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

net/publication/259977129

Multi-objective optimization of container ship design

Article  in  Mediterranean Marine Science · October 2013

DOI: 10.1201/b15813-58

CITATIONS READS
19 4,806

5 authors, including:

Apostolos Papanikolaou Lampros Nikolopoulos

National Technical University of Athens University of Strathclyde
438 PUBLICATIONS   4,606 CITATIONS    15 PUBLICATIONS   88 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Pierre C. Sames
DNV AS
36 PUBLICATIONS   767 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

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

COMPUTER AIDED TENDERING DESIGN - ELEFSIS SHIPYARD View project

LOGBASED View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Apostolos Papanikolaou on 13 May 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Multi-objective optimization of container ship design
G. Koutroukis, A. Papanikolaou, L. Nikolopoulos
National Tech. Univ. of Athens, Ship Design Laboratory, Athens/Greece
P. Sames, M. Köpke
Germanischer Lloyd SE, Hamburg/Germany

ABSTRACT: High fuel prices and environmental concerns have influenced the design and operational charac-
teristics of all types of ships, but particularly of container ships in recent years with considerable engineering
as well as commercial effects. Such ECO-ship designs demonstrate lower operational costs and are more
competitive compared to traditional tonnage. This paper presents a holistic, multi-objective optimization pro-
cedure for the design of containerships, encompassing the development of parametric models for the optimi-
zation of medium size (between 3,500 and 4,000 TEU) containerships serving on a given schedule the Intra-
Asian trade. Fully parametric geometric modeling techniques are employed in the frame of the CAD/CAE en-
vironment of FRIENDSHIP-Framework, combined with sophisticated assessment tools for the evaluation of
critical ship design attributes, such as ship’s weight, stability, resistance and powering for ,common opera-
tional conditions. The developed multi-criteria optimization approach enables the effective exploration of an
extended design space (with the utilization of genetic algorithms-NSGA II) targeting to a reduced Required
Freight Rates (RFR), favorable Energy Efficiency Design Indices (EEDI) and minimum ballast water carriage
for common operational conditions, while also disposing enhanced port efficiency.

1 INTRODUCTION This paper will introduce the development of a

International shipping is the back bone of global
trade. The vast majority of transportation of goods is
carried out by ships. In parallel to intercontinental
trade, regional trade is also increasing, whereas vari-
ous regions are developing differently around the
world. One of the most rapidly growing regions for
sea transport is Intra-Asia. The strong growing Asian
industry is opening markets closer to their origin.
The demands of regional markets may differ from
others in regard to the specifications for ship design
and hence ship to ship competiveness. At the same
time shipping is facing different challenges, both
economically and regulatory. Economically shipping
faces a long term high of fuel oil prices, over capaci-
ties and low freight rates. On the regulatory side new
environmental regulations will be or are likely to be
introduced in the coming years. Increasing energy ef-
ficiency will decrease fuel cost and emissions. Re-
duced operational speed will reduce fuel oil con-
sumption significantly due to the non linear relation
between ship speed and power demand. However, as
itineraries and port slots are the major constrains for
short sea shipping measures need to identify to re-
duce speed while keeping schedules at the same
time. Reducing average port time enables speed de-
crease on the legs between ports.
highly optimized ship design with emphasis on the
Intra-Asian market. At first it analysis the Intra-
Asian trade and derives demands to ship design. It
describes the multi-objective optimization, an ap-
proach to enhance a simulate port efficiency and
concludes with the presentation of a highly competi-
tive ship design for Intra-Asian trade.
2 MARKET POTENTIAL AND NEEDS – INTRA
ASIAN MARKET
Within the last decades Asia transformed into the
“global factory”. Initially industry in Japan pros-
pered as the first tier of industrializing economies in
Asia, followed by the Republic of Korea; Taiwan;
Hong Kong; and Singapore; and then spread to the
second-tier economies from the Association of
Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), including Ma-
laysia, Thailand, and the Philippines, followed by the
People’s Republic China (PRC), Indonesia, and
Vietnam. The majority of the resulting trade is
linked to the production of parts and components,
with final goods trade mainly to North America and
Europe. The intra-Asian regional trade share has
grown rapidly in the recent decades from 18.8 % in
1990 to 26.7 % in 2008 (WTO 2012).
 In the context of this study intra-Asia comprises
North and South East Asia (Drewry 2008), (GMT
2030). The Asian intra regional container trade is the
most growing trade compared to other regional
trades (Fig. 1). Intra-Asian trade is expected to grow
about 8.3 % in 2013 (Clarksons 2013). Long term
predictions for the Intra-Asian trade growth are tre-
mendous with up to 150 % in 2020 compared to
2006 figures, which gives about 53 m TEU traded
(Drewry 2008).
Freight rates as well as charter rates are deter-
mined by the supply and demand on individual trade
lanes. The most significant counter measure to over
supply is slow steaming, which is widely adopted
within the container fleet. It is estimated that this
measure absorbed about 1.6 m TEU nominal capac-
ity (Clarksons 2013). The trend to slower speeds can
also be observed for recent ship new buildings.
There is a discrepancy between regional trade
growth and the ship size segments scheduled to be
delivered. The segment of ships with a nominal ca-
pacity of 8000 TEU and more grows over propor-
tional with a share of some 73 % of the total order
book. As a response to the pressure from larger ton-
nage delivered to the market a cascading of existing
tonnage can be witnessed. On the strong growing In-
tra-Asian trade container vessels have been relatively
small until recently. In 2010, about 5 % of the re-
ported fixtures were for vessels larger than 3,000
TEU (Drewry 2011). However, looking at container
vessel operators’ public sailing schedules in 2012
and 2013 larger vessels could be found, e.g. 4,252
TEU (Interasia Lines 2013), 4,583 TEU.
(Fig. 2). Obviously these cascaded vessels are not
operating on their design points and hence may not
utilize their efficiency potential.
Analysis of different Intra-Asian round trips
showed that multiple port calls and relatively low
average speeds are characteristic for theses trade. On
basis of the exemplarily used itineraries a typical
trade route scenario is derived, see Table 1. The low
average transit speed necessary to meet the pub-
lished sailing schedules indicates that sufficient
speed reserve is available to make up for delays. It is
also noted that published port stays vary from a few
hours to more than one day for the routes investi-
gated.
Table 1. Characteristic of typical round trip scenario.
Round trip length 6,900 nm
Port calls per round trip 13
Average port stay 15 h
Average transit speed 15.5 kn
Current speeds of mid-size container vessels were
checked using AIS data gathered for the Taiwan
Strait in April 2012. About two thirds of the re-
corded vessels steamed at 16 to 20 knots (Fig. 3),
which means below design speeds but faster than the
average transit speed derived from public sailing
schedules.
25
24
23
Avg. speed in kn

