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

net/publication/234306175

Automatic Parametric Hull Form Optimization of Fast Naval Vessels

Conference Paper · September 2011

CITATIONS READS
29 1,461

7 authors, including:

Iacopo Biliotti Stefano Brizzolara

1 PUBLICATION   29 CITATIONS   
Virginia Tech (Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University)
154 PUBLICATIONS   1,642 CITATIONS   
SEE PROFILE
SEE PROFILE

Michele Viviani Giuliano Vernengo

Università degli Studi di Genova Università degli Studi di Genova
142 PUBLICATIONS   1,917 CITATIONS    69 PUBLICATIONS   647 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

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

Ship Maneuvering View project

Design and Development of an Autonomous Underwater Vehicle View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Giuliano Vernengo on 03 April 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 11th International Conference on Fast Sea Transportation
FAST 2011, Honolulu, Hawaii, USA, September 2011

Automatic Parametric Hull Form Optimization of Fast Naval Vessels

Iacopo Biliotti1, Stefano Brizzolara1, Michele Viviani1, Giuliano Vernengo1, Danilo Ruscelli2, Mauro
Galliussi3, Domenico Guadalupi3 and Andrea Manfredini3
1
Department of Naval Architecture, Marine Engineering and Electrical Engineering (DINAEL), University of Genoa, Italy
2
Dept. Of Naval Architecture, Cetena S.p.A., Genoa, Italy
3
Italian Navy, Studies, Means, Projects and Materials Office, Rome, Italy
ABSTRACT
In the present paper the final outcomes of a research project
between the Department of Naval Architecture and Marine
Engineering of the University of Genoa and Cetena S.p.A.
for the Italian Navy in the frame of National Defence
Research Plan are presented.
A study about the automatic optimization of the fore hull
forms of a fast frigate has been carried out. On the basis of a
technical specification provided by the Italian Navy, the
initial shape of the hull has been defined by means of an
accurate preliminary design leading to a set of geometrical
constraints for the optimization process.
The fully automatic optimization chain has been
implemented adopting the ModeFrontier optimization
environment to interface the Friendship-Framework
(parametric definition of the hull shape), the CFD codes
developed by CETENA S.p.A. (to predict the steady wave
resistance and unsteady seakeeping performances of each
design candidate), and a MOGA genetic algorithm.
Numerical results have been validated by means of calm
water model tests performed at the Towing Tank of the
Department of Naval Architecture and Electrical
Engineering (DINAEL) of the University of Genoa.
Notwithstanding the rather high number of constraints,
which limit geometry variations, it was possible to obtain an
optimal solution, and results have been confirmed by the
experimental tests.
KEY WORDS
Hydrodynamic optimization, hull parametric modeling, fast
naval vessels, wave resistance, model tests
1.0 INTRODUCTION
The challenge of international market and the search of
increasing performances lead the process of ship design to a
continuous enhancement both in merchant and naval field,
where the dedicated time for a thorough design is ever
decreasing. In this context, a key issue is represented by the
hull form development which has to ensure a well defined
payload and has to maximize the hydrodynamic
performances.
This study presents a optimization process of a 108 m long
fast frigate (parent hull) devoted to two of the most
important hydrodynamic aspects for a naval unit: the wave
294
resistance (affecting her maximum speed) and the
seakeeping performances (directly related to her
operability); the results of the optimization process have
been checked by means of a dedicated set of experimental
tank tests carried out at the Towing Tank of the Department
of Naval Architecture and Electrical Engineering (DINAEL)
of the University of Genoa.
Starting from an accurate preliminary design based on a
technical specification provided by the Italian Navy, a set of
constraints related to geometrical and hydrostatic
characteristics of the hull has been defined, as shortly
described in section 2.
The Mode Frontier optimization environment has allowed to
implement a fully automatic calculation flow interfacing the
Friendship-Framework, by which the hull geometry has
been described, with the hydrodynamic codes WARP
(WAve Resistance Program) and SOAP (Seakeeping
Operability Analysis Program) developed by CETENA
S.p.A.. A MOGA genetic algorithm has been adopted for
the optimization of the fore hull form of the frigate taking
into account the above mentioned constraint set and
evaluating a ranking of the analysed alternatives on the base
of a set of well defined objective functions
The optimization flow, the parametric modeling and the
hydrodynamic analysis are thoroughly described in section
3, and the results of the optimization, in form of comparison
with the parent hull, are reported.
In the last part of the research project a set of dedicated tank
tests in calm water has been performed on the parent hull
and on the optimized one in order to compare their
performances and validate the results of the optimization, as
reported in section 4.
