Structural Optimization of AMELS Limited Edition Luxury Yachts

Structural Optimization of AMELS Limited
Edition Luxury Yachts
A comparison of the optimal transverse, longitudinal and hybrid constructed mid-

ship section, with respect to production costs, mass and interior space, from the
AMELS Limited Edition luxury yachts.
Sita Verburg
January 2014
SDPO.14.001.m
2
Structural optimization of AMELS LE luxury yachts.
Thesis for the degree of MSc in Marine Technology in the specialization of Ship Design
Structural optimization of AMELS LE

luxury yachts
By
Sijke Anita Verburg
Performed at
AMELS Holland B.V.
This thesis (SDPO.14.001.m) is classified as confidential in accordance with the general conditions
for projects performed by the TUDelft.
January 10th 2014
Company supervisors
Responsible supervisor: Maarten Slegers
E-mail: m.slegers@amels-holland.com
Daily Supervisor(s): Leen Koole, Pieter Korevaar
E-mail: l.koole@amels-holland.com, p.korevaar@amels-holland.com
Thesis exam committee

Chair/Responsible Professor: Prof. Ir. J.J. Hopman
Staff Member: X. Jiang
Staff Member: Dr. Ir. R. Hekkenberg
Company Member: Ir. M. Slegers
Author Details
Studynumber: 1307347
Author contact e-mail: s.a.verburg@student.tudelft.nl / saverburg@gmail.com
3
Abstract
At AMELS, a yacht design and building company in the Netherlands, there is a desire to get a complete
and systematic overview of the preferable construction method of the yachts with respect to production
costs, mass and inside space over the complete range of ship sizes. The current ‘Limited Edition’ luxury
yachts vary in stiffening method and stiffener spacing, or are almost identical for different ship sizes.
This research is meant to shed some light on the optimal structural design.
In order to make an even comparison of the ship’s construction costs, mass, and available interior space
for the owner, a simplified basic mid-ship section will be applied for all ship sizes. The mid-ship section is
based on the mid-ship sections of the AMELS Limited Edition luxury yachts. Together with the length of
the ship, basic dimensions such as the breadth, depth and deck height will be adjusted. A large number
of models, with three different construction methods, longitudinal, transverse and hybrid stiffening,
three different stiffener spacings (500, 600 and 700 mm) and three ship sizes (50, 67.5 and 85 m) have
been created and analyzed.
The main variables are plate thickness, scantlings and spacing of longitudinal members and scantlings
and spacing of transversal members for every chosen ship size and construction method. The class rules
from Lloyds Register for Special Service Crafts are applied.
The comparison of the models show a decreasing trend for the production cost versus stiffener spacing,
an increasing trend in the mass versus stiffener spacing and a rather undetermined trend for the clear
height versus stiffener spacing. These trends are the same for all investigated ship sizes. Per ship size,
the production costs, mass, and clear height are normalized, to allow for the use of coefficients.
For choosing the optimal design, weighting factors have been set. The production costs have a weighting
factor of 0.25, the mass a factor of 0.375 and the clear height also has a factor of 0.375. These numbers
are chosen because at AMELS, the building of the hulls is outsourced to shipyards in Eastern Europe,
where they calculate the production cost in euro per tons. Therefore, the production costs are currently
a little less important. For Dutch shipyards that do build the hulls in the Netherlands, the weighting
factors are estimated as follows: production costs have a weighting factor of 0.5, the mass a factor of
0.25 and the height also a factor of 0.25. The production costs are much more important when the hulls
are built in the Netherlands due to the fact that the wages are at present much higher than in Eastern
Europe.
The calculation of the optimal design is performed by multiplying the weighting factor with the specific
coefficients, for all variations. The resulting objective function is used to rank the models, for which the
lower, the better. When taking the AMELS weighting factors into account, for a ship length between 50
and 67.5 m, the longitudinal stiffened method with a spacing of 600 mm and the hybrid framed method
with a spacing of 600 mm are equally good. For the larger range of yachts, between 67.5 and 80 m, the
longitudinal framed method with a spacing of 600 mm is preferable.
4
After applying these results to the natural frequency test and a second optimization cycle with respect
to the deck heights, for each ship size a single optimal solution is found:
• For the 50 m model: the hybrid stiffened variation with a 600 mm stiffener spacing
• For the 67.5 m model: the longitudinal stiffened variation with a 600 mm stiffener spacing
• For the 85 m model: the longitudinal stiffened variation with a 600 mm stiffener spacing
In case of the weighting factors for hull building in the Netherlands, a slightly different result is reached:
for the ships of 50 and 67.5 m the hybrid stiffened method is preferred, with 600 mm stiffener spacing.
The largest yacht, of 85 m, has as longitudinal stiffening as optimal method, with 700 mm stiffener
spacing.
Except these standard variations in which the frame distance is three times the stiffener spacing, a small
study on frame distance variation has been conducted. Resulting in the conclusion that the frame
distance, in most cases, is optimal around 1.8 m.
AMELS can use the results of this study to get a good insight in the drivers of the optimal design. When
in the future the building strategy of the company changes, the weighting factors can be adjusted and
the results change accordingly.
5
Contents
Abstract .................................................................................................................................................. 4
Nomenclature ......................................................................................................................................... 9
Introduction .......................................................................................................................................... 10
1 AMELS Limited Edition luxury yachts.............................................................................................. 11
1.1 Super yachts .......................................................................................................................... 11
1.2 AMELS.................................................................................................................................... 12
2 Design brief ................................................................................................................................... 14
2.1 Problem definition ................................................................................................................. 14
2.2 Research questions ................................................................................................................ 17
2.3 Method .................................................................................................................................. 17
3 Construction of ships ..................................................................................................................... 19
3.1 Basic principles and calculations............................................................................................. 19
3.2 Structural design .................................................................................................................... 21
3.3 Longitudinal, transverse and hybrid framed structures........................................................... 21
3.4 Design considerations for super yachts .................................................................................. 23
3.5 Design consequences of construction choices ........................................................................ 24
4 Scope............................................................................................................................................. 25
4.1 Superstructure ....................................................................................................................... 25
4.2 Mid-ship section .................................................................................................................... 25
4.3 Constraints on the structural parts ......................................................................................... 28
4.4 SSC Rules ............................................................................................................................... 30
4.5 Other considerations.............................................................................................................. 30
4.6 Schematic overview ............................................................................................................... 31
5 Optimization .................................................................................................................................. 32
5.1 Introduction ........................................................................................................................... 32
5.2 Methods and software ........................................................................................................... 33
5.3 Selection of method and software.......................................................................................... 35
5.4 MAESTRO ............................................................................................................................... 37
5.5 Design variables ..................................................................................................................... 37
5.6 Objective functions ................................................................................................................ 39
5.7 Constraints............................................................................................................................. 40
6
6 Mid-ship section ............................................................................................................................ 43
6.1 Reference vessels ................................................................................................................... 43
6.2 Scaling properties .................................................................................................................. 45
7 Loads ............................................................................................................................................. 47
7.1 Bending moments .................................................................................................................. 47
7.2 Shear force............................................................................................................................. 47
7.3 Pressures ............................................................................................................................... 48
8 Production costs ............................................................................................................................ 49
8.1 Unspecified ............................................................................................................................ 49
8.2 Specified ................................................................................................................................ 49
8.3 Application in this research .................................................................................................... 49
9 Model of the basic mid-ship section............................................................................................... 50
9.1 Deck model ............................................................................................................................ 50
9.2 General characteristics and modeling method of the mid-ship sections ................................. 55
9.3 Applied longitudinal framed section ....................................................................................... 58
9.4 Applied transverse framed section ......................................................................................... 59
9.5 Applied hybrid framed section ............................................................................................... 60
9.6 Watertight bulkheads............................................................................................................. 61
10 Design solutions............................................................................................................................. 62
10.1 Basic structural models .......................................................................................................... 62
10.2 Optimal design per ship size ................................................................................................... 67
10.3 Adjustment of deck height ..................................................................................................... 73
10.4 Conclusion ............................................................................................................................. 75
11 Validation ...................................................................................................................................... 76
11.1 Deck model ............................................................................................................................ 76
11.2 Mid-ship models .................................................................................................................... 77
12 Conclusion ..................................................................................................................................... 80
13 Recommendations ......................................................................................................................... 82
13.1 Application............................................................................................................................. 82
13.2 Further research .................................................................................................................... 82
References ............................................................................................................................................ 83
Literature .......................................................................................................................................... 83
7
List of figures ..................................................................................................................................... 85
List of tables ...................................................................................................................................... 86
Appendices ........................................................................................................................................... 88
A. Loads and minimum requirements according SSC Rules ............................................................. 88
B. Explorative deck model in MAESTRO 7 ....................................................................................... 88
C. Structural models: results of production costs, mass and clear height. ....................................... 88
D. Structural models overview ....................................................................................................... 88
E. Objective function overview for several weighting factor combinations ..................................... 88
F. Natural frequencies ................................................................................................................... 88
G. Validation MAESTRO in Excel ..................................................................................................... 88
H. Comparison SSC Rules and MAESTRO dimensions ...................................................................... 88
8
Introduction
Nomenclature
Acronym Meaning
B Breadth
BBS Breadth Between Stiffeners
BPF Blade Passing Frequency
D Depth
db Double bottom
FEM Finite Element Method
GM Distance between the center of gravity and the metacenter height
GRT Gross Register Tonnage
HVAC Heat Ventilation Air Conditioning
L Length
Loa Length over all
Lwl Waterline length
ld Lower Deck
LE Limited Editions
LR Lloyd’s Register
md Main Deck
SSC Special Service Craft
STF Number of Stiffeners
T Draught
tt Tanktop
VCG Vertical Centre of Gravity
wt Water tight
Term Meaning
Ducts Pipes, for example HVAC-ducts
Limited Edition Serie of yachts
MAESTRO Structural optimization software
modeFRONTIER Optimization software
Scantlings Dimensions of the stiffeners
Spec Specification, refers to the building specification
Strake Plate field, often separated by girders, decks or floors.
Tween deck Deck between the main deck and the tank top. Lower deck.
9
Introduction
Introduction
This thesis describes the optimization of the construction of super yachts. The yachts that will be
optimized are based on the Limited Edition luxury yachts of AMELS.
At the engineering department of AMELS there is a desire to get a complete and systematic overview of
the preferable construction method of the yachts with respect to production costs, mass and inside
space over the complete range of ship sizes. The three main construction methods will be researched:
transversely, longitudinally and hybrid stiffened.
The structure of this thesis follows the design process. In the first part an introduction about super
yachts, the problem definition and construction methods is given. Then, in part two, an analysis of the
scope of the research, optimization methods and the mid-ship section including loads and production
costs is performed.
Part three, the synthesis, combines the gained knowledge in order to make the mid-ship models. The
design part, part four, contains apart from the realization of the models, also the consequences of
structural choices in the design. Furthermore, a consideration of the different objectives is made. In the
evaluation the validity of the model and the results are checked. Apart from that, some
recommendations about the application of this research and future research in this field are given.
10
Introduction
Part 1. Introduction
The introduction is not only intended as an introduction into the research problem, but also to give
some background information for people who are unfamiliar with the super yacht industry, AMELS or
the construction of ships in general.
In chapter 1 an introduction about super yachts and the company, AMELS, is given. The second chapter
contains the design brief, with the problem statement, the research questions and the research method.
Chapter 3 explains the basics of ship construction.
1 AMELS Limited Edition luxury yachts

1.1 Super yachts
A super yacht is a very luxurious, expensive, and often privately owned yacht with a professional crew. It
can be either a sailing or a motor yacht. At the moment, the world wide super yacht fleet exists of 3.572
yachts between 24 and 200 meter, and another 225 super yachts are under construction.1 From the
fleet, over 400 yachts are available for chartering and around 650 are for sale.
Super yacht owners have very different backgrounds, from movie stars or fashion designers, to royalties,
successful business people and professional athletes. They have one thing in common, all are very
wealthy.
Figure 1. AMELS LE 180; Step One
When a client decides to buy a yacht, and already has an idea about a yard or specific ship, the
connected broker is contacted. The broker will form together with the future captain, the ‘owner’s
representative’ and a few others the ‘client team’. The client does most of the negotiations with the
shipyard about the progress of the yacht. The owner’s representatives represent the interests of the
owner towards the designers and the shipyard.
1
www.superyacht.com visited 12-6-2013
11
Introduction
Figure 2. AMELS LE 171; Bel Abri
Apart from the yacht itself the accompanying “toys” are very important. In Figure 2 some RIBs can be
seen. Furthermore, jet-skis, sea-bobs, a mini submarine and a helicopter are necessary extras to make
the yacht complete.
Figure 3. AMELS; Lady in Blue
1.2 AMELS
AMELS Holland B.V. has established itself as a specialized yacht designer and builder in 1982, after being
founded in 1918 in Makkum. Since 1982 AMELS has been building custom yachts in Makkum. In 1991
AMELS became part of the DAMEN SHIPYARD GROUP and with the growing order book, another
building location in Vlissingen was established. However, in the years after, a decrease in projects was
seen and all AMELS’s activities were moved to Vlissingen.
Figure 4. AMELS shipyard in Vlissingen
12
Introduction
With becoming part of DAMEN and the relocation to Vlissingen, the ‘Damen Standard’ business model
was adopted. Meaning a shift took place from completely custom building to semi-custom building. The
hull and technical systems are already determined and designed before the client enters the project.
This saves a lot of time on designing, engineering and also on delivery of components. Furthermore, a
learning effect takes place; problems that occur during building can be adapted for the next vessel of a
series. This makes the quality rise and the price decrease. This method is called the “proven platform”,
at AMELS these series are called “Limited Editions” (LE). The different series are named after the length
in foot. For example, the LE 180.
The initial design for a new series is made at the

design department. The engineering department
uses the initial design to make a detailed design.
The building of the hulls is often outsourced to a

Romanian or Polish shipyard. From there the hulls
are shipped to the site in Vlissingen as can be
seen in Figure 5. Here, the further assembly takes
place, as well as the sea trials and the delivery.
Figure 5. Shipping of a hull to Vlissingen.
13
Introduction
2 Design brief
In paragraph 2.1 the problem is defined, after which the research questions that result from the
problem definition are described in paragraph 2.2. In paragraph 2.3 the applied method will be
discussed.
2.1 Problem definition

Currently AMELS offers five types of Limited Editions. The structural design of a Limited Edition is either
made by AMELS employees, by a subcontractor, or is based on a previous design. This has led to a
variation of structural solutions.
The cross sections off all Limited Editions are depicted in this paragraph (from the smallest to the
biggest), in order to deduct the similarities and differences in the structural design.
Figure 6. AMELS LE 180 cross section
The AMELS LE 180 is the smallest limited edition; it has a waterline length of 49.6 m. The LE 180 is
transversely stiffened with a spacing of 500 mm. It is based on the AMELS 171, which has the same cross
section. The left side of the picture shows a normal frame, the right side a web frame.
The AMELS LE 199 is transversely stiffened with a spacing of 600 mm. The web frame spacing is 2400
14
Introduction
mm. This cross section differs from the others with respect to non-uniformity of the stiffeners in the
sides. There is an extremely large difference in the dimensions of the stiffeners above the tanktop deck
and the stiffeners above the lower deck.
The LE 199 has an overall length of 60 m, and a waterline length of 59.7 m. The bow is, therefore, almost
vertical.
Figure 8. AMELS LE 212 and 242 cross section
The AMELS LE 212 and the LE 242 have the same general stiffening properties and the same cross
section. They are hybrid framed with longitudinal stiffening at 500 mm in the decks and transverse
stiffening in the sides, also at 500 mm. The tanktop is transverse stiffened at 500 mm, as well as the part
of the lowerdeck which is located behind the engine room. Furthermore, these yachts do not have one
specific framing method in the lowerdeck. This is due to the fact that there are many local objects that
need space or cut out a part of the hull (for example the numerous doors).
The LE 212 has a waterline length of 59.3 m, while the LE 242 with a waterline length of 67.2 m, 7.9 m
longer is.
15
Introduction
The AMELS LE 272 is longitudinal framed with a stiffener spacing of 500 mm in the bottom, the decks,
and the side shell up to the lower deck. Above the lower deck the stiffener spacing in the side is 400
mm. The LE 272 has a waterline length of 76.7 m.
Between the five Limited Editions are a few similarities to name, for example:
• Four out of five yachts have a stiffener spacing of 500 mm

• The LE 212 and the LE 242 are in general the same
The differences are, for example:
• All three stiffening methods are applied

• The ration between the dimensions of the web frames on the tanktop deck and the lower deck
• Number of struts (often placed around a staircase)
For the stiffening methods a trend can be found with regard to ship length: the two smallest yachts are
transversely stiffened, the 212 and 242 are hybrid stiffened and the longest yacht is longitudinal
stiffened.
The goal of this research is to make a complete and systematic overview of the preferable construction
method of the yachts with respect to production costs, mass and available living space over the
complete range of ship sizes.
16
Introduction
2.2 Research questions

The problem stated in the previous section leads to the following research question:
What are the relations between production costs, mass and available space for different sizes of the
AMELS LE, for an optimized transverse, longitudinal and hybrid constructed slice of approximately 9
meters long?
The main research question is divided into eight smaller questions:
• What are the constraints of the project?