22
21
20
19
18
17
98

00

02

04

06

08

10

12

14
19

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

Figure 2. Average design speed for 3-5,000 TEU segment

[1057 container vessels (IHS 2012)].

35%

30%

25%

20%

15%

10%

Figure 1. Container traffic per trade route (million TEU), 5%

(Drewry 2011), GL extrapolation for 2011 to 2016. 0%
14

24
16

18

20

22

24

(OOCL 2013) and 4,250 TEU (Yang Ming 2013). At

<

>
to

to

to

to

to
14

16

18

20

22

the same time, 22% of the mid-size container vessel
fleet (3,000–5,000 TEU) is older than 15 years and
14% are on order (HIS 2012). For this size segment
the average design speed changes significantly, de-
creasing from almost 24 kn in the year 1998 to about
19 kn for vessels delivered after 2010 or on order
Speed in kn
Figure 3. Measured speed over ground for mid-size container
vessels.
For ship operators fuel efficiency is the most impor-
tant item when choosing a vessel. As fuel prices are
on high level and may stay there in future and char-
ter rates remain volatile there is high demand for en-
ergy efficient ships. IMO’s new energy efficiency
standard the Energy Efficiency Design Index (EEDI)
reflects the transport efficiency of a ship, by dividing
its theoretic CO2 emissions and installed power, re-
spectively, by the ship’s transport work, i.e. speed
multiplied by capacity. A small EEDI means low
specific CO2 emissions in regard to conducted trans-
port work and hence high energy efficiency. Ships
contracted after 2013 must not exceed a certain re-
quired EEDI value. This required EEDI value will be
decreased from 2015 on successively each five years
by another 10 % referred to 2013 values until 2025
(IMO 2011). Ships which can prove low attained
EEDI value and can hence prove their energy effi-
ciency may have a competitive advantage. Due to the
non-linear relation of speed and power, the ship
speed has a vast impact on the attained EEDI value.
Small speed reductions yield to larger power reduc-
tion. Combined with a high optimised low resistance
design future EEDI thresholds can be met.
3 METHODOLOGY, WORKFLOW AND
COMPUTATIONAL MODEL DEVELOPED
Holism (from ὂλος holos, a Greek word meaning all,
whole, entire, total), is the idea that natural systems
(physical, biological, chemical, social, economic,
mental, linguistic, etc.) and their properties, should
be viewed as wholes, not as collections of parts. This
often includes the view that systems somehow func-
tion as wholes and that their functioning cannot be
fully understood solely in terms of their component
parts. Within this context the Ship Design Labora-
tory at NTUA has developed methodologies in the
Friendship Framework (FFW) that can simulate ship
design as a process in a holistic way and applied in
tanker design optimization (Nikolopoulos, 2012) as
well as for containership design (Koutroukis, 2012).
3.1 Geometric Mode
The core of this methodology and any similar devel-
oped in a CAD/CAE system is the geometrical
model (geometrical core). The original surface is
produced as group of parametric sub-surfaces mod-
eled in the FFW.
3.2 Initial Hydrostatic Properties
The Hydrostatic Module is checking the displace-
ment volume, block coefficient and centre of buoy-
ancy of each generated design. The calculations are
conducted within FFW and for the hull form gener-
ated by the Geometry Module.
3.3 Lackenby Variation
In order to control the desired geometrical proper-
ties of generated designs, namely the block coeffi-
cient and the longitudinal centre of buoyancy, a
Lackenby transformation embedded in the FFW is
applied (Abt 2007). This variation allows to shift
sections aft and fore, while fairness optimized B-
Splines are used to ensure smooth transitions and
faired hull forms. The required input for the trans-
formation is the extent of the transformation, which
in this case is from the propeller position to the fore
peak, and the difference of the existing and desired
block coefficient and LCB.
Port Efficiency
Calculation
Geometric Model
EEDI Calculation
Initial Hydrostatic Cal-
Required Freight
Rate Calculation
Lackenby Variation
Required Water Ballast
Calculation
Cargo Hold Modeling
Trim Check for de-
TEU Capacity Calcula- tailed loading conditions
Resistance Prediction Stability Check for de-
tailed loading conditions ac-
cording to IMO criteria
Machinery Calcula- Deadweight Analysis
Lightship Calculation
Figure 4. Workflow in the developed Optimization methodol-
ogy.
3.4 Cargo Hold Modeling and TEU capacity
calculation
The next step in the design simulation workflow is
the geometric definition and modeling of the cargo
spaces.
In the case of containerships, two distinct design
features are considered: the in-hold container storage
and the stowage of containers on deck. The in-hold
arrangement is bounded by vertical and horizontal
surfaces, such as the deck, double bottom ceiling and
stringers. These form steps on which containers are
placed and secured. Every two TEUs (or one FEU)
define a cargo bay, while two bays constitute a cargo
hold. These surfaces are parametric and depend on
the user defined clearance from the outer hull shell.
The width of the upper part of each bay is equal to
the also by user defined double hull width.
The user (or in an automated procedure the design
scheduler) provides the hull form, its main dimen-
sions, e.g. length, beam, height, in terms of bays,
rows and tiers, accompanied by a number of relevant
regulatory requirements. The Cargo Hold module
calculates the number of containers per bay and sev-
eral other container properties, like centers of grav-
ity, volume, moments, etc.
Furthermore, on deck stowed containers are also
modeled and calculated. The stowage plan is defined
for each individual bay both in the vertical (by the
number of container tiers) and transverse direction
(by the number of container rows). The number of
tiers on deck for each bay is limited by the IMO
visibility line coordinates in that particular longitu-
dinal position. The latter is a function of the deck-
house top height and the requirements of SOLAS
(Chapter V, Reg. 22 – Navigation bridge visibility).
The number of bays defines the actual length of the
containership. Bays are distributed parametrically aft
and fore of the engine room, whereas the position of
the engine room may be also optimized. The snap-
shots (Figs. 5, 6) illustrate the outcome of the above
described modeling procedure.
Figure 5. Snapshot of the in-hold arrangement.
Figure 6. Profile view of ship arrangements.
3.5 Resistance Prediction
