ignored.
ignored. The The time to deform a mesh with 2 million cells is approximately
time to deform a mesh with 2 million cells is approximately 118–120 s with a core of Intel 118–120 s with a core of
mesh on the F.P. Because of the small deformation, the variation in mesh quality is small enough to
XeonIntel
CPUbe Xeon
E5-2630
ignored.CPU TheE5-2630
v3 2.4
timeGHz. v3The
to deform 2.4aturnaround
GHz.with
mesh The turnaround
time
2 million iscells time issmall.
reasonably reasonably
is approximately The mesh
118–120 small.
s with Theof mesh and
deformations
a core
CFD deformations
simulations
Intel Xeon and
are CPUCFD simulations
conducted
E5-2630 by are
shell
v3 2.4 conducted
script.
GHz. by shell script.
The turnaround time is reasonably small. The mesh
deformations and CFD simulations are conducted by shell script.

Figure 9.9.Deformed
Figure hull
Deformed hull shapes.
shapes.
Figure 9. Deformed hull shapes.

Figure 10. A slice of the deformed mesh at forward perpendicular forward perpendicular (F.P.) (red
Figure 10. A slice of the deformed mesh at forward perpendicular forward perpendicular (F.P.) (red
grid line: original mesh, blue grid line: deformed mesh).
grid line: original mesh, blue grid line: deformed mesh).
Figure 10.resistance
The A slice of the deformed
histories mesh
of the at and
JBC forward perpendicular
deformed forward
hulls are perpendicular
compared in Figure (F.P.) (red
11. The
grid line: original
calculations mesh, blue
of deformed grid
hulls line: deformed
converged mesh).
much faster than the JBC calculation because the result of
the JBC calculation was used as the initial condition for the deformed hull resistance calculations. The
The resistance
calculation of the histories of the
JBC resistance took JBC and deformed
approximately hulls the
60 s, whereas arecalculation
compared in Figure
of deformed 11. The
hulls
calculations
took 20 sofindeformed
flow time. hulls converged
The variations much
in the faster than
resistances the JBC
are small calculation
because because
the hull form the result
variation is of
small.
the JBC The resistance
calculation coefficients
was used as the are compared
initial in Table
condition 4. deformed hull resistance calculations. The
for the
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2020, 8, 473 11 of 13

The resistance histories of the JBC and deformed hulls are compared in Figure 11. The calculations of
deformed hulls converged much faster than the JBC calculation because the result of the JBC calculation
was used as the initial condition for the deformed hull resistance calculations. The calculation of the
JBC resistance took approximately 60 s, whereas the calculation of deformed hulls took 20 s in flow
time. The variations in the resistances are small because the hull form variation is small. The resistance
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2020, 8, 473 12 of 14
coefficients are compared in Table 4.

(a)

(b)

Figure
Figure 11.11. Comparisons
Comparisons of resistance
of resistance convergence
convergence histories.
histories. (a) (a) whole
whole time,
time, (b)(b) zoomed.
zoomed.

Table 4. Comparison
Table of resistances
4. Comparison of the
of resistances JBCJBC
of the andand
deformed hull.
deformed hull.
JBC Case 1
JBC Case 1 CaseCase
2 2 Case33
Case
Resistance coefficient
Resistance 4.186×10-3 4.187×10 4.184×10
-3 -3 4.186×10-3
4.186 × 10−3 4.187 × 10−3 4.184 × 10−3 4.186 × 10−3
coefficient
The pressure distributions and wave height contours are compared in Figures 12 and 13,
respectively.
The pressureIt was found that and
distributions the result
wave of the initial
height hull form
contours can be used
are compared in as the initial
Figures condition
12 and 13,
for the deformed hull resistance calculation.
respectively. It was found that the result of the initial hull form can be used as the initial condition for
the deformed hull resistance calculation.

Figure 12. Comparison of pressure distributions around the bow (left: JBC only, right: JBC and
deformed hull).
 JBC Case 1 Case 2 Case 3
Resistance coefficient 4.186×10-3 4.187×10-3 4.184×10-3 4.186×10-3

The pressure distributions and wave height contours are compared in Figures 12 and 13,
respectively. It2020,
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. was8,found
473 that the result of the initial hull form can be used as the initial condition
12 of 13
for the deformed hull resistance calculation.