• Is there a mid-ship section that is applicable for most AMELS LE luxury yachts and how can it be
scaled?
• How should the production costs be defined?
• What are the most important and critical classification rules?
• For minimizing space between ceiling and deck, should the piping be routed through or
underneath the girders?
• Which optimization method and which software suit the problem best?
• What are the optimal deck thicknesses, stiffener spacings, frame spacings and scantlings for a
transverse, longitudinal and hybrid constructed slice of approximately 9 meters long for certain
ship sizes, while optimizing the box dimensions, weight and production costs?
• Would it be possible to reduce the depth of the ship if the box dimensions are higher than
specified, and would that reduce the production costs and steel weight further?
2.3 Method
In order to make an even comparison of the ship’s construction costs, mass, and available interior space
for the owner, a simplified basic mid-ship section will be applied for all ship sizes. With the length of the
ship, basic dimensions such as the breadth, depth and deck height of the mid ship section will be
adjusted. The space available for the interior should be as large as possible, since this is what the future
owner will use. On both sides of the mid ship section a watertight bulkhead is placed. The mid-ship
section will be designed and compared in 3 ways: with a transverse, a longitudinal and a hybrid framing
system.
In order to gain a good insight in the required height of the structural parts above the interior ceiling, a
comparative optimization of a deck structure with pipes underneath and through the girders will be
performed. This will be done in both MAESTRO and modeFRONTIER, both optimization software
packages, so that at the same time a comparison of the optimization software is made and the most
suitable software will be used for the optimization of the mid-ship section.
The loads, to which the ship is subjected to, are determined by the classification rules of Lloyds Register
for Special Service Crafts (SSC Rules). Other loads, like for example, the still water bending moment, are
deducted from the current Limited Editions. These loads will formula wise be implemented in Excel,
because an integration of SSC in the model will not be possible. Other class criteria with regard to
strength, practical matters, noise and vibrations will be modeled as constraints.
17
Introduction
The optimization objectives are cost and mass reduction, and increase of the interior space. The main
variables are plate thickness, scantlings and spacing of longitudinal members and scantlings and spacing
of transversal members for every chosen ship length and construction method. For the standard
variations a fixed frame distance of three times the stiffener distance will be used, for a small selection
of variations the influence of the frame distance will be investigated.
The desired result of this research will be a series of graphs in which it can be easily seen for which
length, transverse, longitudinal and hybrid framing has the least production costs, mass and the most
height.
In order to gain a large space inside the ship, with the smallest depth possible, the deck heights of the
models will be evaluated, and if needed adjusted.
A schematic overview of the research method is given in Table 1.
Input Processing Examples of desired output

Data from the AMELS Objectives
Limited Editions • Cost reduction
• Box increase
• Mass reduction
Scaled basic mid-ship Criteria
section • Strength
• Transverse • Classification
• Longitudinal rules
• Hybrid • Noise / vibrations
Special Service Craft Variables
Rules by Lloyd’s Register • Distances
between
stiffeners
• Plate thicknesses
Locations of the wt
• Stiffener /frame /
bulkheads
girder dimensions
Several ship lengths Method

• Optimization
• Strength
Table 1. Research design
18
Introduction
3 Construction of ships
The structure and the shell of a ship is an essential part to provide the necessary strength and to keep
the water outside. Different construction methods have different influences on the overall design.
At first the basic principles and calculations of the construction are explained. In paragraph 3.2 it will be
discussed how a structural design is realized. In paragraph 3.3 the different framing methods are
considered, and in paragraph 3.4 the specific structural design problems for super yachts are discussed.
Finally, paragraph 3.5 describes the consequences of certain structural solutions on the overall design.
3.1 Basic principles and calculations

The hull structure of a ship is constantly subjected to a variety of loads, stresses and strains caused by
forces from within and outside the ship. For yachts, the internal forces vary less than for merchant ships
and are mainly caused by the mass of the structure, the machinery and operating the machinery.
The plating of the hull is supported by stiffeners in order to be able to resist the loadings on the
structure. Beams are the secondary stiffeners for the decks and frames are the secondary stiffeners for
the shell and bottom. While webframes and girders are respectively the primary stiffeners for the
sideshell, bottom and decks.
The ships structure will experience three kinds of basic deformation when subjected to simple
hydrostatic loads2:
• Hull girder bending – bending of the whole ship, as a result of the difference in buoyancy caused
by the wave pattern and the ships own loading
• Deformation of panels between bulkheads and between the frames – induced by the
hydrostatic pressure
• Shell plate bending between adjacent transverse and longitudinal stiffeners – also induced by
the hydrostatic pressure
In this paragraph several important loads that the ships structure should be able to withstand are
explained.
2
Augusto, O.B., Cardoso, A.A., (1998): An improved numerical model for calculating ship hull frame transversal structure.
19
Introduction
3.1.1 Bending moment / longitudinal strength
The wave bending moments that work on the ship are
calculated by empirical formulas in SSC Rules. The wave
bending moments (hogging and sagging, see Figure 10)
together with the still water bending moment make the
rule bending moments.
The stresses caused by the bending moments are the

largest in the material which is the furthest away from
the neutral axis, the deck and the bottom. By calculating
the inertia moments of all parts in the cross section that
Figure 10. Vertical bending due to waves
contribute to the longitudinal strength, the moment of
inertia of the section can be found, as well as the section modulus. The section modulus follows from
the moment of inertia by this formula: . With I being the moment of inertia, and z the distance
from the material to the neutral axis.
∙
The maximum stresses, σmax, that will occur can be calculated using: . In which M is the
bending moment according the Rules. The maximum stress should not exceed the allowable maximum
stress.
Besides the bending moments the buoyancy and structural forces also cause shear forces to act on the
structure.
3.1.2 Local forces

The local forces acting on the structure are, from the outside of the structure the water pressure, and,
from the inside of the structure, foundations for the superstructure, equipment or cargo.
3.1.3 Noise and vibrations

Especially for yachts and cruise ships there are strict limits on noise and vibrations. Noise and vibrations
are caused by excitation sources like engines, propellers and encountering waves hitting (parts of) the
structure in their natural frequency, which causes these parts to vibrate. When the frequency is high
enough this causes noise, and when the frequency is lower this can cause damage because of the
shaking or an uncomfortable feeling. It is even possible that the structural design of yachts can be driven
by stiffness requirements rather than strength requirements.3
3
Roy, J., Munro, B., Walley, S., Meredith-Hardy, A., (2009): Longitudinal vs Tranversely framed structures for large displacement
motor yachts.
20
Introduction
3.2 Structural design

When a new ship is designed, at first a concept design is made. In this stage the structural design is often
not taken into account at all. At the moment that the basic design cycle is started the structural design is
also taken up.
When making a structural design it is very

common to first decide on the framing system
(longitudinal, transversal or hybrid, see
paragraph 3.3) and then choose a distance
between the frames. This is mostly done on
experience. An overview of the structural
design methodology is given in Figure 11. The
next step is to include the mid-ship cross
section and comply it with the rules for local
loads. At AMELS, all yachts have to comply
with the Lloyds Rules for Special Service
Crafts. The computer program SSC is used to
design the scantlings according to the rules.
Some practical constraints are already
included in this program, it gives for example
3
a database with profiles that are common to
Figure 11. Structural design methodology
use.
After that, the scantlings will be checked for the global loads and increased if they are not sufficient. At
AMELS, the current structure will be drawn in Nupas, from which the weight of the sections will be
deducted.
In shipbuilding often a previous design is used as starting point for a new design, this makes that it is not
unusual that the first two steps are skipped.
3.3 Longitudinal, transverse and hybrid framed structures

The directions, in which the secondary stiffeners are aligned, determine if the ship is longitudinally or
transversely supported. A combination of longitudinal and transverse supports is called a hybrid framed
structure. An example of a transverse and a longitudinal framed structure can be seen in Figure 12. Most
often a hybrid structure has longitudinals in the double bottom and underneath the deck(s), while the
side shell is transverse supported.
21
Introduction
5
Figure 12. Framing methods; transverse left, longitudinal right .
When the SSC Rule length of a yacht is less than 50 m the longitudinal strength will not be examined,
because the global strength will be sufficient when the scantlings are calculated according the local
strength.4
The transition between transverse and longitudinal framed structures occurs between 50 and 90 meter
yachts.5 The study conducted by Roy et al (2009) on an 80 m yacht concludes that longitudinally framed
structures are lighter, require less welding length and have fewer parts then transverse framed
structures. Also from a vibration perspective and practical construction point of view, longitudinally
framed structures are preferred over transverse framed structures for this specific 80 m yacht. A hybrid
structure however, would be a good compromise for yachts of this size. It has to be noted that in this
study the structures were not optimized; only 3 versions were calculated.
In Figure 13 a picture of a transversely framed AMELS LE yacht is shown.
4
Malinowski, W., Blanchard, T., (2009): Structural Plan Appraisal of Large Yachts.
5
Roy, J., Munro, B., Walley, S., Meredith-Hardy, A., (2009): Longitudinal vs Tranversely framed structures for large displacement
motor yachts.
22
Introduction
Figure 13. Example of an AMELS LE under construction
3.4 Design considerations for super yachts

With regard to super yachts, the main design consideration is luxury. Luxury is difficult to define since it
is very personal, however most people agree on the following general definition: the state of great
comfort and extravagant living. In order to reach this state of comfort and allow for the extravagant
living, space, quietness, entertaining systems, interior, exterior and ‘toys’ are essential.
The demands on space and quietness are often the most challenging since they conflict with the other
requirements named above and the basic demands on a ship, being; ability of sailing and keeping an
intact platform to carry the luxury (hull structure). In order to sail, the ship is equipped with engines and
propellers, which are the most noise and vibration generating machinery on board. The available space
is in the first place bounded by the dimensions of the ship, and secondly on the dimensions of the
structural parts of the ship.
The client is only interested in the luxury; therefore the available space within the hull should be as large
as possible. The quality of the finishing of the yacht is of vital importance too. Everything should look
perfect and therefore the fairness of the hull, the superstructure and the decks is one of the main focus
points. Any unfairness left in the steel has to be smoothed by stretching the plates or by applying filler;
both methods require a large amount of man-hours.
For the client the mass of the ship is not of importance. Off course the mass has influence on the
required power to reach the design speed, but for most super yacht owners the fuel consumption of the
yacht is not interesting.
23
Introduction
3.5 Design consequences of construction choices

Every construction method has consequences on the final design. The secondary stiffener spacing can
have a significant effect on the initial deformations of the yacht. With an increasing distance between
the stiffeners the deformations will be (and are also allowed to be) larger. One of the biggest problems
in the structural design, are the brackets that inevitably collide with the luxury area. This problem occurs
in all framing methods.
3.5.1 Longitudinal
When longitudinal stiffeners are applied the web frames tend to be relatively large. This either makes
the indoor space smaller, or the rooms need to be strategically placed with interior walls on the same
line as the web frames. Web frames surrounding windows could be used to create a cozy ‘sit-in-window
frame’.
Most piping in the sides of the yacht is routed horizontally, therefore, the amount of penetrations are
very small in a longitudinal stiffening method.
The fairness of the yacht is very good when longitudinal stiffeners are applied, because the spacings are
less, the deformations will be small.
3.5.2 Transverse
Since both the stiffeners and the web frames are transversely applied, there is a lot of space for the
vertical routing of cables and ducts. Furthermore, at some points the frames have the same height as
the secondary stiffeners, this ensures that best use of the available space.
3.5.3 Hybrid
Hybrid framing is believed to combine the best of longitudinal and transverse framing: material where
you need it. The combination however, could lead to a fairness problem because of the different shrink
directions.
It has the advantage of transverse stiffeners and frames in the side which gives excellent vertical routing
opportunities and when the frames and stiffeners have the same dimensions the best use of the
available space.
24
Analysis
Part 2. Analysis
In the analysis the boundaries of the research project are set, the research method is worked out in
detail and all necessary data is gathered.
Chapter 4 defines the scope of the project. In chapter 5 the optimization method and software is chosen
and explained. Subsequently, will, in chapter 6, the scalable mid-ship section be defined. From there the
loads, where the mid-ship section is subjected to, can be determined. This is explained in chapter 7. And
finally the production costs will be discussed in chapter 8.
4 Scope
In order to define the area of interest and the boundaries of this thesis, the important aspects are
discussed in this chapter.
Paragraph 4.1 starts off with the consideration of the superstructure. In the second paragraph, the
particulars of the mid-ship section are discussed. Paragraph 4.3 will elaborate on the structural
constraints. While the classification rules are considered in paragraph 4.4. Considerations that not have
been addressed yet in this chapter, are shortly discussed in paragraph 4.5. Finally a schematic overview
of the most important boundaries is given in paragraph 4.6.
4.1 Superstructure
It is assumed that the aluminum superstructure does
not contribute to the global strength. Therefore, it is
not modeled.
4.2 Mid-ship section

For comparison purposes a scalable mid-ship section
will be used. However, some aspects as the head
room, deck height, compartment length, double
bottom etc. require incremental steps. In this
paragraph the boundaries and choices are described.
A detailed description of the scalable mid-ship section
will be given in chapter 6, and of the final mid-ship
models in chapter 9.
AMELS yachts are known for their slender appearance;

therefore the depth and breadth of the ship are kept
Figure 14. Overview of the boxes (6501)
as small as possible without cutting down the internal
volume.
25
Analysis
4.2.1 Box
The box is the space directly available for the client. It is called a box because it usually has a box shape:
the space is bounded between the inner walls, ceiling and floors. All pipes and cables are hidden behind
the inner walls and ceiling. In Figure 14, an overview of a frame is given in which the different boxes can
be distinguished very well. While Figure 15 shows the definition of a single box.
The clear height (the ceiling height as specified in the building specification) within the box is measured
between the decorative floor and the base ceiling. The space between the ceiling and the deck above is
filled with ceiling components, structural elements, piping, wiring, etc.
When the required height for these systems will be reduced, the height of the box can be raised. This is
either possible by reducing the height of both the secondary stiffeners and the girders, with the other
systems running underneath the structure, or by increasing the girder height and decreasing the
stiffener height, while the pipes are routed through the girders.
Figure 15. Definition of the box (AMELS standards 4001.02)
26
Analysis
4.2.1.1 Deck and box height