During the exploratory optimization phase, a great
number of variants need to be evaluated, thus high
processing speed is required. For this reason the ap-
proximate powering estimation method of Holtrop is
used that derives from regressed statistical data
(Holtrop & Mennen 1982). At the second stage of
optimization, integrated CFD codes are used in order
to fine tune and afterwards optimize the bow shape
of the parametric hull shape, including the fore bulb.
The stern and transom can also undergo this process
(particularly in terms of the immersion of the latter)
since the wave making resistance constitutes to a
significant percentage of ship’s total resistance for
containerships.
3.6 Main Engine Calculation
The main engine is dimensioned according to the
MAN B&W marine engine program (MAN 2012).
The required power calculated by the Holtrop and
Mennen methodology assumes a 20 % weather mar-
gin added and another 5-10 % margin that is used for
derating purposes. Considering this margin it is en-
sured that the design speed is achieved for a load of
the engine in the range of 75 to 80 % MCR, where
the Specific Fuel Oil Consumption (SFOC) is mini-
mal. Based on the selected engines SFOC, the fuel
and consumables for a range of 8,000 nautical miles
are calculated.
3.7 Lightship Weight Estimation
The lightship calculation follows through the estima-
tion of the machinery weight, the outfitting weight
and the steel weight and the basis of semi-empirical
methods, which were calibrated against known data
of similar ships.
3.7.1 Machinery Weight
The machinery weight estimation is based on the
Watson-Gilfillan formula (Papanikolaou 1988):
Wm = C md × Pb 0.89 (1)
The latter was recalibrated on the basis of statisti-
cal data for medium size containerships to the fol-
lowing:
1.0241
Wm = 0.0541× Pb (2)
3.7.2 Outfitting Weight
For this study, a simplified procedure was followed,
which was calibrated against know date of similar
ships before use. According to Watson's semi-
empirical method (Papanikolaou 1988) outfitting
weight of containerships can be calculated from the
formula:
Wot = 0.32 × L × B (3)
By analysis of available statistical data for the light-
ship, machinery and steel weight, the initial formula
was recalibrated to the following:
Wot = 0.309 × L × B (4)
3.7.3 Steel Weight
During the initial design stages, and the optimization
of the main dimensions stage, it is necessary to iden-
tify the effect of the change of the principal dimen-
sions of a reference ship on the structural steel
weight. Thus, at first, an accurate calculation of the
steel weight of the reference ship is conducted. Fol-
lowing this the "Differential Steel Weight" predic-
tion method was applied (Papanikolaou 1988).
The steel weight of the reference ship was calcu-
lated in different ways, including a detail calculation
with the ship structural design software of GL PO-
SEIDON, with the resulting value being confirmed
by available other data. The structural steel weight of
each variant of the reference ship is then calculated
according to the following:
WST 1 = WST 0 × (1 + C1 + C 2 + ... + C 6 ) × (1 + C 7 )
C1 = 1.0 × δL / L0
C 2 = 0.7 × δB / B0
C 3 = 0.4 × δD / D0
C 4 = 0.25 × C1
C 5 = 0.35 × C 2
C 6 = 0.65 × C 3
C 7 = 0.3 × C B
where δL, δB, δD, δCΒ, are the differences from the
equivalent main dimensions of the reference ship
and C4, C5, C6 are corrections for local structural
elements w.r.t. L, B, D respectively.
3.8 Deadweight Analysis
The deadweight analysis includes the prediction of
the payload of the vessel based on the calculation of
the consumables. Following the estimation of the
fuel and other consumables weight for the specified
range, the payload weight is determined for given
deadweight capacity. The payload enables to check
the stowage factor of the cargo (and average weight
of carried containers) in relation to the available
cargo volume.
3.9 Stability, Trim and Effect of Water Ballast
The stability, trim and required water ballast for the
various loading conditions is one of the most critical
stages in the design of a containership. For a con-
tainership that is inherently stability limited, useable
slot capacity will be a function of the average con-
tainer weight, the range in container weights and the
potential for the stratification of the stowage, with as
many as possible containers to be stowed on deck.
The stability may be conservatively evaluated by as-
suming a homogenous stow. The assessment of the
initial and large angle stability of the vessel was un-
dertaken for common type loading conditions in ac-
cordance with latest IMO intact stability criteria
(IMO 2008). The implementation of the IMO intact
stability criteria is enabled with the integration of the
naval architecture software HYDROMAX in the
FFW design platform. An iterative procedure regard-
ing the marginal values of LCG and VCG was de-
veloped and implemented, ensuring the satisfaction
of the IMO intact stability criteria and operational
trim requirements. The ultimate goal of this iterative
procedure is to minimize the amount of carried water
ballast and identify ‘zero ballast’ loading conditions.
From the cargo part, the payload weight in the
cargo holds derives from an assumed homogeneous
weight per TEU for the in hold TEUs (volume) and
its vertical center of gravity (also of volume). In con-
trast to that, the payload weight of the containers
stowed on deck depends on each loading condition.
For homogenous loading, a parametric curve (func-
(5) tion) has been developed correlating the number of
(6) TEUs on deck to the corresponding centers of grav-
(7) ity.
(8) In the context of this project, three loading condi-
(9) tions were addressed and mathematically solved,
(10) namely that of the maximum TEU capacity (nominal
(11) capacity), that of the Zero Ballast Loading Condition
(12) (zero ballast capacity) and that of a pre-specified av-
erage weight/TEU condition (here the 14tons/TEU
capacity). The first corresponds to the condition,
where the maximum allowable number of contain-
ers, in terms of IMO visibility, is loaded. The second
is a condition where it is assumed that there is no
ballast with the exception of some limited ballast in
the fore and/or aft peak tanks for trim balance. A fi-
nally the third assumes a homogeneous loading of
14tons/TEU for all containers onboard and calcu-
lates the maximum number of carried containers.
3.10 Required Freight Rate Calculation
The Required Freight Rate is indicative of the eco-
nomic performance and competitiveness of the ves-