Figure 12. Comparison of pressure distributions around the bow (left: JBC only, right: JBC and
Figure 12. Comparison of pressure distributions around the bow (left: JBC only, right: JBC and
J. Mar.deformed
Sci. Eng. 2020, 8, 473
hull). 13 of 14
deformed hull).

Figure 13.
Figure Comparison of
13. Comparison of wave
wave height
height contour
contour around
around the
the bow.
bow.

4. Conclusions
4. Conclusions
In this
In this study,
study, two
two methods
methods for for mesh
mesh deformation, namely, the
deformation, namely, the RBF
RBF and IDW methods,
and IDW methods, werewere
compared. Moreover, an improved RBF method was proposed for a largely deformed mesh. The RBF
compared. Moreover, an improved RBF method was proposed for a largely deformed mesh. The RBF
method was
method was much
much faster
faster than
than the
the IDW
IDW method,
method, butbut the
the quality
quality of
of the
the deformed
deformed mesh mesh using
using thethe IDW
IDW
method was better than that by the RBF method. The quality of the deformed
method was better than that by the RBF method. The quality of the deformed mesh by the RBF mesh by the RBF method
was improved
method by addingby
was improved theadding
centroidstheofcentroids
boundaryofcells to the control
boundary cells topoints. The displacements
the control points. The
of the centroids were calculated using the IDW method. The deformable
displacements of the centroids were calculated using the IDW method. The deformable region was limited
regionforwas
the
problemfor
limited involving the free
the problem surface.the
involving The limitation
free surface. also reduced the
The limitation calculation
also reduced the time.calculation time.
The improved RBF method was applied to the mesh for the JBC resistance
The improved RBF method was applied to the mesh for the JBC resistance calculation calculation to to
validate its
validate
applicability. The resistance was calculated by varying the bow shape with three control
its applicability. The resistance was calculated by varying the bow shape with three control points. It points. It took
approximately
took 120 s 120
approximately for the mesh
s for the tomesh
deform, which iswhich
to deform, short enough
is short to apply to
enough to practical
apply toproblems.
practical
problems. The calculation result of the initial hull form was used as the initial the
The calculation result of the initial hull form was used as the initial condition for deformed
condition for hull
the
form, which reduced the calculation time to approximately one-third of that
deformed hull form, which reduced the calculation time to approximately one-third of that of the of the initial hull form.
Thus, the
initial hullimproved
form. Thus, RBFthemethod
improvedproposed in this study
RBF method is effective
proposed in thisand efficient
study for hull
is effective andform variation.
efficient for
In the future,
hull form variation. the CFD-based hull form optimization will be conducted using the proposed
meshIndeformation
the future, the method together
CFD-based hullwith
form an optimization
optimization willalgorithm
be conducted suchusing
as sequential
the proposed quadratic
mesh
programming or an adjoint variable method.
deformation method together with an optimization algorithm such as sequential quadratic
programming or an adjoint
Author Contributions: variable method.
Conceptualization, K.-L.J. and S.-M.J.; methodology, K.-L.J.; validation K.-L.J.; formal
analysis,Contributions:
Author K.-L.J.; investigation, K.-L.J. and S.-M.J.;
Conceptualization, resources,
K.-L.J. K.-L.J.methodology,
and S.-M.J.; and S.-M.J.; writing—original draft
K.-L.J.; validation preparation,
K.-L.J.; formal
K.-L.J. and S.-M.J.; writing—review and editing, S.-M.J.; visualization, K.-L.J.; supervision, K.-L.J. and S.-M.J.; and
analysis,
funding acquisition, S.-M.J. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript. draft
K.-L.J.; investigation, K.-L.J. and S.-M.J.; resources, K.-L.J. and S.-M.J.; writing—original
preparation, K.-L.J. and S.-M.J.; writing—review and editing, S.-M.J.; visualization, K.-L.J.; supervision, K.-L.J.
Funding:
and This
S.-M.J.; andstudy was acquisition,
funding supported by a research
S.-M.J. fund from
All authors haveChosun
read andUniversity (K207177004).
agreed to the published version of the
manuscript.