The space between ceiling and floor can differ from deck to deck, and also even on the same deck; for
instance between owner space, crew space and function of the room. The clear height is determined in
the yacht specification. In the owners accommodation it varies from 210 up to 260 cm. This is due to the
fact that either the routing of the cables and pipes is through the stiffeners or underneath. The crew
accommodation is often somewhat lower.
When routing through the stiffeners, holes have to be cut, which requires the stiffeners to be larger.
However, the total space required for the stiffeners, cables and pipes is often less. In order to create
enough space for the HVAC between the secondary stiffeners and the deck girders, the size of the
secondary stiffeners will be minimized and the size of the deck girders will be maximized. However, in
previous ships build by AMELS the girder depth with cut outs is considerably smaller. Details of these cut
outs are shown in Figure 16.
Figure 16. Details of cutouts in girder webs
The depth of the ship increases with length, and with increasing depth it is possible to insert an extra
deck. In this project the lower deck will be inserted from a total hull length of 60 m.
Domes are created out of esthetic considerations and for the air conditioning to blow fresh air in the
rooms. An example of the domes can be found in Figure 14.
The distance between the lower side of the deck and the top
of the floor in the cabins above is 100 mm.
4.2.1.2 Space between box and shell

The insulation on the side shells is approximately 200 mm
thick and covers the stiffeners as well. Between the inner
walls and the insulation covering the stiffeners there is a
cavity of on average 200 mm at half the deck height, this
cavity is filled with pipes and electrical wires. In Figure 17
part of a drawing can be seen in which the construction is
depicted together with the ceiling, floor and walls, including
a window.
Figure 17. Detail inner space and construction
27
Analysis
4.2.2 Double bottom
For ships with a Rule length less than 50 meter a double bottom is not mandatory. When the Rule length
is larger than 50 m, a double bottom has to be fitted in the hull, located between the collision bulkhead
and the forward watertight bulkhead for the machinery space. When the Rule length exceeds 61 m the
double bottom is also applied outside the machinery space; from the collision bulkhead up to aft peak
bulkhead. Finally, when the Rule length exceeds 76 m, the double bottom is to be fitted throughout the
whole length of the ship.6
For this comparison the double bottom is considered part of the mid-ship section for all ship sizes. The
center girder will be as high as the double bottom. The minimum height of the double bottom of the
model is 1100 mm, because of accessibility reasons.
4.2.3 Section length

The watertight bulkheads are taken as
boundaries of the mid-ship section. In most
cases this is between 8 and 11 meter. For this
project a distance of 9 meter is chosen,
because that fits both with 500 and 600 mm
stiffener spacing. Although 700 mm stiffener
spacing will be considered as well, for this
spacing a model with the length of 8.4 m will
be used.
4.3 Constraints on the structural parts

The constraints on structural parts are based Figure 18. Basic dimensions mid-ship section
on materials, strength and vibration

requirements as well as practical considerations.
4.3.1 Material
For all calculations the material properties of mild steel are applied.
Property Quantity Unit

Youngs modulus E 200 GPa
Yield strength σ 235 MPa
Poisson’s ratio ν 0.3
Table 2. Material properties.
4.3.2 Strength
The maximum allowable stresses are defined in Part 6 Chapter 7 Section 3 of the SSC Rules. Different
maxima are used for global and local loads.7
6
SSC Rules P3 Ch2 S6.6.1-3
7
SSC Rules P6 Ch7 S3
28
Analysis
4.3.3 Vibrations and noise
Regarding the vibrations and noise onboard ships we can consider two types: global vibrations in the
order of 1 – 10 Hz and local vibrations in the order of 5 – 100 HZ.8 The exciting loads are for instance the
propeller, the engines, generators and the wave encounters. Wave excitation frequencies are typically 1
– 2 Hz, the shaft excitation frequencies 4 – 5 Hz and the blade passing frequency of the propeller is
between 18 – 27 Hz. The blade passing frequency can be calculated by the ratio of the engine versus
propeller speed and the number of blades of the propeller. The natural frequencies of the engines and
generators are much higher.
Global vibrations are not considered in this study, since determining the natural frequencies of the
whole ship would demand that the whole ship will be modeled and FEM analyzed. This is beyond the
scope and time path of this thesis.
For local vibrations all bulkheads, decks and shells, the natural frequencies can be calculated by
differential equations. Local plate fields which have a frequency below 10 Hz are considered too low in
stiffness and therefore have a too high mobility.9 Plates should therefore be designed with natural
frequencies of 10 – 18 Hz or higher than 27 Hz.
Floating floors can be ordered in every combination of springs and masses, therefore it is not necessary
to put restraints on the natural frequency of plates because of floating floor considerations.
4.3.4 Practical considerations

To minimize the initial deformations due to welding a minimal plate thickness of 4 mm is applied. This is
in general higher than the prescribed rule minimum plate thicknesses in the decks and the sideshell,
which are listed in appendix A.
The AMELS standard on fairness of plating and construction is more stringent than the SSC Rules and will
therefore be applied. The standard prescribes a maximum allowable deformation of: 3∙
.10 Plates made of steel can be straightened in order to reduce the deformations.
The dimensions of the scantlings used are rounded to millimeters. For all stiffeners, T-profiles are used.
Dimensions of longitudinal stiffeners and plates on the same height do not change between watertight
bulkheads (equality constraints), as well as the dimensions of the transverse stiffeners and frames. The
bulkheads are modeled, but not optimized.
The frames are placed at every third stiffener, meaning at respectively 1500, 1800 and 2100 mm. For a
small number of variations the influence of the frame spacing is investigated by making three variations
based on a 600 mm stiffener spacing: 1200 mm, 1800 mm and 2400 mm.
8
Lloyd’s Register (July 2006): Ship Vibration and Noise – guidance notes.
9
Wijnen, J, (12/11/2012): Memo Natural frequency plate vibration AMELS 8300. Damen Research.
10
Ludikhuize, A.J., Verbeeck, C., Werff, A.V.D., (October 2002): AMELS Yard Standard, tolerances on fairness of
plating/constructions.
29
Analysis
4.4 SSC Rules

The SSC Rules are applicable for yachts that are subjected to the MCA Large Commercial Yacht Code, the
limit of this code is 3000 GRT or 12 guests. Yachts that have a higher GRT or more guests are subjected
to SOLAS passenger ship rules, these rules have a higher demand on global strength and local loads,
which are not accounted for in SSC Rules. Besides more demanding structural rules, SOLAS requires a
greater amount of safety equipment. For this research SSC Rules are used.
The specific rules about the loads acting on the yacht are discussed in chapter 7.
4.5 Other considerations
4.5.1 Costs
At the moment the price for having the hull build on a yard is determined by the mass of the hull. The
price differs per yacht, and is mainly based on experiences with the previous yacht of a series.
Because of the ‘price per ton’-calculation method, there is no internal data at AMELS about welding
length, materials and man-hours. The currency used in this research, will be euros, since most of the
ship will be built and bought in Europe.
Chapter 8 will go deeper into the production costs.
4.5.2 VCG
The VCG is not optimized since other systems have a large influence on the total VCG as well, and they
cannot be generalized for the range of vessel lengths. For example, large swimming pools or the position
and volume of tanks differ from ship to ship. While a lower VCG is not always preferable due to a large
GM and associated high accelerations.
4.5.3 Mass
In commercial vessels a reduced weight of the ship itself results in a bigger payload. For yachts however,
a reduction of weight could lead to a reduced resistance and therefore fuel savings or a higher speed.
4.5.4 Volume
All volume that is used on construction parts is a loss for the owner of the ship. In this case also the area
of the lower decks is important because the amount of crew determines the service level of the vessel.
4.5.5 Filler
The amount of filler that is needed is difficult to predict, since welding deformations can be
straightened, but the insertion of, for example, doors and hawse holes can cause large deformations
too. The filler is applied above the waterline until 500 mm below the waterline.
30
Analysis
4.6 Schematic overview

In Table 3, a schematic overview of the boundaries, as discussed in this chapter, is given.
Quantity Min Max Unit Comments

Ship length 50 85 m Determined by 3000 GRT limit
Section length 8.4 9 m Length between WTBH, 9 m fits 500 and 600
mm frame spacing, 8.4 m fits 700 mm
Tanktop height 1100 mm
Deckheight 2250 3000 mm
Space between inside wall 200 mm
and stiffeners
Minimum plate thickness 4 mm And as defined in SSC Rules
Max allowable plate 3 mm For 500 mm frame spacing (otherwise apply
deformation ratio)
Wave excitation frequency 1 2 Hz
Shaft excitation frequency 4 5 Hz AMELS project 8300 (typical)
Blade passing frequency 18 27 Hz AMELS project 8300 (typical)
Natural frequency plates 10 Hz Outside excitation frequencies, no limitations
regarding floating floors
Material Mild Steel
Superstructure Not contributing to global strength
Allowable stresses As defined in SSC Rules
Global loads As defined in SSC Rules (excl. dynamic loads)
Local loads As defined in SSC Rules
VCG Calculated, but not optimized
Table 3. Boundaries and constraints of the project
31
Analysis
5 Optimization
At first a general introduction on optimization and optimization algorithms is given. Subsequently in the
second paragraph the different optimization methods and software are discussed. In paragraph 5.3 the
selection of the method and software that is used for this research is explained. Paragraph 5.4 will
elaborate on the chosen optimization method and software. Where after, respectively, in paragraph 5.5,
5.6 and 5.7 the design variables, the objective function and the constraints will be discussed.
5.1 Introduction
According to the business dictionary the definition of optimization is:
“Finding an alternative with the most cost effective or highest achievable performance under the
given constraints, by maximizing desired factors and minimizing undesired ones. In comparison,
maximization means trying to attain the highest or maximum result or outcome without regard to
cost or expense. Practice of optimization is restricted by the lack of full information, and the lack of
time to evaluate what information is available (see bounded reality for details). In computer
simulation (modeling) of business problems, optimization is achieved usually by using linear
programming techniques of operations research.” 11
Performing a structural optimization is more than a recalculation of the structure two or three times and
choosing the lightest alternative, because in this case not all alternatives are considered. For conducting
a real optimization as many parameters as possible need to be varied. Optimization algorithms solve
problems by finding a combination of design variables in the design vector which gives the best result
for the objective function. The design variables are subjected to constraints.
In formulae, optimization algorithms are structured as follows; 12 13 14 15
• Design variable Xi i = 1, 2, …, N
• Objective function F(Xi)
• Constraint Cj(Xi) ≤ CMj j = 1, 2, …, M
• Side constraint Xi min ≤ Xi ≤ Xi max
As already visible in the above enumeration, there are multiple sorts of constraints:
• Technological constraints (earlier called side constraints) determine the upper and lower bounds
of the design variables.
• Geometrical constraints connect design variables in order to create a structure without large
discontinuities.
11
Businessdictionary.com visited at 19-6-2013
12
Rigo, P., (2001): A module-oriented tool for optimum design of stiffened structures – Part I
13
Sekulski, Z., (2009): Least-weight topology and size optimization of high speed vehicle-passenger catamaran structure by
genetic algorithm
14
Caprace, J.D., Bair, F., Rigo, P., (2010): Scantling multi-objective optimization of a LNG carrier
15
Augusto, O.B., Kawano, A., (1997): A mixed continuous and discrete nonlinear constrained algorithm for optimizing ship hull
structural design
32
Analysis
• Structural constraints contain, among others, the allowable stress and deflection limits in order
to avoid buckling, yielding and cracks.
• Global constraints impose limitations for the ship as a system, for example the center of gravity
or total fabrication costs.
5.2 Methods and software

In this paragraph a few different optimization methods and associated software that are used more
often in structural optimization research are discussed briefly. Also an overview of the advantages and
disadvantages is given. As well as the criteria used for selecting a software.
5.2.1 Linear programming in SHIPOPT and MAESTRO

In 1980 Owen Hughes was one of the first to come with an optimization method for ship structures. The
optimization (or redesign as he called it) was achieved by means of a sequence of linear programming
solutions.16 Linear programming is basically a mathematical way of allocating resources to activities.
Where programming is another word for planning, and does not necessarily need computer
programming. Simple linear programming problems can easily be solved by hand.
In linear programming every function and constraint needs to be linear. In order to do that Hughes
applied a linearization based on the first- and second order terms of Taylor expansion in his Sequential
Linear Programming. Using a first-order approximation has the disadvantage that when all the
derivatives are small, or when the constraint function has a high curvature, the obtained tangent plane
becomes a poor representation of the actual constraint. The second-order derivative gives on the other
hand a more accurate result.
The simplex method is a general method of solving linear programming problems. It is based on the
geometric representation of the mathematical problem. One can draw a graph with the constraint
boundaries. The points were the constraints intersect are the corner point solutions. The corner point
solutions that lie in the feasible region are the corner point feasible solutions (CPF). The optimum
solution is the CPF that has no adjacent CPF that is better17.
Hughes developed SHIPOPT and MAESTRO (Method for Analysis, Evaluation and STRuctural
Optimization). From which MAESTRO is the most sophisticated, as it models directly with FEM.
Advantages of linear programming
• Linear programming is fast

• Linear programming is easy understandable
Disadvantages of linear programming
• Constraint functions need to be linear and continuous
16
Hughes, O.F., Mistree, F., Žanić, V., (1980); A practical method for the rational design of ship structures.
17
Hillier, F.S., Lieberman, G.J., (2001): Introduction to operations research. Chapter 3 and 4.
33
Analysis
• Once the objective function and all constraints are completely defined the results will be
inflexible
5.2.2 An algorithm based on convex linearization and a dual approach in LBR-5

The algorithm based on convex linearization and a
dual approach is based on linear programming,
but has some additional features. The method is
called CONLIN and is developed by Fleury.18
In order to reduce the calculation time, the non-

linear and implicit functions are replaced by the
convex approximation (a linearization in a convex
set, an object is convex when for every pair of
points in the object, every point on the straight
line that connects the pair of points is also within
the object). The linearization of the design
variables is based on the first term of the Taylor
expansion.
Figure 19. The CONLIN model
By a dual approach it is meant that the primal constrained problem with N unknowns is replaced by an
unconstrained problem with M unknowns. This second problem is called the dual problem, and will be a
Lagrange function.
The only application of this method in optimizing ship structures is in LBR-5. LBR-5 is a program
developed by Philippe Rigo of the University of Liege.19 The program is a tool that links standard design
tools to each other in order to ease and improve the preliminary studies of naval and floating hydraulic
structures by optimization. LBR-5 consists of 3 modules: CONSTRAINT, COST and OPTI. In the
CONSTRAINT module the user can implement and/or select the constraints. The proposed constraints
are retrieved from databases for structural and geometrical constraints. The COST module is optional
and needs, when used, input on the unit costs of materials, productivity rates and labour costs. The OPTI
module contains the optimization algorithm.
Advantages of the CONLIN method in LBR-5
• Efficient optimizer, only 10 to 15 iterations are necessary to find the optimum

• Large structures can be studied
• Initial scantling is not mandatory, and if it is provided it does not have to be feasible
Disadvantages of the CONLIN method in LBR-5
• No integration of CAD or FEM programs

• Not yet capable of solving multi-objective problems
18
Rigo, P., Fleury, C., (2001): Scantling optimization based on convex linearizations and a dual approach – Part II
19
34
Analysis
5.2.3 ModeFRONTIER combined with ANSYS workbench
ModeFRONTIER is an optimization program which offers multiple optimization algorithms. Not only
linear optimization can be used, but for instance, also genetic algorithms. What makes modeFRONTIER
different from many other programs is that it basically is a platform, that allows the user to implement
other software (for example ANSYS workbench, Excel, Fluent, etc.) that is not meant for optimization in
an optimization loop. It has a very clear interface which shows directly all input and output variables, the
integrated software and the optimization method. However, every single block needs information in
order for the model to work, which creates many input fields and not an easy overview of the settings.
The post processing possibilities are excellent, all solutions can be seen, different graphs can be made
and objective importance can be changed.
Advantages of modeFRONTIER
• Clear overview of the optimization environment

• Many choices for optimization algorithms
• Excellent post processing possibilities
Disadvantages of modeFRONTIER
• Many input and data fields and, in combination with ANSYS workbench, even more
• Model has to be made in ANSYS workbench
• Calculation methods have to be programmed from scratch
5.3 Selection of method and software
5.3.1 Selection criteria