sel. The RFR is the second objective of the optimiza-
tion. It represents the minimum freight rate (for
maximum cargo capacity) that can even the ship ex-
penses. As one can understand this index depends
primarily on two factors: the operating and capital
expenditure from the one hand and the ship's earn-
ings (function of the annual transport work) from the
other hand.
The expenditure is separated in two parts: the
capital and operating costs. For the capital costs, the
building cost as a function of the ship's main dimen-
sions (length, breadth and height) is magnified by a
factor of about 1.7 in order to correspond to actual,
acquisition vessel values for contemporary sales
(2013) while an interest rate of 8% is used in order
to calculate the investment Net Present Value
(NPV). The building cost is broken into hull and out-
fitting, machinery as well as machinery and piping.
The operating costs are calculated from a detailed
description of the operating profile of the vessel
based on the business scenario examined for each
case study. This profile is consisted by the following
conditions: Sea Operation and Port Operation, for
each one of those the main engine, auxiliary and
generator loads are defined by the user for each one
of those. In addition the time of them is calculated in
order to be able to derive with the total number of
trips per year given a constant off hire time. The
time in port is also crucial for the determination of
the port efficiency index which is an objective of the
optimization, too. Other operational costs such as
manning and provision, spares and stores, insurance
as well as administration are calculated as functions
of the ship's principal dimensions and of the main
engine installed power (kW).
Another important factor that can manipulate the
optimization results is the cost for fuel. When this is
taken very high, then designs with big powering re-
quirements are heavily penalized and ranked lower
during the optimization process. This is an external
way of providing the genetic algorithms that are used
for the optimization a direction towards favored de-
signs that incorporate smaller propulsion needs. For
this particular reason, it was chosen to use a fuel
price of 1,000$/t in order to achieve this external
manipulation as it would happen in real life ship-
ping, where ships with smaller resistance character-
istics would be benefited in comparison to others.
3.11 Energy Efficiency Design Index Calculation
The Energy Efficiency Design Index (EEDI) is cal-
culated according to the proposed at IMO resolution
MEPC.212(63), using the 70 % deadweight, 75% of
the MCR of the engines and the corresponding refer-
ence speed. Two versions are made, one for HFO
fuel use and one for the case of LNG fuel use:
EEDI =
( )(
M nME
)(
∏fj ∑ PME(i) *CFME(i) *SFCME(i) + PAE*CFAE*SFCAE
j=1 i=1
fi *Capacity*Vref * fw
{( M
j=1
nPTI neff
) }(
∏fj * ∑ PPTI(i) − ∑ feff (i) *PAEeff (i) *CFAE*SFCAE − ∑ feff (i) *Peff (i) *CFME*SFCME
i=1 i=1
fi *Capacity*Vref * fw
The minimization of this index is one of the pri-
mary aims of the optimization, which is correlated
both with the deadweight of the design as well as the
design speed and subsequently the engine power.
The engine power is directly connected to the resis-
tance of the hullform and the deadweight is also
connected both to the hullform in terms of displace-
ment and to the lightship weight.
3.12 Port Efficiency Index
On short leg routes and coastal voyages a focal point
of ship operation lies on time constraints such as
time slots and itineraries. Putting emphasis on en-
hanced port efficiency to allow lower average speeds
on voyage legs, while keeping the initial schedule
seems to be an appropriate complementary measure.
Port efficiency is the reduction of time in port for
a constant amount of cargo moved. Most of the ex-
isting literature considers port efficiency only on the
terminal’s side, e.g. (OECD 2012), incl. the effi-
ciency of port activities and services like pilotage,
towing, tug assistance or cargo handling. In the con-
text of this study port efficiency is considered based
on the ship layout. Addressing port efficiency al-
ready at the design stage the ship will have essential
conditions to conduct loading and unloading faster
in average, independent of the terminal and individ-
ual voyage stowage. Hence, it is crucial to identify
relevant ship design parameters which have an im-
pact on port efficiency. For this terminals and ship
owners and operators were asked for issues to be
considered regarding ship side port efficiency, incl.
typical stowage planning, securing cargo, crane
times and terminal operation.
Based on their feedback, a method was developed
to quantify port efficiency as a function of ship de-
sign. At the design stage of a container ship, how-
ever, it is not trivial to predict the actual time used
for loading and unloading. Naturally, the time
needed depends strongly on the current number of
containers to be moved and on their specific distri-
bution. In addition to the particulars of the ship and
the loading situation at hand, the land facilities
clearly play an important role, most outstandingly
the availability and speed of the cranes at the termi-
nal. Consequently, so as to quantify the port effi-
ciency of a container ship at its design stage a statis-
tical approach seems appropriate. Within this
method port efficiency, defined as the minimum,
maximum, mean and significant time needed to
move a selected number of containers, is simulated
in a multi-stage process:
)
+
1. A randomly chosen number of containers are dis-
tributed over the vessel.
2. From these containers a lower number of ran-
neff
)
i=1
domly selected containers are identified for load-
ing and unloading.
(12) 3. For this specific load case, i.e., the outcome from
steps 1 and 2, the respective time is computed
that one, two or more cranes (here up to six)
would need to move the containers the fastest
(determined by the slowest crane).
4. The simulations, i.e., steps 1 to 3, are repeated un-
til sufficiently large sets of load cases are avail-
able for statistical analysis. (Harries et al. 2013).
The simulation delivers an ideal average time for
container moves for a given ship layout. Substantial
differences could be identified for the time spent in
moving given numbers of containers depending on
ship layout. Shorter and beamer design showed
higher port efficiency than a longer and more slender
ship of Panamax size, especially when employing a