2.0 DESIGN TASK – PARENT HULL
The parent hull from which the optimization process has
started has been defined in the first part of the research
project following the technical specifications provided from
Italian MOD which identified her operative profile.
The twin screw ship was supposed to be mainly employed
for patrol missions at speeds between 12 kn and 20 kn, but a
maximum speed of 35 kn was requested too.
The ship has been supposed to comply with the RINA-MIL
Rules so that a preliminary stability assessment has been
performed with the aim to verify her compliance with the
© 2011 American Society of Naval Engineers
Rules requirements.
Several seakeeping requirements involving the standard
patrol criteria (vertical and lateral velocities and
accelerations, pitch and roll angles, propeller emergence,
green water and slamming occurrences) have been defined
too up to the speed of 25 kn for Sea State 4 (three Sea
Conditions → Hs = 1.88 m and Tp = 4.5 s, 5.5 s, 6.5 s) and
Sea State 5 (three Sea Conditions → Hs = 3.25 m and Tp =
4.5 s, 5.5 s, 6.5 s).
The internal spaces have been arranged on the basis of the
specified crew and following the standards of the SMM100
Rules. The technical specifications contained a strict
definition of the payload too.
The main characteristics of the parent hull are resumed in
Table 1.
Table 1. Main characteristics of the parent hull
Quantity Symbol Value
Length between perpendiculars L BP 108 m
Maximum Breadth B 13.60 m
Design Draft T 4.2 m
Design Displacement  ~3000 t
As further outcome of the preliminary design, several
geometrical constraints have been defined too, as
summarised in the following:
 the length between perpendiculars of the ship has not
to be reduced in order to comply with the payload
requirements of the technical specifications;
 the waterline in correspondence of the Deck Stiva
(top of the double bottom) has not to be reduced in
breadth in order to allow the fitting of the engines
and of the other main machineries;
 the clearance between the propeller blades tip and the
hull stern has not to be reduced;
 the height of the transverse metacenter has not to be
reduced in order to keep the compliance with the
stability requirements of the RINA-MIL Rules.
 total displacement variation (with respect to the
reference design) not greater than two percent
 longitudinal center of buoyancy shift (with respect to
the reference design) not greater than two percent
3.0 OPTIMIZATION ACTIVITY
The synthesis model adopted for the hydrodynamic
optimization is made of the following 4 modules:
 Hull form design → Geometric (parametric) hull
form modeling;
 Hull form analysis → Hydrodynamic analysis (in
terms of wave resistance and seakeeping);
 Hull form merit assessment → Measure of merit
following the adopted objective functions;
© 2011 American Society of Naval Engineers
 Hull form variation → Systematic variation of the
geometric parameters automatically performed by the
optimization algorithm with respect to the geometric
constraints defined by the preliminary design.
In order to get a fully automatic calculation flow, such
modules have been integrated with several pre-processors
(automatically making the offset compatible with the
hydrodynamic codes) and post-processors (re-arranging the
output of the hydrodynamic codes and making it simply
usable for the optimization code).
The following Fig. 1 represents the sketch of the synthesis
model adopted for the hydrodynamic optimization which
have been developed in the Mode-Frontier ambient.
Fig. 1. Synthesis model of the optimization
3.1 Parametric Modeling
The approach used to generate the three-dimensional
parametric model of the hull surface is built around the
FriendShip – Framework software which is based on shape
parameters of plane figures and volumes, not only in the
classic sense of the naval architecture practice, but also as
primary mean for modeling and controlling desired shapes
which should be inherently faired (as from Harries and
Nowacki, 1999).
The parametric model for the hull surface has been
primarily built around the proper choice of the basic curves
set, this depending on key features of hull geometry.
Ten curves have been adopted for hull modeling (Bilge
Fullness, Curve of sectional slopes at deck, Curve of
Deadrise, Design waterline, Deck curve, Curve of sectional
slopes at the design waterline, Flat of Side curve, Center
Plane Curve, Curve of Stem, Curve of half angles at the
entrance) and seven for the bulb (Upper profile, Lower
profile, Maximum width curve, Height of maximum
width curve, Fullness of bulb section above the height of
maximum width curve, Curve of Deadrise, Closure width
curve) which has been considered separately for its
particular shape.
Curves are discretized into a certain number of points whose
longitudinal positions mainly depend on global form
parameters and often match between one curve and the
other, so as to make sure that a global parameter variation
produces a coherent shifting of all the basic curves that
depend on that parameter, providing more feasible resulting
295
hull geometry.
On the basis of these curves, hull cross sections are defined.
As an example, in the following Fig. 2 bulb cross section
definition is reported, while in Fig. 3 an example of bulb