The software should satisfy the following criteria:
• Capable of
o FEM analysis
o production cost and mass calculation
o multi-objective optimization
o imposing restrictions on height of parts
o natural frequency analysis
• Workable
• Oriented on ships and ship structures
• Available
35
Analysis
5.3.2 Considerations
With the selection criteria in mind the optimization methods and software, named in paragraph 5.2, are
considered.
Since the workability is hard to judge if you have not tried the software, both software packages that
showed a good capability and were available for testing, MAESTRO and modeFRONTIER, have been
tried. The workability is based on that experience.
MAESTRO: Satisfies all criteria
• The workability is not optimal due to the software being in a transition phase from a non-
interface program to an interface program
• Simple geometry input
• Known and available at the TU Delft
LBR-5: Does not satisfy all criteria
• It is not possible to do a FEM analysis

• It is not possible to solve multi objective problems
• LBR-5 is not used within the TU Delft and the availability is unknown
modeFRONTIER: Satisfies the capability criteria
• Both GA and Linear programming optimization possibilities

• Due to the large amount of input fields, rather unclear, even though the general
overview of the model and the interface are excellent (workability)
• Due to the generality of the software all desired calculations have to be programmed
from scratch
• Not known at the TU Delft but a trial license was obtained and the software was tried
5.3.3 Conclusion
A schematic overview based considerations with regard to the choice for the optimization software are
given in Table 4. The capability weights twice as much as the other requirements.
Criteria MAESTRO LBR-5 modeFRONTIER

Capability ++ -- ++
Workability 0 ? -
Orientation + + -
Availability + ? 0
Conclusion ++++ - 0
Table 4. Selection optimization software
In accordance with the selection criteria MAESTRO is chosen to be used in this research.
36
Analysis
5.4 MAESTRO
For the structural optimization of the AMELS LE luxury yachts the computer program MAESTRO will be
used. MAESTRO is an optimization program for ship structures which uses FE Analysis to check the
structure for the loads and boundaries and redesigns it if necessary. In Figure 20 an overview of the
program is given. The geometrical model can be either a whole ship or part of the ship. In the older
versions the geometrical model was created in a preprocessor called SHIPMESH, in the 11th (beta)
version the pre- and postprocessor are integrated in MAESTRO. The preprocessor, however, still creates
a .dat-file where all commands for the solver are combined, and which is modifiable by hand.
Figure 20. MAESTRO overview
5.5 Design variables

The design variables can be divided in two categories: the optimization variables and the model
variations. The first are optimized within the model, and for the second different models will be created
on forehand.
5.5.1 Optimization variables

The variables within the optimization model are the scantlings of the stiffeners, frames and girders and
the thicknesses of the plates. In Table 5 all variables can be found. The BBS and STF are related by the
#
following formulas (respectively for longitudinal and transverse stiffening): !!" and
$%&'(
) ∙
!!" . In which B is the width of the strake, d is the section spacing and n is the number of
$%&'(
sections per bay.
Not all optimization variables are unique; some are coupled by a ratio. For example the height of the
web or the flange is often linked to the thickness of the web or the flange.
37
Analysis
Though the breadth between stiffeners is a optimization variable, in this research it will be used as a
variable in the model variation.
Table 5. Variables in MAESTRO
5.5.2 Model variations

For the different ship sizes, distances between frames and construction methods will be created. In
Table 6 the model variations and the total number of models can be found.
Number of models Specification

Stiffening methods 3 Longitudinal, transverse and hybrid
Hybrid model 3 Comparison tween deck transverse or
longitudinal, for L = 67.5 m, BBS = 500 mm
Transverse model 4 Comparison number of girders in the decks,
for L = 67.5 m, BBS = 500 mm
Stiffener spacing’s 3 500, 600, 700 mm
(breadth between stiffeners)
Lengths 3 50, 67.5 and 85 m
Frame spacing 6 Comparison web frame spacing, for L= 67.5
m, BBS = 600 mm
Total number of models 37 Number of stiffening methods * number of
stiffener spacing’s * number of ship sizes +
extra models
Table 6. Model variations
38
Analysis
5.6 Objective functions

MAESTRO contains options for objective functions with respect to cost, weight and VCG. Furthermore, a
penalty function for the stiffener web height is incorporated.
In case of multi objective optimization the objective function in MAESTRO is:
, + / 1,2
* +( + +. + +0
, 1,2
With: U = the result of the objective function

P1 = the weight parameter to indicate the relative importance of cost reduction
P2 = the weight parameter to indicate the relative importance of weight reduction
P3 = the weight parameter to indicate the relative importance of reduction of the VCG
C, C0 = production costs and reference value of the production costs
W, W0 = the weight of the structure and the reference weight
3$ .
/ = +/ 3$ 4
P4 = the weight parameter for the stiffener web height penalty function
HSW, HSW0 = stiffener web height and reference stiffener web height
VCG = vertical center of gravity20
For this research only the cost and weight objectives will be used. P1 = 0.6, P2 = 0.4, P3 = 0 and P4 = 0.
5.6.1 Production costs

Within the model volumetric cost coefficients for stiffened panels and for stiffeners and girders has to
be entered, as well as lineal cost coefficients for a stiffened panels and for stiffeners and girders. The
volumetric cost coefficient represents all costs which are proportional to the volume of material, for
example steel costs. While the lineal cost coefficient represent all costs that are proportional to the total
length of frames and girders in each strake, this is a measure for, for example, the weldingcosts. The
formulas below show the relations.21
8$
, = 56, +, +, 7
Stiffened panel costs

; ;
, = 9( :;!< + >? 6ℎ < + A < 7B + 9. >?
= =
In which:
s = number of stiffeners
tp, hsw, tsw, bsf, tsf = panel scantlings
A = module length
d = section spacing
B = width of the strake
l = stiffener length in each panel (l = B if transversely stiffened)
ρ1 = volumetric cost coefficient (cost per unit volume) for a stiffened panel
20 TM
MAESTRO Data preparation manual
21
MEASTRO v10 Manual
39
Analysis
ρ2 = lineal cost coefficient (cost per unit length of stiffener) for a stiffened panel
Girder costs
, =C [90 6ℎ < + A < 7 + 9/ ]
In which:
Ng = number of girder segments in the strake CF = ;/=
hgw, tgw, bgf, tgf = girder scantlings
ρ3 = volumetric cost coefficient for fabricated beams
ρ4 = lineal cost coefficient for fabricated beams
Frame costs
, = C [90 6ℎ < + A < 7 + 9/ ]
In which:
Nf = number of frames per strake
hfw, tfw, bff, tff = frame scantlings
The values of the cost coefficients ρ1 to ρ4 are explained in paragraph 9.1.1.
5.6.2 Weight
The total weight, W, is the accumulated weight of all the parts:
= ) + + H + ? × H
5.6.3 Box size

Box size is not an integrated objective function in MAESTRO. Therefore constraints are put on girder-,
frame- and stiffener height. In the evaluation phase, box size from the different model variations will be
compared. And, if possible, the deck height will be adjusted.
5.7 Constraints
The constraints are divided in technological, geometrical and structural constraints. The first two types
are to be defined by the designer, whereas the structural constraints are already incorporated in the
software. The safety factor of the loads can be adjusted by the designer.
5.7.1 Technological constraints

The upper and lower bounds of the design variables are listed in a dataset, according the following
format:
0.004 < TPL < 0.020

0.060 < HSW < 0.200
Etc.
This is where the minimum requirements from the SSC Rules will be incorporated. These requirements
can differ from strake to strake.
40
Analysis
5.7.2 Geometrical constraints
For creating a structure with sensible proportions, relations between design variables can be declared
like this:
TPL / TSW < 2.0

TPL / TSW > 0.5
Etc.
Other relations can also be entered, for example:
1.0 HFW - 1.0 HSW > 0.040
This type of relations is usually to set a minimum distance between parts, for example to ensure a good
accessibility.
41
Analysis
5.7.3 Structural constraints
The different failure modes
that are distinguished can be
found in Table 7.
The capacity of the structure

to overcome a failure mode
is given by adequacy
parameters. For calculating
the adequacy parameters at
first a strength ratios is
calculated:
K∙L
J
LM
In which γ is the safety

factor, Q the load and QL the
maximum load. Then the
requirement becomes:
J N 1. However, such a
requirement cannot be
handled by MAESTRO, it has
to be defined in the form <
or >. Therefore another
parameter is added, being:
F PJQ R 0.
(TK∙U
With FPJQ ('K∙U
The optimal value of the

adequacy parameters is just
above zero. Since a negative
value means that capacity of
the structure for that
particular failure mode is not Table 7. Limit state (or adequacy parameter) names
high enough, whereas a
value of almost 1 means that there is an overcapacity. When the adequacy parameter is 1, the specific
failure mode does not occur within that structure.
Where in the SSC Rules safety factors are used in defining a maximum stress allowance of the yield
stress, are safety factors in MAESTRO defined as a load factor that increase the expected load.
42
Analysis
6 Mid-ship section
In order to design a scalable mid-ship section the current AMELS LE are analyzed, results from this
analysis can be found in paragraph 6.1 and are used for determining the scaling properties which are
explained in paragraph 6.2.
6.1 Reference vessels

All first ships of the LE series are used for reference; 171, 180,199, 212, 242 and 272 feet.
Name Deniki Step One Event Imagine ? ?

Series 171 180 199 212 242 272
L (m) 52.35 55 60 65.5 74 83
Lwl (m) 47.16 49.6 59.67 59.32 67.2 76.67
B (m) 9.0 9.0 10.3 11.88 12.25 14.6
D (m) 4.9 4.9 5.6 6.45 6.45 7.3
T (m) 3.14 3.14 3.41 3.66 3.85 3.85
V (kn) 15.5 15.5 16.5 17.0 16.5 17.0
GRT 642 656 1070 1503 1725 2800
Year 2007 2012 2013 2011 ? ?
Table 8. Reference vessels
The 171 series evaluated into the 180 series. Except ‘Event’ all yachts have a waterline length that is
approximately a factor 0.91 of the length over all. ‘Event’ has a vertical bow and therefore the waterline
is almost the same length as the length over all.
In the tables below a detailed overview is given on the clear heights of the 180 and the 212.
Table 9. Specification on clear heigths (AMELS LE 177)
The clear heights of the 180 will be followed for the smaller ships that do not have a tween deck.
43
Analysis
CONSTRUCTION HEIGHT
The clear height in the interior is measured between the unfinished hard floor and unfinished ceiling
outside any domes. Special Interior styling elements, coves, doorframes, ceiling armatures for lighting,
speakers, fire detection, sprinkler heads etc. and floor-covering materials are not included in the clear
height.
The following clear heights are approximately measured in the interior of the Yacht:
- Laundry, staff cabin and corridor at tank deck :2000 mm.

- Crew accommodation at lower deck :2100 mm
- Guest accommodation at lower deck :2200 / 2335 mm
- Dining and Main saloon main deck :2125 / 2335 mm
- Corridor main deck :2200 mm
- Owner’s Cabin main deck :2140 / 2260 mm
- Sky Lounge :2200 / 2335 mm
- Guest accommodation at bridge deck :2120 / 2255 mm
- Beach club Lower deck :2000 mm
Table 10. Specification on clear heights (AMELS LE 212)
The clear heights of the 212 will be used for the ships that do have a tween deck.
When making the structural design, the function of the spaces has to be kept in mind. For different
spaces different clear heights are demanded, as shown in Table 10. The mid-ship section most often
contains on the tanktop deck the engine room and on the lower deck another part of the engine room,
guest accommodation and crew accommodation. Therefore corresponding clear heights should be used
for the design.
Figure 21. GA of the tankdeck and lower deck of the 199.
44
Analysis
6.2 Scaling properties

At first the limits of the bounds of the lower and upper bounds of the length series are to be defined.
The lower bound is set at 50 meter because that is the smallest ship in the range of LE, and it is unlikely
that AMELS will start to build smaller yachts. The upper bound is determined by the limit of the MCA
Large Commercial Yacht Code, as explained in paragraph 4.4. Following the trend the limit of 3000 GRT
is reached at a length of 83.4 m. This is rounded up to 85 m.
Figure 22. Gross Register Tonnage versus the ship length in meters
In order to make an even comparison of the mid ship sections the only variable is length. The beam and
deck heights change with a certain ratio to the length. In Figure 23 the breadth and depth of the
reference yachts as a function of the length are shown. The deck heights of the reference yachts are
shown in Figure 24, where the tanktop of the yachts shorter than 60 meter are considered as lower
deck.
Figure 23. B and T versus the ship length
The deck heights of the reference vessels as shown in Figure 24 are combined with the constraints as
determined in paragraph 4.2, this results in the deck heights and depth as can be found below in Figure
25. However, for the yachts less than 60 meters long, the constraint on minimal lower deck height is
dismissed.
45
Analysis
Figure 24. Deck heights versus ship length
The deck heights mentioned above are the starting points. At the end of the optimization round the
deck heights will be checked for excessive height in comparison with the requirements and, if needed,
the deck heights can be adjusted.
Figure 25. Deck heights and depth after scaling versus length of the ship
The graphs above are combined below, in Table 11, in which the basic dimensions of the scalable mid
ships are given. This data will be used to make the models that can be used for the optimization
software (see Chapter 9). At first only the 50 m, 67.5 m and 85 m variants will be modeled.
Loa m 50 58.75 67.5 76.25 85

B m 8.4 10.0 11.6 13.3 14.9
T m 3.1 3.3 3.6 3.8 4.0
D m 4.7 5.0 6.5 6.93 7.31
tt mm 1100 1300 1430
ld mm 1900 2200 2600 2800 3000
md mm 2700 2700 2800 2830 2880
Table 11. Dimensions of the scaled mid ships
46
Analysis
7 Loads
The loads acting on the yacht can be divided into three categories: the bending moments, the shear
forces and the pressures. They are respectively described in paragraph 7.1 to 7.3.
7.1 Bending moments

The wave bending moment can be described in three steps:
• Wave bending moment for hogging and sagging; SSC Rules Vol.3 Pt.5 Ch.5 S.2.2.
• Still Water Bending Moment (SWBM); determined by the loading conditions.
With data from the reference vessels a relationship between the SWBM and the ship length has
been deducted and is shown in Figure 26. The SWBM’s shown in this graph are maximum values
and, therefore, they are interpolated for the values on bulkheads of the mid ship section.
• Rule bending moment; sum of the above wave bending moments for hogging and sagging and
the still water bending moment. These bending moments are used as the moments that the
design should be able to withstand.
Figure 26. SWBM's of the reference vessels
7.2 Shear force

The shear force is also build up in three parts:
• Wave shear force induced by the wave bending moment, maximum at 0.4 and 0.6 times the rule
length; SSC Rules Vol. 3 Pt. 5 Ch. 5 S. 2.4
• Still water shear force; determined by the loading conditions.
• Rule shear force; sum of the above
47
Analysis
7.3 Pressures
The design pressures can be found in: SSC Rules Vol. 3 Pt. 5 Table 4.3.1.
For every part of the hull other design pressures are set. The ones applicable for the mid-ship section
are listed here:
• Bottom shell plating and stiffener pressure

• Side shell plating and stiffener pressure
• Weather deck plating and stiffener pressure
• Interior deck plating and stiffener pressure
• Inner bottom plating and stiffener pressure
• Watertight bulkhead plating and stiffener pressure
Specific deck loads that are unique for each vessel, for example depending on the location of the
swimming pool, jacuzzi, or helicopter platform, are ignored. Instead a generic design pressure will be
used to ensure a representative load case.
The loads corresponding to the reference vessels and the mid ship models can be found in appendix A.
48
Analysis
8 Production costs
The production costs can be estimated, as discussed in the first paragraph, or calculated with all posts
specified, as is elaborated on in paragraph 8.2.
8.1 Unspecified
In Eastern Europe the average unspecified production costs are around 2000 euro / ton, while in the
Netherlands this can be as high as about 2500 euro / ton. This is the steel price per ton with various
operations such as, for example, nesting and cutting.22
8.2 Specified
Production costs can be subdivided in three categories:
• Material costs
• Labour costs – usually determined per subcategory: welding, painting, etc. The total costs are
the costs per hour, times the amount of work, times the unitary cost, times a workshop
coefficient.
• Overhead costs – contain all the costs that cannot be attributed to the above categories, but
that are related to the construction. For example costs of energy, tools and welding material.
But also fixed costs like the production site.
However, for the structural optimization it is sufficient to include only the costs which are directly
depend on the ship scantlings.23 This would be the material costs and the labour costs.
It could easily be the case that when applying low weight scantlings the total production costs rise
because it requires for example more welding or more expensive material24. Therefore, Rigo states that:
‘a least weight optimization process can no longer be justified and should be replaced by at least
construction cost or, even better, by a minimum global costs (including operational costs) optimization
process’.25
8.3 Application in this research