lower number of cranes (Harries et al. 2013). It was
found that a rather even distribution of container
slots longitudinally in longitudinal direction shows
advantages regarding port efficiency. I.e. if one bay
is significantly larger than the others this bay will be
the bottleneck for total port time, as only one crane
is able to work on it. This effect becomes smaller
with decrease of number of available cranes.
Based on these results an empirical formula was
developed and implemented in the developed multi-
objective optimisation. The formula estimates the
net hourly rate of moved TEU and considers the ra-
tio of on-deck and in-hold container, number of bays 4.1.3 Increased "On Deck" Stowed Containers
and deviation of on-deck containers. It is acknowl- Another design criteria that is of importance when
edged that calculated hourly rates are at present theo- considering the design of a containership is the ratio
retical values, considering ideal conditions and real of the TEUs stowed on deck to those stored in hold
hourly rates may be lower; however, it is believed (or the total number of TEUs). Throughout the fol-
that the used empirical formula is sufficient for a lowing design and optimization work it is evident
qualitative analysis and especially for evaluation of that an effort has been made to increase on deck
competing design variants in the frame of an optimi- stowed containers. The reason for this effort is that
zation procedure. the potential crane moves during port operations,
when the majority of the handled boxes are on deck,
are much less compared to the case of the majority
4 OPTIMIZATION STUDIES being in hold. he uniformity of the container stowage
distribution in ship length direction is identified as
4.1 Design Features important and is herein optimized.
The chosen business scenario refers to a medium
4.1.4 Elliptical Bilge of the Midship Section
size containership that will be involved in the Intra-
Another characteristic of this design concept is its
Asia trade lines. The desired merits of the favored
midship section, which was chosen to feature an el-
designs shall be achieved following a systematic op-
liptic bilge, according to previous work of the Ship
timization that is structured in a rational multi-staged
Design Laboratory on a fully elliptic containership
approach.
(Koutroukis 2012) and a tanker with elliptical bilge
(Nikolopoulos 2012). This extended bilge using the
4.1.1 Wide Beam Design
geometrical properties of the ellipse allows decreas-
The implemented design concept involves wide ves-
ing the wetted surface of the ship while the dis-
sel variants. The primary advantage of such a feature
placement volume is not equally decreased and al-
is the increased stability that results to a smaller bal-
most kept constant. The parameters used to control
last capacity required to satisfy the IMO intact stabil-
this surface are the Flat of Bottom (FOB) extent and
ity criteria. The wide beam design also enables the
the Flat of Side (FOS) extent.
designer to increase very efficiently the TEU capac-
ity and maximize the containers on deck; the design
can lead to smaller ship length, thus reducing the 4.2 Underlying optimization principles.
lightship weight (and increasing the corresponding
The target of any optimization procedure is always
DWT for a given displacement). This decrease of the
to achieve the most desiring values/properties for the
L/B can possibly have a negative effect on the hy-
set optimization objectives. The alteration of the de-
drodynamic performance (powering) of the vessel.
signs and assessed entries is performed through the
The magnitude of this effect, however, is also sub-
systematic variation of their distinctive parameters,
ject to the hull's block coefficient and also the design
while each one of the designs must comply with the
speed and corresponding Froude number. Finally,
set constraints, e.g. stability criteria
the wide beam (and shorter length) design concept
The generic targets or objectives in almost any
generally positively affects ship’s port efficiency.
ship design optimization problem are:
-Safety is herein expressed by ship’s stability as
4.1.2 Design Speed
defined by the IMO stability criteria. Thus, the sta-
The design speed is derived from analyzing different
bility of the vessel may not be only a constraint but
intra-Asian routes, acknowledging speed margins for
also an objective for the optimization routine;
possible delays, etc.. Both design and operating
-Efficiency, expressed by the IMO EEDI index;
speeds depend on the required transit time in a port-
-Competitiveness, expressed by the Required
to-port transport system, thus making the port opera-
Freight Rate.
tions also a vital part of the combined transport sys-
In addition to that, one of the most critical design
tem. Within this context and scope of increased port
issues of future designs in view of the upcoming
efficiency (expressed by the defined empirical index
regulations is the quantity of ballast water carried on
described in previous paragraph) the operating speed
board for trim and stability purposes. Its reduction is
for the business scenario was chosen to be at 19
imperative as several efficiency and fuel costs can be
knots, while the normal transit speed is considered at
linked to the management and treatment procedures
15 kn. When taking into account the speed margin
of the latter. Last, as already explained, in this case
together with the engine margin (for derating pur-
study, port efficiency defined by the mentioned em-
poses), the weather as well as fouling margins en-
pirical relative indicator is one of the optimization
sures that in the normal seagoing condition (with
objectives.
calm seas and clean hull) for the operating speed, the
engine load will be at approximately 60%.
 where the same procedure is followed. When it is
Design Generation of Design Variants Design Evaluation:
Variables
SOBOL, NSGAII algorithms
-Required Freight Rate
-EEDI
evident that there little more potential for improve-
-Water Ballast Required
-Port Efficiency Index
ment the best designs are picked using the same
ranking principles with utility functions, and are ex-
ported for analysis. At a later stage, these designs
will be subject to a more detailed, localized optimi-
Design Constraints: zation regarding the hullform and structural design
-Displacement and Deadweight
-IMO Intact Stability Criteria
of the variants, which is not covered in the present
-IMO Visibility Line Regulation
-Trim at Full Load Departure Load. Cond.
paper.