shape variation is presented.
Fig. 2. Cross section definition for the foresections below
the design waterline and the bulb
Fig. 3. Sequence of variation of parameters in the
forebody hull form.
In parametric modeling, particular attention has been
devoted to the model flexibility, trying to avoid, as far as
possible, that variations in the parameters result in unfair
shapes.
A deeper description of strategies adopted for the parametric
definition of the hull can be found in Vernengo et al 2009.
3.2 Numerical tools
Two software tools developed by CETENA were employed
for hydrodynamic analyses within this study:
 WARP Wave Resistance Program – A linear
potential flow code for calculating a hull’s wave
resistance in calm water.
 SOAP Seakeeping Operability Assessment
Program – A state-of-the-art software package for
determining seakeeping, operability and comfort on
board a ship in a sea-state.
296
3.2.1 Wave resistance analysis
WARP is a panel code developed by CETENA in the course
of more than 10 years, see (Caprino, Sebastiani, Valdenazzi,
1997). It is a state-of-the-art free-surface potential-flow
linear code based on quadrilateral panels and constant
sources strength, following a modified Dawson theory for
the calculation of potential flows around hulls including a
free surface. The solution of the boundary value problem is
found by distributing Rankine sources over the hull and a
portion of the free surface and computing the potential from
which then the velocity and pressure distribution can be
obtained. WARP has been extensively validated and used by
CETENA for merchant as well as naval ships both internally
(often in co-operation with Fincantieri shipyard) and within
European research project such as the FANTASTIC Project
(Viviani et al., 2001. The program is similar to other codes
based on the same theoretical background, and although the
prediction of the wave pattern and the wave resistance
suffers from the limitations related to the potential theory
and the linearization, it is very reliable when comparing
different hull forms with each other, i.e., ranking design
variants.
WARP allows the check of the wave profile, pressure
distribution and streamlines; the following correlation with
the planned model tests will achieve satisfactory accuracy
also in terms of absolute values for the total resistance. The
wave pattern may result under-predicted in the bow region
and over-predicted in the stern region and behind the hull,
the latter being caused by neglecting non-linear effects and
viscous effects.
One of the most challenging aspects for the automatization
of the computational procedure has been represented by the
automatic generation of the hull surface mesh, whose
quality directly affects the results of the calculations.
In this way a dedicated fully automatic mesh generator has
been implemented and interfaced with the hull form
generator. The obtained meshes (an example of which is
reported in Fig. 3) have been satisfactory.
Fig. 3. Automatically generated mesh (parent hull form)
3.2.2 Seakeeping analysis
SOAP is a seakeeping and operability package developed at
CETENA. It consists of:
 a seakeeping code for the generation of the
seakeeping data in terms of response amplitude
operators of the motions at the center of gravity,
velocities and accelerations;
© 2011 American Society of Naval Engineers
  an elaborate post-processor for the evaluation of
comfort and operability.
The seakeeping code is based on a standard linear 2D
method (strip theory). In the post-processing root-mean-
square values of user-selected comfort and operability
criteria are determined. The post-processor can incorporate
statistical tables for the geographical areas of interest,
providing the percentage of occurrence of particular sea-
states. A ship’s overall operability can be estimated in two
ways:
1. the speed reduction necessary to comply with the
criteria is evaluated for each heading in each of the
selected sea-states, based on a user-selected set of
operability criteria and their corresponding limits;
2. the percentage of time operability (PTO) during
which the ship fulfills the selected criteria at a
fixed speed is evaluated for each heading in a given
area.
The code allows fast turn-around time and, in this way, it
permits a high number of hull variants to be analyzed during
the optimization.
3.3 Optimization tool
medium low speeds (patrol speeds) but the maximum speed
requirement of 35 kn has been considered the most
important for the engine dimensioning. In this way both the
conditions have been considered in the optimization
process. In order to comprehensively deal with the wave
resistance, two main quantities for each speed have been
calculated: the global wave resistance and the variance of
the wave profile projected on the hull side from bow up to
amidship.
In relation with the seakeeping, the operability has been
identified as the most significant quantity to measure the
improvement of the ship performances: in this way a sort of
MEI (Mission Effectiveness Index) relative to the considered
Sea States has been considered.
Considering this, the following 5 different objective
functions have been accounted for, and a multiobjective
optimisation has been performed.
RW ( 20 kn)
RW 20  (1)