AMELS subcontracts shipyards, for building the hull’s, that make use of unspecified production costs,
therefore, AMELS has no detailed data available about labour costs per subcategory. Since this research
is focusing on the comparison of structural optimized sections, the exact numbers of the labour costs do
not really matter. For that reason it is chosen to follow the recommendations of Mr. T. Bosman, who is
an expert on structures and on working with MAESTRO, with regard to the costs coefficients. In
paragraph 9.1.1 more is said about the input coefficients for MAESTRO.
22
Ouden, den, R.: Dwarsverband versus langsverband voor rompen van jachten.
23
Hughes, O.F., Mistree, F., Žanić, V., (1980); A practical method for the rational design of ship structures
24
Rigo, P., Fleury, C., (2001): Scantling optimization based on convex linearizations and a dual approach – Part II
25
49
Synthesis
Part 3. Synthesis
In the synthesis all gathered data is combined. This part exists of only one chapter, in which the
complete model will be explained.
9 Model of the basic mid-ship section

Before the full model of the basic mid-ship section is made, an explorative model of a deck is evaluated.
This is discussed in paragraph 9.1. In paragraph 9.2 the general characteristics and the modeling method
of the mid-ship sections is discussed. Subsequently in paragraph 9.3, 9.4 and 9.5 the specifics about the
longitudinally framed model, the transversely framed model and the hybrid framed model are discussed
and some design choices are explained. Finally are in paragraph 9.6 the watertight bulkheads discussed.
9.1 Deck model

In order to make a decision on the most beneficial method of constructing the decks, either with the
ducts through or underneath the girders, an explorative model in MAESTRO 7 is created. The complete
report can be found in appendix B.
The production costs, weight and height of the different stiffeners are directly deducted from the
software. The total construction height is based on both the primary and secondary stiffener height, as
can be seen in the AMELS standards, Figure 27.
Figure 27. Principle box clearances above ceiling (AMELS standards 4001.02)
X is the height of the secondary stiffener; Y is the height of the girder with the insulation and free
margin; Z is the minimum required space between the girder and the secondary stiffener.
50
Synthesis
The size of the ducts is dependent on the vessel size, the duct drawn in Figure 27 is de largest duct used.
In Table 12 the various duct sizes and corresponding required spaces can be found.
AMELS LE diameterin diameterout Req. space between sec. Required space between
(mm) (mm) stiffener and girder (mm) frame and girder (mm)
171 - 180 125 157 277 192
199 - 242 160 192 312 227
272 200 232 352 267
Table 12. Duct sizes and required space
With regard to the required space between frames and girders, only the duct sizes are considered. The
cable trays are expected not to cross a duct on a frame.
Looking back at Figure 15 and Figure 27, it can be concluded that the actual box height is the deck height
minus the space needed for stiffeners, ducts and cable trays, minus 25 mm gap, minus 80 mm for ceiling
components and the base ceiling and finally minus the thickness of the floor. The distance from the deck
towards the top of the base floor is 100 mm. The decorative floor has variable heights.
Length 9 m
Breadth 12 m
Deck pressure 10 kPa
Number of girders 2 -
Number of 4 -
transverse frames
Table 13. Main dimensions of the deck model
In Figure 28 the basic geometry of the deck model is shown. From this basic model variations can be
made easily by adjusting for example the breadth between the stiffeners or number of frames.
Figure 28. Geometry of the deck model
51
Synthesis
9.1.1 Constraints, boundaries, costs and loads
The deck is supported on all edges, with one corner clamped. For the deck load a pressure of 10 kN / m2
is applied, this is in line with the weather deck design pressure discussed in Chapter 7.
A deck pressure like this is not taken into account for the FEM in MAESTRO, but is regarded as a local
load and when assigned as a design pressure a number of relevant failure modes are evaluated. The
pressure on the deck will automatically be transferred to the stiffeners, and therefore, the stiffeners are
subjected to the same design pressure. When looking at the SSC Rules, the design pressures for the
stiffeners (primary / secondary) are defined separately from the plate design pressures, as a factor of
the plate design pressure (0.5 / 0.8).
By running the optimization multiple times the constraints are tuned to deliver the desired result. With
these limitations the needed height between the different members was created as well as the desired
value for the adequacy parameters (minima just above 0).
HFW / HSW > 1.25 HFW / HSW > 1.25

HGW / HFW > 1.25 HGW / HFW > 1.25
HFW / HSW < 1.45 1.0 HGW - 1.0 HSW > 0.277
HGW / HFW < 1.45 1.0 HGW - 1.0 HSW < 0.290
Table 14. Constraints compact model Table 15. Constraints high girder model
The cost coefficients (see paragraph 5.6.1) are the default values, recommended by Ir. T. Bosman, used
in MAESTRO, being: ρ1 = 4.0, ρ2 = 10.0, ρ3 = 6.0 and ρ4 = 15.0. The coefficients stand respectively for the
cost per unit volume of a stiffened panel, the cost per unit length of a stiffened panel, and the cost per
unit volume and unit length of fabricated beams.
9.1.2 Results
From each optimization the stresses, adequacy parameters and deformations can be made visible. For
example in the figure underneath, the deformations are shown and the stresses are made visible by
colors.
The highest stresses occur in the red parts:

σ = -139 N/mm2. The lowest in the blue parts:
σ = 70.5 N/mm2.
Figure 29. Panel von Mises stresses, frame and girder max flange stresses. Large girders, 700 mm.
52
Synthesis
The adequacy is the lowest in the red parts:
0.037. And the highest in the blue lined
frames: 0.476. That means they are all of
sufficient strength.
Figure 30. Minimum value adequacy parameters in frames and girders. Large girders, 700 mm.
In Table 16 and Table 17 the cost, weight and height results of the decks are shown. In the first table the
compact decks are considered and in the second table the deck with large girders where the ducts go
through. The first 5 natural frequencies of both deck structures can be found in the blue tables.
Compact
BBS (mm) Cost (€) Mass (kg) HGW (m) Total height (m)
500 2885 8940 0,234 0,546
600 2525 8630 0,234 0,546
700 2268 8390 0,234 0,546
Table 16. Results compact deck model
Large girders
BBS (mm) Cost (€) Mass (kg) HGW (m) Total height (m)
500 2885 8280 0,4015 0,4015
600 2525 8020 0,4015 0,4015
700 2267 7830 0,4015 0,4015
Table 17. Results deck model with large girders
It can be concluded that the production costs depend mostly on the amount of parts, this is in
accordance with the cost coefficients that are applied. The compact deck structure is heavier than the
deck with large girders. In the worst case scenario when the cable tray and the HVAC duct cross each
other, the deck with large girders is less thick (the total height in the tables).
53
Synthesis
Natural frequencies (Hz) Compact
BBS 500 mm 600 mm 700 mm
1 18,33 18,64 18,78
2 19,65 19,90 20,36
3 24,85 24,80 25,57
4 44,06 44,95 45,88
5 47,65 48,34 48,37
Table 18. Natural frequencies of the compact deck model
Natural frequencies (Hz) Large girders

BBS 500 mm 600 mm 700 mm
1 27,08 27,16 27,22
2 27,78 27,76 27,74
3 28,61 28,66 28,69
4 53,48 53,54 53,59
5 67,08 67,19 67,69
Table 19. Natural frequencies of the deck model with large girders
The deck with large girders is much stiffer than the compact deck and considering that the blade passing
frequency range of the propeller between 18 and 27 Hz is, the preference goes to the deck with large
girders.
The deck model with large girders will be applied in the mid ship sections for the main deck and in case
of a lower deck also in the lower deck.
In the side panels of the ship a similar construction method can be used, however large cable trays and
ducts are rare since often only local distribution takes place in the sides, therefore no minimum
constraints on frame and girder height for this purpose are considered.
9.1.3 Alterations for the mid-ship sections

Instead of Holland Bulb profiles for the secondary stiffeners L-profiles will be used, because the L-
profiles can be fabricated in every combination and, therefore, the results will be more in accordance
with the real life situation. The constraints will be changed as follows:
HSW / TSW > 10

HSW / TSW < 17
HSW / BSF > 1.3
HSW / BSF < 1.5
TSW / TSF = 1.0
These proportions are deducted from drawings of the reference vessels.
9.1.4 Validation
The validation of the deck model is done by an optimization made in Excel and is discussed in paragraph
11.1.
54
Synthesis
9.2 General characteristics and modeling method of the mid-ship sections

In this paragraph the general characteristics of the mid-ship models and the method are discussed. The
results from chapter 6 are used in the first subparagraph about the geometry. The restraints and
boundaries of the model are software specific and discussed in the second paragraph.
From now on a newer version of MAESTRO will be used: MAESTRO 11 beta version 8.0.
9.2.1 Geometry
The geometry of the longitudinal frames section is depicted in Figure 31. The small red lines are the
secondary stiffeners. The distance between the frames is three times the distance between the
secondary stiffeners.
The geometry is build up by using panels (strakes), these panels can contain secondary stiffeners, frames
and girders. They do not contain brackets, therefore, brackets are not used in this research. Within
MAESTRO brackets can be applied on beam elements, in that case all stiffeners have to be manually
changed to beam elements.
The bilge is modeled by two triangles, since this study is for comparative reasons and apart from
pressure on the plates no hydrodynamic influences are considered, this is an acceptable solution to
simplify the modeling. The scantlings in the figure are the initial values entered in the model. They are
adjusted in the calculations, but not in the graphical representation. Hence the sizes and number of
stiffeners used for calculation can differ from the ones shown in the figure.
Only half the structure is modeled, but with the ‘Transverse symmetry’- option MAESTRO 11
automatically mirrors the model and the loads. Results shown will be for the full model and not just the
half shown.
Figure 31. Graphical representation of the longitudinal stiffened model (67,5 m, BBS = 500 mm ).
55
Synthesis
9.2.2 Restraints and boundaries
The model is mirrored along the centerline of the vessel. Restraints are set at the centerline on both
sides, being a X-Y-Z displacement restraint and the other one a Y-Z displacement restraint. Because of
the mirroring the Z restraint is double and ignored during calculation (American system: Z and Y are
switched).
The model is referred to as a ‘cut’-model, in order to be able to insert a bending moment on the sides.
The bending moment is distributed across all nodes of the cross section. Unfortunately, it is not possible
yet to apply the bending moment on a master node, which is connected with spring elements to all
other cross section nodes. This would have made the results slightly “softer” because the high stresses
and local deformations near the hard restraints are more realistic distributed. And it would have
ensured that at the sides, the model would have remained ‘plane’. MAESTRO is always under
development and in the new solver this feature works, but the new solver is not yet able to handle
constraints on girders and frames and is therefore not used.
In order to minimize the disadvantages of this method of applying the bending moment, half a section is
added to both sides of the section of interest. This prevents the peak stresses and local deformations
due to the boundary conditions from occurring in the mid ship section in the middle. The whole model is
depicted in Figure 32. The extra sections on the sides are not optimized and their weight and production
costs are not included in any results mentioned in this research report.
Figure 32. Overview of the model with the additional half modules on both sides.
9.2.3 Loads
The wetted area of the section is subjected to the water pressure corresponding to the specific depth;
this feature is called ‘immersion’. The immersion pressure varies linearly across the panel in proportion
to the local depth below the water surface. The ‘immersion’ is regarded as an ‘actual’ pressure, this
means that it is considered part of the load case and the nodal forces and moments will be calculated
and applied to the finite element model. Design pressures are not considered actual pressures, since
they are not daily loading situations but regulations stated by the class societies. The design pressures
are therefore not taken into account for the finite element model, instead they are used during the
56
Synthesis
evaluation of the limit states for stiffened panels: panel collapse, local plate bending and stiffener
bending. A generic design pressure is used in place of the actual pressures whenever the actual pressure
is smaller than the generic design value, it can be seen as a ‘lower bound’. A generic design pressure of 5
kN is applied to the strakes.
The loads, to which the section is subjected to, are according the SSC Rules and can be found in
appendix A. In addition a concise overview is given in Table 20.
Load type Location Quantity Unit

Bending moment (Sagging)
Max. 57 630 kNm
Design pressure
Upper deck 12.6 kN/m2
Lower deck 10.1 kN/m2
Tanktop 64.8 kN/m2
Bottom 87.5 kN/m2
Side shell 65.5 kN/m2
WT bulkheads 15.6 kN/m2
Generic pressure
All strakes 5.0 kN/m2
Table 20. Applied loads on the 67.5 m model
As already mentioned in paragraph 9.1.1, MAESTRO applies the same pressure to the plate and the
stiffeners. Separating this would mean that every single stiffener would have to be modeled as beam
element and the automatically spacing with the ‘Breadth Between Stiffener (BBS)’ command would not
be possible. Therefore, the stiffeners are subjected to a 25 % higher design pressure than the minimum
that is demanded by the SSC Rules.
The bending moment that is described by the SSC Rules considers the sagging moment to be negative
and the hogging moment to be positive. MAESTRO, on the other hand, considers the sagging moment to
be positive and the hogging moment to be negative. The bending moments are calculated according the
explanation in chapter 7. However, the MAESTRO sign considerations are applied.
The safety factors applied are 1.33 for serviceability and 1.5 for collapse. As mentioned in paragraph
5.7.3 the MAESTRO safety factors are based on the loads, whereas the SSC Rules safety factors are
based on the maximum allowable stress. The SSC Rules subscribe in most cases a safety factor of 0.75;
this is converted to the MAESTRO safety factor by dividing 1 by 0.75, equals 1.33. With serviceability is
meant that the normal service of the ship can be executed. For the collapse safety factor, MAESTROs
default value of 1.5 is applied.
57
Synthesis
9.2.4 Output
The effects of the loads on the structure can be seen in Figure 33. The colors give an indication of the
adequacy of the parts. Red is almost zero, while dark blue is almost one. In this model the girders of the
lower deck are very large when looking from a load point of view, however from a routing point of view
and for the total thickness when considering the
ducts and cable trays the total thickness of the
deck structure will be less.
Apart from the adequacy parameters, the

deformations and the stresses a file with the final
scantlings is created as well as a file with details
about the optimization process, characteristics like
the VCG, the neutral axis etc.
Natural frequency calculations are not included in

the optimization calculations. For a number of
variations they will be calculated afterwards. Figure 33. Example of an adequacy plot
9.3 Applied longitudinal framed section

The longitudinal stiffened section has two girders modelled in the decks. The girder on the edge is the
centre girder; therefore, the full-breadth model has three girders. The tanktop and the bottom are build
up in the same way. However, the tanktop has a
small strake near the side shell, to accommodate
for the extra space that is created by the
curvature of the bilge.
The bottom has a small strake near the centreline

that account for half of the keel strake. The
centre- and sidegirders in the bottom are as high
as the tanktop.
Figure 34. Longitudinal stiffened model. L = 67.5 and 85 m
Both the 67.5 m and the 85 m model have the decks and
tanktop as is depicted in Figure 34, the 50 m model
however, does not have a double bottom, and
therefore, is modelled as shown in Figure 35. In the 50
m model there are two large girders in the bottom: the
centre girder, and the side girder closest to the bilge.
Figure 35. Longitudinal stiffened model. L = 50 m
58
Synthesis
9.4 Applied transverse framed section