4.4 Design of Experiment and Sensitivity Analysis

Stage 1: Design Space Exploration
Design of Experiment Sobol Algorithm
500 variants
Stage 2: Global Design Optimization step one
NSGA II Algorithm
1000 variants: 50 generations x 20 population
Dominant Variants: I.D 780, 1004, 1014, 1013, 388, 251
Stage 3: Global Design Optimization, Baseline: I.D 251
NSGA II Algorithm
1000 variants: 50 generations x 20 population
Stage 4: Local Design Optimization (post analysis)
Fine Tuning of bow area (incl. bulb) with CFD tools
Structural Design Optimization (Midship Section)
Figure 7. The various stages of the optimization procedure.
The Design of Experiment (DoE) is the first step of
the above described multi staged process and aims at
exploring the design space and optimization poten-
tial given the defined design variables and con-
straints and at providing a concurrent sensitivity
analysis (the latter is automatically generated from
the FFW).
The design engine that is used for the simulation,
in other words the algorithm responsible for the
variation of the design variables, is the SOBOL algo-
rithm which is a quasi-random number generator.
The quasi-random feature is very beneficial in order
to avoid local concentrations and that the variations
are well spread within the range of the design vari-
ables.
From the results of this DoE, the boundaries and
the design constraints are refined in order to have
faster and generate more "targeted" runs in the next
stages.

Table 2. The design variables and respective boundaries for the

4.3 A multi-staged, "chain" optimization procedure
DoE.
The optimization procedure described in this paper Design Variables Lower Bound Upper Bound
can be described as a stepped (multi stage) one. At LengthBP (Bays) 11 14
first, it is necessary to explore and fully understand B (Rows) 11 14
both the design space (potential for improvement
Double Skin (m) 2 2.5
with given constraints) as well as the sensitivity of
Height (Tiers) 6 8
the methodology by a Design of Experiments
Double Bottom (m) 1.8 2.5
(SOBOL) procedure. The sensitivity analysis is a
very important, preparatory step in which it is en- BilgeHeight (%T) 0.10 1.00

sured that no major, unreasonable manipulations oc- BilgeWidth (%B/2) 0.10 1.00

cur. In addition to that it is important to see that the Par.Body Length (%LBP) 0.00 0.30
results are realistic both on a quantitative and quali- Par.Body Position (%LBP) 0.40 0.55
tative basis, with the latter in need of particular at- dCB -0.06 0.06
tention since the design ranking and selection is the dXCB -0.02 0.02
essence of optimization (the value of a favored de-
sign is not important than the relationship with all The design constraints are primarily stability con-
the other produced designs). straints (IMO criteria), as well as a trim constraint
The following formal optimization runs utilize (trim to be less than 0.5% of Lbp) and bounda-
genetic algorithm techniques (NSGA II algorithm). ries/margins for the displacement as well as the re-
The formal optimization runs involve the determina- quired ballast water.
tion of the number of generations and the definition From the results of the exploration of the design
of population of each generation to be explored. space (Figs 8, 9) it is clear that the designs generated
Then the generated designs are ranked according to a are adequately scattered around the design space for
number of scenarios regarding the mentality of the the displacement range of the examined ship size
decision maker. One favored design is picked to be (Fig. 9). Naturally, as it is very often in ship design,
the baseline design of the next optimization run, larger vessels are favored in terms of the Required
Freight Rate due to the larger economies of scale.
However, in this case, the above described behavior,
although visible, can be regarded as less pronounced
(Fig. 10), since larger vessels in the set design speed
may suffer comparably a large increase in the re-
quired power (and thus of fuel costs).The design
with the smallest RFR nevertheless is one of the
largest design variants generated in this stage.
Figure 8. Scatter diagram of RFR against displacement for
DoE.
Figure 9. Scatter diagram of TEU nominal capacity against dis-
placement for DoE.
Another noticeable behavior of the algorithm, ac-
cording to the results of the first exploratory runs, is
that the EEDI and RFR behavior are strongly corre-
lated, representing win-win scenarios and that there
is big potential for improvement in terms of the
EEDI, since all of the generated designs are well be-
low the baseline set by IMO for the EEDI (for a con-
tainer vessel of this deadweight it should be at about
22g CO2/t-nm). The potential for optimization is
also witnessed when looking at the relationship of
the RFR with the allowable number of TEU to be
loaded with zero ballast (Zero Ballast Loading Con-
dition). The relationship between the RFR and the
allowable TEUs can be seen as linear, as those two
objectives are correlated via the Maximum Nominal
TEU capacity. The larger the ship is, the more zero
ballast containers it can carry, as the ratio of these
two capacities appears to have a narrow range.
Following the procedure of the design space ex-
ploration, a sensitivity analysis was performed in or-
der to make sure that no major discrepancies are evi-
dent. Afterwards the variants were ranked using the
utility functions technique and one of them was set
as the baseline model for the subsequent global op-
timization runs.
4.5 Global Optimization with the Use of Genetic
Algorithms
This stage can be characterized as the stage of the
formal, global optimization. The optimization is
global since the design variables are ship’s principal
particulars and the objectives generic type, yet very
representative indicators. The target of the optimiza-
tion remains unchanged, while the design variables
and constraints are also the same with the design of
experiment (DoE) exercise, only with fine-tuned
variables (Table 2).
In contrast to the previous stage, the algorithm
quantifying the above mentioned design variables, is
the NSGA II, which is a genetic algorithm. Such al-
gorithms, also called "evolutionary algorithms" are
widely used nowadays for optimization purposes and
are based on C. Darwin’s theory of biological evolu-
tion and biological trees (Darwin 1857). From the
scatter diagrams produced during the optimization
one can clearly identify the Pareto fronts that are
generated. As in the case of the Design of Experi-
ment the relationship of the EEDI with the RFR
(Fig. 10) is almost linear and strongly correlated
through the fuel costs and transport capacity. In addi-
tion to that, the selected are all on the same line, in-
dicated that the ranking has been done close to the
optimal Pareto front. The baseline model features a
good RFR, since the margin for improvement, which
is at 5.7%, can be regarded lower than the equivalent
margin for the EEDI at 21.5%. This can be attributed
to the improved hull form characteristics (herein of
innovative elliptical bilge shape) that can reduce ef-
fectively the wetted surface and thus ship's frictional
resistance.
The optimization effect is also apparent in the
Zero Ballast capacity, where there is an improve-
ment of up to 13.5% compared to the reference
model (Fig. 11). This corresponds however to a lar-
ger ship that has also a lower RFR. Also noticeable
are two distinct areas in the design clouds: one with
larger designs and one with smaller. This is due to
the integer/discrete variation of the rows loaded (in
the cargo hold) in the transverse direction (that in
turn determine the beam of the ship). At each of the
clouds a Pareto front is formulated (red lines) and it
is obvious that the selected designs from the ranking
process are close to these lines.
 4.6 Selection and ranking of dominant variants with
the use of utility functions
One of the most critical steps during optimization
of any system is the selection and the sorting of the
dominant variants. For this particular reason it is
necessary to follow a rational, rather than an intui-
tive, approach in order to consider in an unbiased
way all tradeoffs that exist. One such method is util-
ity functions technique.
The optimum solution in our case would dispose
the minimum EEDI value, the maximum value of
the Zero Ballast Container Capacity, the maximum
value for the Port Efficiency Indicator and the mini-
mum RFR value. Instead of using fixed weights for
Figure 10. Scatter diagram EEDI against RFR for NSGAII run.
the set criteria in the evaluation of the variants, we
rather assume a utility function as following