Funding: This study was supported by a research fund from Chosun University (K207177004).

Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2020, 8, 473 13 of 13

Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References
1. Kim, H.; Yang, C.; Noblesse, F. Hull form optimization for reduced resistance and improved seakeeping
via practical designed-oriented CFD tools. In Proceedings of the 2010 Conference on Grand Challenges in
Modeling and Simulation, Ottawa, ON, Canada, 11–14 July 2010.
2. Kim, H.; Yang, C. A new surface modification approach for CFD-based hull form optimization. J. Hydrodyn.
2010, 22, 503–508. [CrossRef]
3. Mahmood, S.; Huang, D. Computational fluid dynamics based bulbous bow optimization using a genetic
algorithm. J. Martine Sci. Appl. 2012, 11, 286–294. [CrossRef]
4. Zhang, S.; Zhang, B.; Tezdogan, T.; Xu, L.; Lai, Y. Computational fluid dynamics-based hull form optimization
using approximation method. Eng. Appl. Comput. Fluid Mech. 2018, 12, 74–88. [CrossRef]
5. Sun, Z.X.; Song, J.J.; An, Y.R. Optimization of the head shape of the CRH3 high speed train. Sci. China
Technol. Sci. 2010, 53, 3356–3364. [CrossRef]
6. Morris, A.M.; Allen, C.B.; Rendall, T.C.S. CFD-based optimization of aerofoils using radial basis functions
for domain element parameterization and mesh deformation. Int. J. Numer. Meth. Fluids 2008, 58, 827–860.
[CrossRef]
7. Sieger, D.; Menzel, S.; Botsch, M. On Shape Deformation Techniques for Simulation–Based Design Optimization,
In New Challenge in Grid Generation and Adaptively for Scientific Computing; Springer Series: Cham, Switzerland,
2015; pp. 281–303.
8. Luke, E.; Collins, E.; Blades, E. A fast mesh deformation method using explicit interpolation. J. Comput. Phys.
2012, 231, 586–601. [CrossRef]
9. He, X.; Li, J.; Mader, C.A.; Yildirim, A.; Martins, J.R.R.A. Robust aerodynamic shape optimization-form a
circle to an airfoil. Aerosp. Sci. Technol. 2019, 87, 48–61. [CrossRef]
10. Ding, L.; Lu, Z.; Guo, T. An efficient dynamic mesh generation method for complex multi-block structured
grid. Adv. Appl. Math. Mech. 2014, 6, 120–134. [CrossRef]
11. Boer, A.; Van der Schoot, M.; Bijl, H. Mesh deformation based on radial basis function interpolation.
Comput. Struct. 2007, 85, 784–795. [CrossRef]
12. Botch, M.; Kobbelt, L. Real-time shape editing using radial basis function. Comput. Graph. Forum 2005, 24,
611–621. [CrossRef]
13. Jakobsson, S.; Amoignon, O. Mesh deformation using radial basis functions for gradient-based aerodynamic
shape optimization. Comput. Fluids 2007, 36, 1119–1136. [CrossRef]
14. Michler, A.K. Aircraft control surface deflection using RBF-based mesh deformation. Int. J. Numer. Meth. Eng.
2011, 88, 986–1007. [CrossRef]
15. Buhmann, M.D. Radial Basis Functions: Theory and Implementations; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge,
UK, 2003; ISBN 978-0511040207.
16. Sheng, C.; Allen, C.B. Efficient mesh deformation using radial basis functions on unstructured meshes.
AIAA J. 2013, 51, 707–720. [CrossRef]
17. Coulier, P.; Darve, E. Efficient mesh deformation based on radial basis function interpolation by means of the
inverse fast multipole method. Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Eng. 2016, 308, 286–309. [CrossRef]

© 2020 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access
article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution
(CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).