The transverse framed section is modeled according to the same method as the longitudinally framed
section. The framing direction is adjusted and three variations with different numbers of girders have
been tried to find the optimal transverse section. In a later stadium the tuning of the constraints will be
different. All restraints, boundaries and loads are equal.
The results from the three variations are listed in Table 21. The first variation has the same geometry as
the longitudinal model. Whereas the second and the third variation have more strakes, and therefore
more girders and / or floors.
It can be seen that the first variation, a model with only 2 strakes in the half of the main deck, which is
equivalent to 3 girders in the whole main deck, is by far the heaviest. This is mainly due to the plate
thickness in the main deck. Another disadvantage is the large size of the girder.
The second variation has 4 girders underneath the main deck. Which results in slightly lower production
costs and a large reduction in weight and girder height, because the plate thickness in the main deck can
be reduced by 2 mm.
The third variation has except the 4 girders underneath the main deck, also 4 girders underneath the
lower deck, and an extra floor in the double bottom. This leads to higher production costs, because the
extra parts do not compensate for the savings of material in the main deck. The weight is in between the
first and second variation and the dimensions of the girders are the same as for the second variation.
The second variation has the most advantages and will therefore be used in this research.
Variation Number of strakes on Production costs Weight Girder height

md / ld / tt and bottom coefficient coefficient underneath md / ld
1 2/2/2 0.012 1.000 0.395 / 0.450
2 3/2/2 0.000 0.000 0.395 / 0.400
3 3/3/3 1.000 0.068 0.395 / 0.400
Table 21. Results of transverse framed model variations (L = 67.5 m, BBS = 500 mm)
In Figure 36 and Figure 37 two of the variations can be seen.
59
Synthesis
Figure 36. Transverse stiffened model 2 / 2 / 2 (67.5 m, 500 mm) Figure 37. Transverse stiffened model 3 / 2 / 2 (67.5 m, 600 mm)
The frames are modeled larger than the stiffeners; however they are allowed to get the same scantlings
as the stiffeners. Whereas in the longitudinally framed model they have to be 1.25 times larger, out of
practical construction considerations.
9.5 Applied hybrid framed section

For the 67.5 m two types of hybrid framed sections have been modeled and compared. The first model
is based on the AMELS LE hybrid framed ships, with only the side shell transversely stiffened. In the
second model the tween deck is also stiffened transversely. This is possible because the tween deck is
close to the neutral axis of the structure.
The differences between the two variations are not as clear as the variations of the transverse model. In
Table 22 the results are listed for all three stiffener spacings; it can be seen that the total objective
function for all stiffener spacings is lower for the variation with the longitudinal stiffened tween deck.
Therefore, this variation will be used in the remaining part of this research. The parameter coefficients
and the objective function is in detail explained in chapter 10.
Method BBS Frame Cost Mass Height Objective

(mm) distance (m) coefficient coefficient coefficient function
Hybrid l ld 500 1.5 1.000 0.000 0.143 0.304
Hybrid t ld 500 1.5 0.919 0.236 0.000 0.318
Hybrid l ld 600 1.8 0.425 0.360 0.429 0.402
Hybrid t ld 600 1.8 0.373 0.544 0.714 0.565
Hybrid l ld 700 2.1 0.000 0.756 0.714 0.551
Hybrid t ld 700 2.1 0.054 1.000 1.000 0.764
Table 22. Hybrid model comparison (L = 67.5 m)
Another advantage of the longitudinal tween deck is the uniformity in deck stiffening throughout the
ship.
60
Synthesis
9.6 Watertight bulkheads

The watertight transverse bulkheads that are placed on both
sides of the optimized ship module will be modeled with the
following features:
• Triangles are used to connect all nodes, for example a

bracket is placed from the edge of the keel plate
towards the top and bottom of the center girder
• Secondary stiffeners have the same spacing as the
frame spacing in the decks and side shell
• The same stiffener scantlings are used for all models,
as long as they have sufficient adequacy
• Minimum thicknesses and loads are modeled as
required by the rules, or the practical considerations
discussed in paragraph 4.3.4. Figure 38. Typical WT Bulkhead
Ship size 50 m 67.5 m 85 m

Minimum thickness rules mm 3.3 3.7 4.4
Thickness applied mm 4.0 4.0 5.0
Design pressure kN/m2 11.1 15.6 17.5
Table 23. SSC Rule requirements water tight bulkheads
The results of the bulkheads are not included in the results of the mid-ship sections.
61
Design
Part 4. Design
The design starts with showing all solutions that are possible and as chapter 10 progresses decisions will
be made in order to choose the best solution. This is done on the basis of different criteria, which will be
implemented and explained one by one. Finally the best solutions will undergo an extra optimization
round with respect to the deck height, and therefore the depth of the ship.
10 Design solutions
In this chapter the results from the models will be given and choices will be made in order to reach the
best designs.
The first paragraph contains the overview of the basic structural models. Paragraph 10.2 discusses the
weighting parameters and natural frequencies in order to reach the optimal design. In paragraph 10.3
the optimal designs will be optimized even further by adjusting the deck height and finally, in paragraph
10.4 conclusions will be drawn.
10.1 Basic structural models

In this paragraph the results of the basic structural models are given. However, before this is done, the
production costs, mass and clear height of the models are normalized, to allow for a fair comparison
between the three parameters. The normalization is done by interval standardization; an explanation of
interval standardization is given in paragraph 10.1.1. From there the results of the basic structural
models can be compared, this is done in paragraph 10.1.2. Paragraph 10.1.3, will go a little deeper in to
the space available inside the ship. In this case, is not only looked into the height, but also into the width
of the available space.
10.1.1 Interval standardization

In order to make a fair comparison of the decision parameters the values of the production costs, mass
and clear height are standardized with the interval standardization method.26 This method is often used
when the criteria have a relative scale; the scores are between 0 and 1. It is an excellent way to rank
variations. However, it is not suitable for determining proportions of the original values.27
The formulas that are used are as follows:
For an ‘income’ criterion:

VWXXYZ< ?V[XY − >[]Y?< ?V[XY
ℎ^FℎY?< ?V[XY − >[]Y?< ?V[XY
For a ‘cost’ criterion:

VWXXYZ< ?V[XY − >[]Y?< ?V[XY
1−
ℎ^FℎY?< ?V[XY − >[]Y?< ?V[XY
26
Reinshagen, E.A. (2007): Formalisering van toekenning van gewichten binnen een Multi Criteria Analyse. Chapter 2.
27
Ministerie van Financien (1986): Evaluatiemethoden; een introductie. Paragraph 5.8.
62
Design
10.1.2 Results of the basic structural models
In Table 24 to Table 26 an overview of all the basic model variations is given. The tables show
respectively the fixed parameters: stiffening method and breadth between stiffeners. Thereafter, the
clear height underneath the main deck, the clear height underneath the lower deck (if applicable) and
the width of the box are given.
The weight and costs of the bulkheads are not included. The coefficients are calculated with the interval
standardization method, explained in the previous subparagraph. For the production costs and the mass
the ‘income’ criterion is used, and for the clear height the ‘cost’ criterion is used. Hence, for all
coefficients it is the case that lower, is better.
The original values of the production costs, mass and clear height can be found in appendix C.
Method BBS (m) MD clear Box Cost coeff Mass coeff Height
height (m) width (m) coeff
Long 500 2.106 7.28 1.000 0.000 0.000
600 2.111 7.26 0.483 0.232 0.000
700 2.111 7.26 0.339 0.377 0.000
Transv 500 2.111 7.3 0.736 0.571 0.000
600 2.111 7.3 0.224 0.842 0.000
700 2.101 7.3 0.000 1.000 1.000
Hybrid 500 2.111 7.25 0.927 0.113 0.000
600 2.111 7.3 0.356 0.336 0.000
700 2.106 7.3 0.048 0.697 0.500
Table 24. Results overview of the model variations. L = 50 m
Method BBS MD clear LD clear Box width Cost Mass Height

(m) height (m) height (m) (m) coeff. coeff. coeff.
Long 500 2.176 2.001 10.20 1.000 0.000 0.000
600 2.176 2.001 10.17 0.568 0.224 0.000
700 2.161 2.001 10.14 0.249 0.541 0.375
Transv 500 2.146 2.001 10.20 0.680 0.509 0.750
600 2.136 2.001 10.18 0.309 0.657 1.000
700 2.136 2.001 10.18 0.000 1.000 1.000
Hybrid 500 2.166 2.001 10.20 0.942 0.001 0.250
600 2.176 2.001 10.16 0.520 0.266 0.000
700 2.156 2.001 10.12 0.208 0.643 0.500
Table 25. Results overview of the model variations. L = 67.
63
Design
Method BBS MD clear LD clear Box width Cost Mass Height

(m) height (m) height (m) (m) coeff. coeff. coeff.
Long 500 2.196 2.361 13.08 1.000 0.000 0.000
600 2.186 2.361 13.06 0.534 0.131 0.000
700 2.176 2.361 13.06 0.197 0.337 0.190
Transv 500 2.166 2.306 13.1 0.715 0.651 0.810
600 2.161 2.291 13.1 0.282 0.767 1.000
700 2.161 2.296 13.14 0.000 1.000 0.952
Hybrid 500 2.186 2.361 13.06 0.962 0.107 0.000
600 2.186 2.361 13.08 0.502 0.237 0.095
700 2.186 2.341 13.03 0.140 0.423 0.286
Table 26. Results overview of the model variations. L = 85 m
A graphical representation of the data in the tables can be found in the pictures underneath. A complete
overview of all figures can be found in appendix D.
Figure 39 displays the trend valid for all ship

sizes: the production costs decrease with
increasing stiffener spacing. This is due to
the fact that there are fewer parts that
need to be handled.
Figure 39. Cost coefficient vs stiffener spacing (L = 67.5 m)
The trend between the mass and the

stiffener spacing is depicted in Figure 42.
The scantlings and plate thicknesses of the
parts will rise when the span distances
increase, in order to deliver the same
section modulus and moment of inertia.
This has the effect that even when there
are less parts, the total mass will be higher.
Figure 40. Mass coefficient vs stiffener spacing (L = 67.5 m)
64
Design
The clear height shows a less defined
trend because the dimensions of the
secondary and primary stiffeners are
depending on the local plate thicknesses.
The height of the girder is driven by the
height of the secondary stiffeners, the
minimum height difference between
them is given in Table 12. From the
models it became clear that the minimum
height of the girder was in all cases
Figure 41. Height vs stiffener spacing (L = 67.5 m) sufficient.
In Figure 42 the mass versus production costs is shown, the size of the bubbles represents the stiffener
spacing. The largest bubble has a stiffener spacing of 700 mm, the smallest 500 mm.
Figure 42. Mass vs production costs of the basic structural models
Figure 43 shows the clear height versus the production costs, the figure is based on the original values,
therefore, the clear height is not reversed. It can be seen that for the smallest yacht size, around 50 m,
transverse stiffening would be an option with respect to the clear height, but for the larger sizes it is not.
Figure 43. Clear height vs production costs of the basic structural models
10.1.3 Box space

In the objective function only the clear height of the box is taken into account, this is because the clear
height is very important and is even recorded in the building specification. However, not only the height,
but also the ‘clear’ width of the decks, determines the box space. This subparagraph is meant to give
additional information about the box space per model.
65
Design
With the box space, the cross sectional area available for the box is meant. The size of the girders has a
much larger influence on the box space than the size of the web frames in the side shell. This is due to
the fact that the width of the ship is much larger than the deck height. In Table 27 the box sizes of the
cross section excluding the domes are given. It can be seen that the differences are rather small. Only
for the largest ship, the 85 m, the differences are getting bigger than a square meter.
Box size (m2) Ship size: 50 m 67.5 m 85 m

Longitudinal 500 15.33 42.59 59.61
600 15.33 42.47 59.38
700 15.33 42.19 59.25
Transverse 500 15.41 42.15 58.58
600 15.41 42.29 58.32
700 15.34 42.10 58.56
Hybrid 500 15.30 42.10 59.38
600 15.41 42.49 59.47
700 15.37 42.42 58.99
Table 27. Box sizes
The results of Table 27 are normalized with the average of the box sizes per ship size and shown in
Figure 44. In this case the coefficients are not reversed, meaning: the higher, the better.
Figure 44. Box size versus ship size
It can be seen that the box space coefficients are very close to each other, and that the dispersion gets
larger when the ship size and, consequently, the loads are getting larger. The results are strongly
influenced by the local plate thicknesses.
66
Design
For the 50 m model, hybrid stiffening with 600 mm stiffener distance will lead to the largest cross
sectional space. For the 67.5 and 85 m, longitudinal stiffening with a distance of 500 mm is the optimum
with respect to space.
10.2 Optimal design per ship size

In order to determine which design is the optimal design, several things are necessary; they will be
described in this paragraph. In subparagraph 10.2.1 the objective function and the weighting factors of
the different parameters are chosen. The results of the basic variations are discussed in subparagraph
10.2.2 and the results of the frame distance variations in subparagraph 10.2.3. Finally the natural
frequencies of the models are looked into in subparagraph 10.2.4.
10.2.1 Objective function

The production costs, mass and height of the variations are normalized in order to create an objective
function with weighting factors for the different parameters.
_A`YV<^aY bWZV<^[Z = V( ∙ , + V. ∙ c + V0 ∙ d
Determination of the weighting factors is a rather arbitrary process; everybody you ask has a different
opinion. At this moment for AMELS, the mass of the hull determines the production costs. And the
height of the decks is part of the contract agreements. Consequently, these two parameters are most
important. However, since AMELS builds yachts of the same series occasionally at the same shipyard,
the yard can adjust the price per ton to the complexity of the series. And suddenly, the production costs
are coming into the picture. Because of this slightly delayed effect of the production costs, the weight
factor for this parameter is chosen 2/3th of the other two parameters. An overview is given in Table 28.
Parameter coefficient Symbol Value

Production cost c1 2/8
Mass c2 3/8
Height c3 3/8
Table 28. Weighting factors AMELS
Shipyards that do build the hulls in the Netherlands have a different combination of weighting factors,
due to the fact that the wages are much higher, compared to Eastern Europe. Hence, the production
costs are more important than the weight. In this manner, the business model of companies is reflected
in the weighting factors for determining the optimal structural design. An overview is given in Table 29.
Parameter coefficient Symbol Value

Production cost c1 1/2
Mass c2 1/4
Height c3 1/4
Table 29. Weighting factors for hull building in the Netherlands
67
Design
10.2.2 Optimal solutions of the basic structural models
With combining the results of the standard variations in the structural models overview and the
weighting factors for the parameters, we retrieve the values of the objective function. The results are
shown in Figure 45.
Figure 45. Objective function results of the standard variations with the AMELS weighting factors
As explained before, the lower is better; hence it becomes clear that for a ship length between 50 and
67.5 m, the longitudinal framed method with a spacing of 600 mm and the hybrid framed method with a
spacing of 600 mm are almost equally good for the AMELS building strategy.
For the larger range of yachts, between 67.5 and 80 m, the longitudinal framed method with a spacing
of 600 mm is preferable. Furthermore, the transverse stiffening method is far from optimal with the
AMELS weighting factors. Looking at the objective functions versus the ship length it can be noticed that
there is a slight top at 67.5 m, this is due to the fact that at 67.5 m, the combination of the static and
dynamic pressures from the SSC Rules acting on the bottom and side shell of the ship is the highest.
In Figure 46 the same graph is given, but here the weighting factors for hull building in the Netherlands
are applied.
68
Design
Figure 46. Objective function vs Shiplength with weighting factors for hull building in NL
The difference that immediately becomes clear, is that when taking the Dutch wages into account the
500 mm stiffener spacings are too labor-intensive. For yachts sized 50 to approximately 73 m, hybrid
framing with 600 mm stiffener spacing is optimal. And for the larger yachts (73 – 85 m) the longitudinal
method with 700 mm spacing is the best.
In appendix E, an extended overview of the results of the objective function for various combinations of
weighting factors is given.
10.2.3 Frame distance variation