U = wEEDI × u(EEDI ) + wRFR × u(RFR) + wPEI × u(PEI )

+wZeroBallastTEU × u(ZeroBallastTEU )

The maximization of this utility function is the

objective now, and the dominant variants of those 10
most favorable with respect to the 5 defined utility
scenarios (Table 3) resulting in the identification and
sorting of 50 designs with best performance accord-
ing to each utility scenario.

Figure 11. Scatter diagram Zero Ballast TEU Capacity against

RFR for NSGAII run.

The same phenomenon, but with more scattered ar-

eas can be seen for the relationship of the Port Effi-
ciency Indicator (PEI) to the RFR. Although some
evidence of Pareto front is visible (red line). There
is a great number of designs that are away from that
dense area, in which the merits of both the port effi-
ciency and RFR reach their optimal values. It should
be noted that the selected designs that are far away
from the front are designs that have a superior per-
formance regarding the Zero Ballast TEU capacity.
This is evident due to the antagonistic nature of
these two objectives, since this capacity can only be Figure 12. Ranking of dominant variants according to U1 Sce-
achieved with increased in hold volumes of contain- nario.
ers (corresponding to designs with increased tiers
stored in hold). This in turn is reducing the PEI since An important point that played a substantial role in
as explained earlier it depends strongly on the ratio the selection process is the repetition of certain de-
of the on deck stowed TEUs to those stored in hold. signs in the top positions of each ranking. This phe-
This created a strong competition between the two nomenon indicates the robustness as well as the
objectives that makes the use of utility functions im- adaptability of the selected designs. Such design
perative in order to assist the decision maker. variants are those with I.D’s 780, 1013 and 388.
Table 3. The weights for each scenario. limited loading the aft and fore peak tanks for trim
1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th
Objective
Scenario Scenario Scenario Scenario Scenario improvement purposes. The increased Port Effi-
RFR 0.25 0.7 0.2 0.1 0.4 ciency that was defined within the methodology
EEDI 0.25 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.1 based on previous research activity, allowed the de-
Port signers to lower design speed with no implications in
Efficiency 0.25 0.1 0.2 0.4 0.1
Indicator the supply chain of the Intra-Asian trade studied in
Zero
Ballast
this paper. This reduction is beneficial both in terms
0.25 0.1 0.4 0.4 0.4
TEU
Capacity
of fuel costs as well as emissions and efficiency
without sacrificing the competitiveness of the vessel
(in terms of trips per year).
Table 4. Comparison of dominant variants to reference ship.
Baseline
Model I.D I.D I.D
(Result 780 1013 388
Table 5. Principal particulars of dominant variants.
of DoE) Baseline I.D I.D I.D
EEDI 13,862 12,314 -11,17% 11,566 -16,57% 12,153 -12,33% Model 780 1013 388
Required LBP (m) 211.75 213.22 213.24 217.82
Freight 841,49 840,5 -0,11% 793,2 -5,74% 828,1 -1,59%
Rate
Port Breadth (m) 37.3 39.6 40.06 42.09
Efficiency 32,73 31,19 -4,70% 34,412 5,14% 35,738 9,19%
Indicator
Zero
Ballast Depth (m) 19.80 20.12 17.33 17.25
2791 3168 13,51% 1712 38,6% 2222 20,39%
TEU
Capacity
Design Draft (m) 11 11 11 11

When looking at their characteristics, compared to CB 0.558 0.623 0.643 0.591

the reference design, one can see drastic improve-
ments for all four objectives. It is also important to LCB 104.47 105.8 107.6 102.2
notice again the antagonistic relationship of the Zero
Ballast TEU Capacity and the Port Efficiency Indica- No. Bays 10 10 10 10
tor, as the designs that have an improved capacity
have large in hold capacities (additional tiers) that No. Rows 13 14 14 15
decrease the value of the port efficiency. These two
Tiers on Deck 8 8 8 8
extreme designs are I.D’s 780 and 1013, while I.D
388 can serve as a trade-off between them. For this Tiers in Hold 7 7 6 6
particular reason, I.D 388 was selected as the basis
for the next optimization runs, since the decision Bilge Height
73 28.3 30.1 29
(% of Depth)
maker's mentality in this case was to create designs
Bilge Width
with balanced, rather than extreme characteristics. (% of Breadth)
46 77.8 30.8 87

Double Bottom
1.8 2.084 2.25 2.19
Height (m)
5 SUMMARY AND CONCLUDING REMARKS Double Hull
2.0 2.45 2.31 2.065
Width (m)
The paper presented a holistic ship design method- Parallel Mid-
body Length 0 5.3 11.3 2.32
ology, which was applied to the optimization of a
(%LBP)
medium size, wide-beam containership, using ge- Parallel Mid-
netic algorithms. The presented method has been in- body Position 50 47.8 51.1 48
tegrated into the FFW design software platform and (%LBP)
allows the fully automated generation of valuable Design Speed
19 19 19 19
containership designs with superior design character- (knots)
istics. The obtained results indicate significant im- Lightship
13356 14769 13958 14984
Weight (tonnes)
provements regarding the IMO EEDI, major reduc- Nominal TEU
tions of the RFR and an improvement of the herein Capacity
3667 3983 3968 3945
defined Port Efficiency. Another step forward is the Installed Power
15491 16878 17068 17262
reduction of the required ballast water by almost (kW)
40% and the increase of carried containers (nominal
capacity and containers on deck) that can be loaded
without the need for using ballast for stability pur- 5.1 Future Work-Perspectives
poses. The homogenous weight for this condition is Future work of the presented R&D project includes a
close to the statistically observed homogenous second, more "exhaustive" global optimization
weight for containers (approximately 12-15 tons). analysis, which will be followed by a local optimiza-
This means that in most real-life loading cases the tion regarding two separate aspects of the dominant
ship can waive ballasting with the exception of some designs, namely hydrodynamic performance and
 structural design. By use of CFD software, the hull
form of the vessel will be optimized for a minimiza-
tion of ship’s powering requirements, including as-
pects of added resistance and powering in waves,
while the structural design will be assessed by the
structural design software POSEIDON using GL
rules for containerships and ship’s midship section
will be optimized for reduced structural weight.
6 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The presented work derives from a joint industrial
project between Germanischer Lloyd (GL) and the
Ship Design Laboratory of the National Technical
University of Athens (NTUA-SDL) and derives from
the earlier introduced concept of the “E4 Container-
ship”, which won the 3rd place award in the Euro-
pean Academic Competition “VISIONS-
OLYMPICS 2011”.
The authors would like to express their sincere
gratitude to the following people:
Dr. Eleftheria Eliopoulou (NTUA-SDL), Ass. Prof
George Zaraphonitis (NTUA-SDL), Markus Ihms
(GL), F. Rohde (GL), P. Securius (GL), S. Harries
(Friendship Systems), V. Shigonovhde (GL), E.
Dölerud (Friendship Systems).
Merk O. & Dang, T. 2012. Efficiency of world ports in con-
tainer and bulk cargo (oil, coal, ores and grain). OECD Re-
gional Development Working Papers.OECD Publishing.
Nikolopoulos L. 2012. A Holistic Methodology for the Optimi-
zation of Tanker Design and Operation and it's applications.
Diploma Thesis. Athens: NTUA.
OOCL 2013. Schedule OOCL KTX3.
http://www.oocl.com/SiteCollectionDocuments/OOCL/eSer
vies/Sailing%20Schedule%20by%20Service/KTX3_LT.pdf
Papanikolaou A.2009. Holistic ship design optimization. Com-
puter-Aided Design. Elsevier.
Papanikolaou A. 1988. Ship Design - Volume Α: Preliminary
Design Methodology(2nd ed.). Athens: Symeon.
VISIONS-OLYMPICS COMPETITION, 2011, www.visions-
olympics.eu.
World Trade Organisation [WTO] 2012. Aid for Trade in Asia
and the Pacific – Its Role in Trade-Driven Growth. WTO 3rd
Global Review of Aid for Trade. Geneva.
Yang Ming 2013. Schedule Yang Ming PA2.
http://www.yangming.com/yml_services/ymlservice_route_
map.asp?QT=bySvc&RV=PA2

REFERENCES

Abt C. & Harries S. 2007. Hull Variation and Improvement us-

ing the Generalised Lackenby Method of the FRIEND-
SHIP-Framework. The Naval Architect, RINA.
Clarksons 2013. Container Intelligence Quarterly First Quarter
2013- A comprehensive quarterly review and outlook for
the container shipping market. Clarkson Research Services.
Darwin C. 1859. On the origin of species by means of natural
selection, or the preservation of favoured races in the strug-
gle for life. (1st ed.) London: John Murray.
Drewry 2011. Container Market 2011/2012 – Annual review
and forecast.
Drewry 2008. Intra-Asia Container Trades - Demystifying the
Market.
FRIENDSHIP-SYSTEMS: FRIENDSHIP- Framework, www.
friendship-systems.com
Harries, S. & Dölerud, E. & Sames, P.C. 2013. Port Efficiency
Simulations for the Design of Container Carriers. COMPIT
2013.
Holtrop J. & Mennen G. 1982. An approximate power predic-
tion method. International Shipbuilding Progress.
IMO MEPC 62/24/Add.1 2011. Report of the Marine Envi-
ronment Protection Committee on its sixty-second session.
IMO 2008. Intact Stability Code.
IHS Fairplay 2012. Maritime Statistics.
Interasia Lines 2013. Schedule JAPAN/STRAITS/WEST
ASIA.http://www.ial.co.jp/ecsv/ezcatfiles/ial/img/img/207/
OUTBOUND09.pdf.
Koutroukis G. 2012. Parametric Design And Multiobjective
Optimization-Study Of An Ellipsoidal Containership. Di-
ploma Thesis. Athens:NTUA.
Lloyd’s Register 2013. Global Marine Trend 2030”. QinetiQ,
University of Strathclyde
MAN B&W 2012. Marine Engine Program.

View publication stats