In the basic structural models a frame distance of three times the stiffener distance is applied. For
exploring the optimal frame distance for the different stiffening methods, a small side research is
conducted. The frame distance variation is only done for the 67.5 m length model with 600 mm stiffener
spacing.
For the normalization of the costs and weight the average of the compared models is used. Accordingly,
for the longitudinal frame distance variation only the average of all longitudinal variations is used. Since
the data of the different frame distances is small, only 3 variations, the ranking with the interval
standardization (paragraph 10.1.1) shows rather large differences.
The results of the frame distance variation are highly depended on the weighting factors used. At first
the AMELS weighting factors are discussed.
69
Design
Figure 47. Frame distance variation; longitudinal stiffening with AMELS weighting factors
The optimum of the frame distance variation in the longitudinal stiffening system lies around 1.5 m.
Figure 48. Frame distance variation; hybrid stiffening with AMELS weighting factors
The optimum of the objective function for the hybrid stiffening frame distance variation is rather
constant between 1.5 and 1.8 m. Due to the fact that the transverse framed regions are bound for the
frame distance to be a multiple of the stiffener distance, 1.8 m is chosen. An extra variation with a frame
distance of 3.0 m has been made, because with the three variations no optimum was found.
Figure 49. Frame distance variation; transverse stiffening, with AMELS weighting factors.
For the transverse stiffened the frame distance variation the optimum is located at a frame distance of
approximately 1.7 m, since the frame distance should be a multiple of the stiffener distance, the
practical optimum is at 1.8 m.
70
Design
The following graphs are of the frame distance variations, using the weighting factors for hull building in
the Netherlands.
Figure 50. Frame distance variation; longitudinal stiffening with hull building in the Netherlands weighting factors
In Figure 50 it can be seen that the optimal frame distance of the longitudinal stiffened model around
1.8 m is located. Comparing this figure to Figure 47, where the AMELS weighting factors were applied,
the influence of the weighting factors becomes clear. In the AMELS weighting factors the production
costs are of less importance, and therefore, the optimum is shown at a smaller frame distance.
The same trend can be seen when comparing the figures 48 and 51, and 49 and 52.
Figure 51. Frame distance variation; hybrid stiffening with hull building in the Netherlands weighting factors
The optimum for the hybrid stiffening with Dutch hull building weighting factors can be found around
2.1 m. However, either 1.8 m or 2.4 m should be chosen due to multiplication reasons.
For the transverse stiffing frame distance variation, which can be found in Figure 52, the optimum lies
around 2.1 m, and also in this case either 1.8 m or 2.4 m should be chosen.
71
Design
Figure 52. Frame distance variation; transverse stiffening with hull building in the Netherlands weighting factors
The results of the frame distance variation are not incorporated in the determination of the optimum
basic structural models, because only for the 67.5 m ship size with a frame spacing of 600 mm
calculations have been made. The optima from the frame distance variations is in most cases equal to
the applied frame distance of three times the stiffener distance in the basic structural models.
10.2.4 Natural frequencies

A natural frequency check is carried out to ensure that the considered optimal solutions fulfill the noise
and vibrations requirements. Furthermore, it is used as a selection tool, because the results of the
objective function, in paragraph 10.2.2, were equal for the 50 and 67.5 m model with regard to
longitudinal and hybrid stiffener spacing of 600 mm.
The natural frequencies are calculated with the subspace solver in MAESTRO. Instead of the extended
model, which, on both sides of the optimized module, has half a module extra in order to smoothen the
excessive forces near the boundaries, only the basic module is used for the natural frequency
calculation. This is because the loose ends of the half modules will extremely take part in the modes,
while in the real life situation there would be no loose ends at all. In the basic module, the watertight
bulkheads that are placed at the sides prevent these excessive modes.
Table 30 tells how many of the natural frequencies are within certain boundaries. A more extended
explanation of these boundaries can be found in paragraph 4.3.3. In short: below 10 Hz is the structure
not stiff enough and in between 18 and 27 Hz is the blade passing frequency of the propeller.
Number of natural frequencies in range (total 10):

Model 0 – 10 Hz 10 – 18 Hz 18 – 27 Hz > 27 Hz
50 m long 600 mm 0 4 2 4
50 m hybrid 600 mm 0 5 1 4
67.5 m long 600 mm 0 5 1 4
67.5 m trans 600 mm 0 3 2 5
67.5 m hybrid 600 mm 0 5 1 4
85 m long 600 mm 0 4 1 5
Table 30. Natural frequencies
72
Design
The complete overview of the natural frequencies can be found in appendix F. For preventing the 50 m
models to have natural frequencies below 10 Hz, struts were inserted between the bottom and the
lower deck.
Figure 53. Natural frequencies
The analysis of the natural frequencies has led to a decision regarding the 50 meter yacht; the hybrid
variation has less natural frequencies in the blade passing frequency range and is therefore preferred
over the longitudinal variation. For the 67.5 m, the results are still inconclusive.
10.3 Adjustment of deck height

In order to get the most optimal structure per ship size, the deck height, and therefore the depth, will be
adjusted to fit exactly the clear heights that were agreed on in the building specification. Since the
results for the optimal 67.5 m model are still inconclusive, the deck height adjustment will also be used
as a selection tool for this size.
The adjustments of the deck height will be performed for the best solutions per size, being:
• For the 50 m: hybrid stiffened model with 600 mm spacing

• For the 67.5 m: longitudinal and hybrid stiffened model with 600 mm spacing
• For the 85 m: longitudinal stiffened model with 600 mm spacing
In Table 31 the current deck heights and possible adjustments are given. For both the main deck (MD)
and the lower deck (LD) the original deck height as specified in chapter 6 are given, as well as the MD
spec height, which is the demanded height by the building specification as shown in Table 9 and Table
10. Furthermore, the realized clear height within the current model is shown, and based on that a new
deck height is suggested, to optimize the depth of the yacht.
73
Design
For the model of the 67.5 m it might be interesting to, instead of reduce the deck height, increase it,
because in that case the space could be used for guest cabins. This would, of course, depend on the
arrangement of the decks.
Ship MD MD spec MD clear MD new LD LD LD LD Depth

size (m) original (m) (m) (m) original spec clear new change
(m) (m) (m) (m) (m) (m)
50 m 2.70 2.05 2.111 2.65 -0.050
67.5 m 2.80 2.10 2.176 2.73 2.60 2.00 2.001 2.60 -0.070
2.80 2.20 2.176 2.83 2.60 2.00 2.001 2.60 0.030
85 m 2.88 2.20 2.186 2.90 3.00 2.00 2.361 2.64 -0.340
Table 31. Adjustment of deck heights
The results of the deck height adjustments can be found below, in Table 32. In this table the height is
calculated differently, namely the actual clear height is divided by the demanded clear height instead of
by the interval standardization of the length group. For this purpose it shows very good how much
‘extra’ height there is. Due to the different calculation of the clear height coefficient, the original
objective values, differ from the values that were found in Figure 45.
Model Deck Cost Mass Clear Objective Cross sect. VCG

adjustment coeff. coeff. height coeff. box area (m)
coeff. (m2)
50 m Hybrid 600 Original 0.356 0.336 1.030 0.601 15.4 1.74
mm Reduction 0.351 0.292 1.005 0.574 15.0 1.73
67.5 m Hybrid 600 Original 0.520 0.266 1.036 0.618 42.4 2.57
mm Reduction 0.516 0.280 1.003 0.610 41.5 2.56
Increase 0.522 0.290 1.002 0.615 42.7 2.60
67.5 m Long 600 Original 0.568 0.224 1.019 0.608 42.5 2.52
mm Reduction 0.563 0.218 1.002 0.598 41.8 2.50
Increase 0.570 0.227 1.000 0.603 42.7 2.53
85 m Long 600 mm Original 0.534 0.131 1.085 0.589 59.5 2.96
Reduction 0.510 0.129 1.000 0.551 54.8 2.82
Table 32. Results deck height adjustments
It can be concluded from the results of the deck height adjustments, that both reducing and increasing
the deck height have a positive effect on the objective coefficient. This is because in both cases the
realized clear heights are almost equal to the demanded clear heights, whereas in the original situation
a lot of excessive height was present.
With regard to the 67.5 m model, a choice between the longitudinal and hybrid variant can be made
now. The longitudinal stiffened model has clearly a lower objective for both the reduced and increased
deck height. Therefore, the longitudinal stiffened model for the 67.5 m yacht, with a stiffener spacing of
600 mm is the optimal design.
74
Design
10.4 Conclusion
The final optimal models for the three investigated ship sizes, with the AMELS weighting factors, are:
The final results, however, depend a lot on the chosen weighting factors. With these weighting factors,
different building strategies can be described, therefore, the in between results might be even more
important than the final results, because they can be used in the future with different weighting factors
to update the optimal structural designs to the current business strategy of the company.
75
Evaluation
Part 5. Evaluation
In the evaluation not only the results are given, but also different steps of the research are validated and
compared. Finally also some recommendations for the application and for further research are given.
The validation is discussed in chapter 11, the conclusions in chapter 12. And finally, the
recommendations are given in chapter 13.
11 Validation
The validation is divided in two parts: in paragraph 11.1 is the deck model validated, and in paragraph
11.2 the mid-ship models. For the mid-ship models the influence of the cost coefficients in MAESTRO
(paragraph 11.2.1) and the compliance with the SSC Rules (paragraph 11.2.2) is checked and a
comparison with the existing AMELS LE (paragraph 11.2.3) has been made.
11.1 Deck model

In order to check the validity of MAESTRO, and mainly of MAESTRO’s capability of handling the ‘large
girder’ model, a calculation routine in Excel has been made.
From the deck model in MAESTRO it was

concluded that the girder yield compression
flange (GYCF) failure mode is often the most
critical. Therefore, this failure mode, as well
as the yield of the frames and the stiffeners
and the plate buckling failure between the
girders are calculated in Excel. The same
constraints as mentioned in paragraph 9.1
are used. In MAESTRO the SIMPLEX solver is
adjusted to accommodate for nonlinear
problems, however in Excel this is not the
case, therefore, the GRG Nonlinear solver is
used.
The results are shown in Figure 54. The

complete calculation can be found in
appendix G. For the individual members
there are some differences between the
two methods, that are attributed to the fact
that in the Excel calculation only 4 failure
Figure 54. Results Excel Maestro comparison
modes are considered, while in MAESTRO
23 failure modes are considered. However, the combined results for the deck show only a 5 % difference
in the height of the girder web, the weight and the production costs. This is deemed sufficient for
validation and the results from MAESTRO are trustworthy.
76
Evaluation
11.2 Mid-ship models
11.2.1 MAESTRO cost coefficients

In order to check the influence of the cost coefficients in MAESTRO, the cost coefficients are varied for a
small number of models. This has been done for the 67.5 m model with longitudinal stiffener spacing.
The results can be found in Table 33. Rho 1 and 3 are the volumetric cost coefficients of respectively the
stiffened panel and the beams. Rho 2 and 4 are the lineal cost coefficients of respectively the stiffened
panel and the beams. The cost coefficients based on the average are calculated with the average of the
group with the same cost coefficients, just as the cost coefficients based on interval standardization also
calculated from the group with the same cost coefficients.
It can be concluded that varying the volumetric cost coefficients has a negligible influence on both cost
coefficients and on the absolute values. Varying the lineal coefficients has a large influence on the
absolute values, but a minor influence on the cost coefficients.
Stiffener ρ1, ρ2, ρ3, ρ4 Production Cost Cost coeff.

spacing cost (€ per coefficient interval
9 m) average stand.
500 4, 8, 5 ,10 10999 1.180 1.00
600 4, 8, 5 ,10 9156 0.983 0.42
700 4, 8, 5 ,10 7801 0.837 0.00
500 4, 10, 5, 16 15034 1.179 1.00
600 4, 10, 5, 16 12535 0.983 0.43
700 4, 10, 5, 16 10688 0.838 0.00
500 8, 10, 10, 16 15057 1.179 1.00
600 8, 10, 10, 16 12559 0.983 0.43
700 8, 10, 10, 16 10710 0.838 0.00
Table 33. Comparison MAESTRO cost coefficients
11.2.2 SSC Rules

The SSC Rules describe general requirements for all stiffening members with respect to section modulus,
moment of inertia and web area. These requirements are ignored while defining the mid-ship models,
because these requirements are meant to guarantee the structural adequacy of the members.
MAESTRO calculates the structural adequacy and therefore, applying the rules would be doing the same
thing twice. However, to verify that the structure also qualifies according the rules, for a number of
elements the section modulus, moment of inertia and the web area delivered by MAESTRO are
compared to the SSC Rules.28
The rules only apply to the stiffeners itself and not to the attaching plate. The location of the neutral axis
is determined by checking if the location of the stiffener is above or below the neutral axis of the
section. Subsequently, the point of the stiffener closest to the neutral axis of the section is chosen as
neutral axis of the stiffener (calculations can be found in appendix H).
28
SSC Rules. Volume 4, Part 6, Chapter 3 and table 3.1.1
77
Evaluation
The rules describe the minima for different types of stiffeners (T, L or bulb) in one coefficient. In this
research, only T-stiffeners are used which causes the moment of inertia always to be relatively
considerably larger than the section modulus. Depending on the location of interest on the beam, the
web area or the moment of inertia is not of interest.
A short overview is given below:
Part Web area (%) Section modulus (%) Inertia (%)

Bottom stiffener (long, 500 NA -14.8 + 88.8
mm, 67.5 m)
Centerline main deck stiffener NA -7.3 -12.9
(transv, 500 mm, 67.5 m)
Main deck girder (hybrid, 600 NA + 603.1 + 221.4
mm, 67.5 m)
Tanktop stiffener (transv, 700 NA -7.4 + 96.3
mm, 67.5 m)
Frame tweendeck (long, 700 + 37.55 + 18.2 NA
mm, 67.5 m)
Table 34. Validation MAESTRO dimensions of parts to SSC Rules.
The dimensions MAESTRO has calculated result in web areas, section moduli and moments of inertia
that are in the same order as the ones described by the SSC Rules except for the girder. Since the girder
is modeled very large to allow for the ducts to be routed through the girder, this is no surprise. The
wholes that will be cut out of the girder, will reduce the moment of inertia and with that the section
modulus as well.
The stiffeners appear in most cases to be a bit too small in comparison with the SSC Rules. For this
research that is not seen as a problem, since it has happened in most cases and therefore, the
comparison is not influenced. However out of veracious considerations the model should be adjusted
for future use. This can, for example, be done by changing the restraints on the height and thickness of
the stiffener web.
HSW / TSW > 10 HSW / TSW > 10

HSW / TSW < 25 HSW / TSW < 15
Table 35. Current HSW - TSW restraints Table 36. Suggested HSW - TSW restraints
The difference between the suggested restraints and the current restraints seem large, but since the
height of the stiffeners is limited, the change in thickness is in the order of 2 - 4 millimeters.
78
Evaluation
11.2.3 Comparison with existing ships
When comparing the results, with the AMELS weighting factors, we can conclude that there is a shift in
the application of stiffening methods. For the existing AMELS LE from small to large, respectively the
following stiffening methods are used: transverse, hybrid and longitudinal. According the results this
should become: hybrid and longitudinal.
The current AMELS LE have mostly a 500 mm stiffener spacing. Though 600 mm also has been used, and
in the largest yacht at some places even 400 mm. The results of the models suggest a more uniform
approach: everywhere 600 mm.
79
Evaluation
12 Conclusion
A complete and systematic overview of the preferable construction method of super yachts with respect
to production costs, mass and inside space has been made for AMELS. This is done by generating a
scalable mid-ship section based on the AMELS Limited Editions. A large number of models, with three
different construction methods, longitudinal, transverse and hybrid stiffening, three different stiffener
spacings, 500, 600 and 700 mm and three ship sizes, 50, 67.5 m and 85 m have been created and
analyzed. The mid-ship sections are subjected to the specific classification rules of Lloyds Register: the
Special Service Craft (SSC) Rules. SSC Rules subscribe both loads and strength restrictions.
Following the results of an explorative deck research, it is chosen to implement large girders underneath
the decks, to provide space for the ducts being routed through the girders. This leads to a smaller total
height in the worst case scenario: a duct and a cable tray crossing on a secondary stiffener. And it also
leads to a stiffer structure, with higher natural frequencies.
The model variations have been made in MAESTRO, a structural optimization software package
specifically for ships and ship structures. From the results a comparison has been made, for one of the
ship sizes the comparison is shown in Figure 55. The numeric values of production costs, mass and clear
height have been normalized by the interval standardization method. The models show a decreasing
trend in the cost versus stiffener spacing, an increasing trend in the mass versus stiffener spacing and a
rather undetermined trend for the height versus stiffener spacing. These trends are the same for all
investigated ship sizes.
Figure 55. Cost, mass and height coefficients vs stiffener spacing (L = 67.5 m)
For choosing the optimal design, weighting factors have been set. The production costs have a weighting
factor of 0.25, the mass a factor of 0.375 and the height also has a factor of 0.375. These numbers are
specific for AMELS and are chosen because currently the building of the hulls is outsourced to shipyards
in Eastern Europe, where they calculate the production cost in euro per tons. Therefore, the production
costs are currently a little less important. For a shipyard that do builds the hulls in the Netherlands, the
weighting factors could for example be, respectively, 0.5, 0.25 and 0.25.
The calculation of the optimal design is performed by multiplying the weighting factor with the specific
coefficients, for all variations. The graphs from Figure 55 together with the results from the other ship
sizes, lead to the graph shown in Figure 56. This gives a complete overview of the objective function of
all variations with respect to the ship length. A lower result is better; therefore, we can conclude that
the hybrid and longitudinal stiffening method with both a stiffener distance of 600 mm are optimal for
80
Evaluation
the 50 m and 67.5 m yacht. For the 85 m yacht, the longitudinal stiffening method with a stiffener
spacing of 600 mm is best.
Figure 56. Objective function vs shiplength
After applying these results to the natural frequency test and another optimization cycle with respect to
the deck height, for each ship size, a single optimal solution is found:
Except these standard variations in which the frame distance is always three times the stiffener spacing,
a small study on frame distance variation has been conducted. Resulting in the conclusion that, with the
AMELS weighting factors, for longitudinal stiffening the frame distance is optimal at 1.5 m, and that for
transverse and hybrid stiffening the frame distance is optimal at 1.8 m.
81
Evaluation
13 Recommendations
13.1 Application
The final result of this research can help designers in the first design stages. It is often difficult to
oversee the consequences of choices that are made in the beginning, as for example the stiffening
method. One look at the graphs gives a good idea about the relative costs, mass and box size for the
different framing methods and ship sizes.
Because of the use of weighting factors the results are not limited to the current situation at AMELS, but
can be altered for different building strategies.
13.2 Further research

In order to make the graphs more accurate a smaller step size in yacht length is recommended,
therefore more repetitions have to be done.
To incorporate the initial structural design in the overall initial design of a ship, one could connect the
constraint sets used for the different parts of the structure to the functionality of a space and combine it
with a packing approach.
For incorporating the fairness of the yacht into a research like this, specific data on the use of filler is
needed. The local disturbances can have a great influence on the amount of filler use, hence for this
type of research only the amount applied on the mid-ship section is interesting.
82
References
References
Literature
Amels Building Specifications 212, June 4th 2009, rev 8. Yard number 6501.
Amrane, A., Caprace, J.D., Rigo, P.: Ship structure optimization using CAD/FEM integration. ANAST,
University of Liege, Belgium.
Augusto, O.B., Kawano, A., (1997): A mixed continuous and discrete nonlinear constrained algorithm for
optimizing ship hull structural design, in Ocean Engineering, Vol. 25, no 9 pp. 793 – 811.
Augusto, O.B., Cardoso, A.A., (1998): An improved numerical model for calculating ship hull frame
transversal structure, in Computational Mechanics.
Caprace, J.D., Bair, F., Rigo, P.: Early structural assessment and optimization of passenger ships. (ANAST,
University of Liege, Belgium).
Caprace, J.D., Bair, F., Rigo, P., (2010): Scantling multi-objective optimization of a LNG carrier, in Marine
Structures 23 (2009) 288-302.
Coley, D.A., (1999): An introduction to genetic algorithms for scientists and engineers, World Scientific,
Singapore.
Hillier, F.S., Lieberman, G.J., (2001): Introduction to operations research, McGraw-Hill, New York.
Hughes, O.F., Mistree, F., Žanić, V., (1980); A practical method for the rational design of ship structures,
in Journal of Ship Research, Vol. 24, No. 2, pp. 101-113.
Lloyd’s Register, (May 2004): Ship Right Structural Design Assessment – guidance on direct calculations.
Lloyd’s Register (July 2006): Ship Vibration and Noise – guidance notes. Revision 2.1.
Lloyd’s Register, (July 2012): Special Service Craft Rules (SSC Rules).
Ludikhuize, A.J., Verbeeck, C., Werff, A.V.D., (October 2002): AMELS Yard Standard, tolerances on
fairness of plating/constructions. Drawingnr.: 0008.77/01
MAESTROTM Data preparation manual for MAESTRO Program Version 7.0. December 1994.
MAESTRO Marine (2010): MAESTRO Global Structure Analysis, Overview of the MAESTRO System.
MAESTRO (2009): MAESTRO v9 manual.
Malinowski, W., Blanchard, T., (2009): Structural Plan Appraisal of Large Yachts, in: Design, Construction
& Operation of Super and Mega Yachts 2009 (RINA).
Mano, M., Okumoto, Y., Takeda, Y., (2000): Practical design of hull structures, Senpaku Gijutsu Kyouka,
Tokyo.
Ministerie van Financien (1986): Evaluatiemethoden; een introductie, Staatsuitgeverij, ’s-Gravenhage.
Ouden, den, R.: Dwarsverband versus langsverband voor rompen van jachten (Schelde Marine Bouw).
83
References
Papanikolaou, A., (2009); Holistic ship design optimization, in Computer-Aided Design 42 (2010) 1028 –
1044.
Pareto, V., (1896): Course d’economie politique, Vol 1. Lausanne; F. Rouge.
Taylor, D.A., Tang, A.S.T. (2006): Merchant Ship Naval Architecture, IMarEST, London.
Reinshagen, E.A. (2007): Formalisering van toekenning van gewichten binnen een Multi Criteria Analyse.
Universiteit Twente
Rigo, P., (2001): A module-oriented tool for optimum design of stiffened structures – Part I, in Marine
Structures 14 (2001) 611 - 629.
Rigo, P., (2001): Least-Cost Structural Optimization Oriented Preliminary Design, in: Journal of Ship
Production , Vol. 17, No. 4, pp 202 – 215.
Rigo, P., Fleury, C., (2001): Scantling optimization based on convex linearizations and a dual approach –
Part II, in Marine Structures 14 (2001) 631 - 649.
Roy, J., Munro, B., Walley, S., Meredith-Hardy, A., (2009): Longitudinal vs Tranversely framed structures
for large displacement motor yachts. Hiswa Symposium 2009.
Šafarič, R., Rojko, A., (2006): Intelligent control technics in mechatronics, e-book, University of Maribor.
Sekulski, Z., (2009): Least-weight topology and size optimization of high speed vehicle-passenger
catamaran structure by genetic algorithm, in Marine Structures 22 (2009) 691 – 711.
Wijnen, J, (12/11/2012): Memo Natural frequency plate vibration AMELS 8300. Damen Research.
Websites
www.amels-holland.com
www.superyachts.com (19-06-2013)
Interviews
L. Koole, engineer at AMELS.
P. Korevaar, engineer at AMELS.
G. Pijnen, designer at AMELS. April 5th 2013.
M. van der Schaaf, TU Delft. April 11th 2013.
M. Slegers, engineering manager at AMELS.
J. van der Velde, designer at AMELS. March 25th 2013.
84
References
List of figures
Front page. AMELS LE 199
Front page. AMELS LE 180 cross section
Figure 1. AMELS LE 180; Step One 11
Figure 2. AMELS LE 171; Bel Abri 12
Figure 3. AMELS; Lady in Blue 12
Figure 4. AMELS shipyard in Vlissingen 12
Figure 5. Shipping of a hull to Vlissingen. 13
Figure 6. AMELS LE 180 cross section 14
Figure 8. AMELS LE 212 and 242 cross section 15
Figure 10. Vertical bending due to waves 20
Figure 11. Structural design methodology 3 21
Figure 12. Framing methods; transverse left, longitudinal right5. 22
Figure 13. Example of an AMELS LE under construction 23
Figure 14. Overview of the boxes (6501) 25
Figure 15. Definition of the box (AMELS standards 4001.02) 26
Figure 16. Details of cutouts in girder webs 27
Figure 17. Detail inner space and construction 27
Figure 18. Basic dimensions mid-ship section 28
Figure 19. The CONLIN model 34
Figure 20. MAESTRO overview 37
Figure 21. GA of the tankdeck and lower deck of the 199. 44
Figure 22. Gross Register Tonnage versus the ship length in meters 45
Figure 23. B and T versus the ship length 45
Figure 24. Deck heights versus ship length 46
Figure 25. Deck heights and depth after scaling versus length of the ship 46
Figure 26. SWBM's of the reference vessels 47
Figure 27. Principle box clearances above ceiling (AMELS standards 4001.02) 50
Figure 28. Geometry of the deck model 51
Figure 29. Panel von Mises stresses, frame and girder max flange stresses. Large girders, 700 mm. 52
Figure 30. Minimum value adequacy parameters in frames and girders. Large girders, 700 mm. 53
Figure 31. Graphical representation of the longitudinal stiffened model (67,5 m, BBS = 500 mm ). 55
Figure 32. Overview of the model with the additional half modules on both sides. 56
Figure 33. Example of an adequacy plot 58
Figure 34. Longitudinal stiffened model. L = 67.5 and 85 m 58
Figure 35. Longitudinal stiffened model. L = 50 m 58
Figure 36. Transverse stiffened model 2 / 2 / 2 (67.5 m, 500 mm) 60
Figure 37. Transverse stiffened model 3 / 2 / 2 (67.5 m, 600 mm) 60
Figure 38. Typical WT Bulkhead 61
Figure 39. Cost coefficient vs stiffener spacing (L = 67.5 m) 64
85
References
Figure 40. Mass coefficient vs stiffener spacing (L = 67.5 m) 64
Figure 41. Height vs stiffener spacing (L = 67.5 m) 65
Figure 42. Mass vs production costs of the basic structural models 65
Figure 43. Clear height vs production costs of the basic structural models 65
Figure 44. Box size versus ship size 66
Figure 45. Objective function results of the standard variations with the AMELS weighting factors 68
Figure 46. Objective function vs Shiplength with weighting factors for hull building in NL 69
Figure 47. Frame distance variation; longitudinal stiffening with AMELS weighting factors 70
Figure 48. Frame distance variation; hybrid stiffening with AMELS weighting factors 70
Figure 49. Frame distance variation; transverse stiffening, with AMELS weighting factors. 70
Figure 50. Frame distance variation; longitudinal stiffening with hull building in the Netherlands
weighting factors 71
Figure 51. Frame distance variation; hybrid stiffening with hull building in the Netherlands weighting
factors 71
Figure 52. Frame distance variation; transverse stiffening with hull building in the Netherlands weighting
factors 72
Figure 53. Natural frequencies 73
Figure 54. Results Excel Maestro comparison 76
Figure 55. Cost, mass and height coefficients vs stiffener spacing (L = 67.5 m) 80
Figure 56. Objective function vs shiplength 81
List of tables
Table 1. Research design 18
Table 2. Material properties. 28
Table 3. Boundaries and constraints of the project 31
Table 4. Selection optimization software 36
Table 5. Variables in MAESTRO 38
Table 6. Model variations 38
Table 7. Limit state (or adequacy parameter) names 42
Table 8. Reference vessels 43
Table 9. Specification on clear heigths (AMELS LE 177) 43
Table 10. Specification on clear heights (AMELS LE 212) 44
Table 11. Dimensions of the scaled mid ships 46
Table 12. Duct sizes and required space 51
Table 13. Main dimensions of the deck model 51
Table 14. Constraints compact model 52
Table 15. Constraints high girder model 52
Table 16. Results compact deck model 53
Table 17. Results deck model with large girders 53
Table 18. Natural frequencies of the compact deck model 54
Table 19. Natural frequencies of the deck model with large girders 54
86
References
Table 20. Applied loads on the 67.5 m model 57
Table 21. Results of transverse framed model variations (L = 67.5 m, BBS = 500 mm) 59
Table 22. Hybrid model comparison (L = 67.5 m) 60
Table 23. SSC Rule requirements water tight bulkheads 61
Table 24. Results overview of the model variations. L = 50 m 63
Table 25. Results overview of the model variations. L = 67. 63
Table 26. Results overview of the model variations. L = 85 m 64
Table 27. Box sizes 66
Table 28. Weighting factors AMELS 67
Table 29. Weighting factors for hull building in the Netherlands 67
Table 30. Natural frequencies 72
Table 31. Adjustment of deck heights 74
Table 32. Results deck height adjustments 74
Table 33. Comparison MAESTRO cost coefficients 77
Table 34. Validation MAESTRO dimensions of parts to SSC Rules. 78
Table 35. Current HSW - TSW restraints Table 36. Suggested HSW - TSW restraints 78
87
Appendices
A. Loads and minimum requirements according SSC Rules
B. Explorative deck model in MAESTRO 7
C. Structural models: results of production costs, mass and clear height.
D. Structural models overview
E. Objective function overview for several weighting factor combinations
F. Natural frequencies
G. Validation MAESTRO in Excel
H. Comparison SSC Rules and MAESTRO dimensions
88

Structural Optimization of AMELS Limited Edition Luxury Yachts

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Structural Optimization of AMELS Limited Edition Luxury Yachts

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Structural Optimization of AMELS Limited

Edition Luxury Yachts

A comparison of the optimal transverse, longitudinal and hybrid constructed mid-

Structural optimization of AMELS LE

Sijke Anita Verburg

AMELS Holland B.V.

January 10th 2014

Thesis exam committee

1 AMELS Limited Edition luxury yachts

Figure 1. AMELS LE 180; Step One

Figure 2. AMELS LE 171; Bel Abri

Figure 3. AMELS; Lady in Blue

Figure 4. AMELS shipyard in Vlissingen

The initial design for a new series is made at the

The building of the hulls is often outsourced to a

Figure 5. Shipping of a hull to Vlissingen.

2.1 Problem definition

Figure 6. AMELS LE 180 cross section

Figure 7. AMELS LE 199 cross section

Figure 8. AMELS LE 212 and 242 cross section

Figure 9. AMELS LE 272 cross section

• Four out of five yachts have a stiffener spacing of 500 mm

The differences are, for example:

• All three stiffening methods are applied

2.2 Research questions

The main research question is divided into eight smaller questions:

• What are the constraints of the project?

A schematic overview of the research method is given in Table 1.

Input Processing Examples of desired output

Several ship lengths Method

Table 1. Research design

3.1 Basic principles and calculations

The stresses caused by the bending moments are the

3.1.2 Local forces

3.1.3 Noise and vibrations

3.2 Structural design

When making a structural design it is very

3.3 Longitudinal, transverse and hybrid framed structures

In Figure 13 a picture of a transversely framed AMELS LE yacht is shown.

Figure 13. Example of an AMELS LE under construction

3.4 Design considerations for super yachts

3.5 Design consequences of construction choices

4.2 Mid-ship section

AMELS yachts are known for their slender appearance;

Figure 15. Definition of the box (AMELS standards 4001.02)

4.2.1.1 Deck and box height

Figure 16. Details of cutouts in girder webs

4.2.1.2 Space between box and shell

4.2.3 Section length

4.3 Constraints on the structural parts

on materials, strength and vibration

Property Quantity Unit

4.3.4 Practical considerations

4.4 SSC Rules

4.5 Other considerations

Chapter 8 will go deeper into the production costs.

4.6 Schematic overview

Quantity Min Max Unit Comments

In formulae, optimization algorithms are structured as follows; 12 13 14 15

5.2 Methods and software

5.2.1 Linear programming in SHIPOPT and MAESTRO

Advantages of linear programming