RW (35kn)
RW 35  (2)

NP

  (20kn)   (20) 
2
ModeFRONTIER is a software system and environment i
(3)
dedicated to multi-objective optimization. It can be looked  202  i 1

at as a platform for the management of all calculations

NP
NP
associated with an optimization process. It manipulates the
  (35kn)   (35) 
2

input files used to execute outside software tools in batch-

i
(4)
mode, launches these programs in a concerted manner and
 
2
35
i 1
NP
scans the output files produced during each run for desired NSS NSC ( k )
data (for instance the current value of an objective function).   SOE (i)
ModeFRONTIER is applicable to optimization problems of MEI  k 1 i 1
(5)
NSS
very different type and various strategies are readily
available:  NSC (k )
k 1

 DoE Design of Experiments – An evaluation of where:

the objective function(s) for pre-selected variations
in the free variables, the variations being either
specified by the user or generated algorithmically (in
the present work a random distribution type Sobol
has been adopted).
 MOGA Multi Objective Genetic Algorithm – A
multi-objective optimization on the basis of Darwin’s
principle of survival of the fittest, using mechanisms
such as cross-over, selection, mutation, elitism etc
In the present study a DoE has been used for a preliminary
investigation of the feasible domain. Then the MOGA
algorithm have been utilized to undertake a more specific
search, setting out from a favorable starting point found in
the DoE.
3.4 Hull Form Optimisation
As previously discussed, the hydrodynamic optimization
have been devoted to two different aspects:
 Minimization of the wave resistance;
 Improvement of the seakeeping performances of the
Unit.
The speed profile of the ship was mainly addressed to the
RW XX = non-dimensional wave resistance at XX knots
RW (XX kn)= wave resistance at XX knots
 = ship displacement
 2XX = variance of the wave profile on the hull up to
midship at XX knots
NP = number of points which describe the wave profile on
the hull from bow up to midship
i(XX kn)= wave elevation of the i-th point of the wave
profile on the hull at XX knots
(XX kn)= mean value of the wave profile on the hull at XX
knots
MEI = seakeeping objective function
NSS = number of wave heights considered for seakeeping
assessment
NSC = number of wave periods considered for seakeeping
assessment
SOE(i) = Seakeeping Operability Index relative to the i-th
sea state.
The genetic algorithm has been set to consider the influence
of the automatically generated design exceeding previously
mentioned constraints; anyway they have not been selected
for the succeeding generations of designs.

© 2011 American Society of Naval Engineers 297

After performing optimization, selection of the optimal hull of the main section of the hull. This first step has been a sort
shape among the resulting Pareto solutions has been made of check of main dimensions of the ship and it has led up to
by means of the following three “global” objective the choice of the reference design used in the next step, that
functions. has been focussed on the hull shapes from about amidship to
RW 35 ID RW 20 ID the bow.
MEI C1
  In the second step, fourteen parameters have been selected,
RW 35 C1 RW 20 C1 MEI ID (6)
FO1  influencing both forebody and bulb shape, and about 3000
3 designs have been analyzed. In Fig. 4 two examples of
 2
 2 optimization history are shown: they represent the evolution
20 ID 35 ID MEI C1
  of the objective functions RW 35 and 235 with respect to the
 2
20 C 1  2
35 C 1 MEI ID (7) progressive number of the designs (abt. 2000) which comply
FO1 
3 with the above mentioned constrain set (feasible designs).
The convergence of the objective functions to values lower
RW 35 ID RW 20 ID  202 ID  352 ID MEI C1 than the initial ones can be observed, indicating a correct
   
RW 35 C1 RW 20 C1  202 C1  352 C1 MEI ID (8) choice of the free variables of the problem and of the setup
FO 3  of the optimization chain. A similar trend has been found for
5
the other objective functions relative to the wave resistance
where C1 and ID subscripts stand for parent and current
hull. at 20 knots (RW 20 and 220), while the seakeeping
performances (MEI), which can be increased with major
variations of the hull forms (e.g. main dimensions), have not
been significantly influenced.

Fig. 4. Optimization history of one of the objective functions

RW 35 (up) and 235.(down)
So the selection of the optimum design has been performed
in two times: at the end of the optimization a set of good
designs has been chosen, with respect to the five above
mentioned objective functions described; then, among the
pre-selected designs, the best design has been selected on
the base of the three “global” functions.
Furthermore, because of the great number of free variable
connected with the definition of the shape of the hull, the
optimization process has been divided into two steps: first
an optimization on global parameter has been carried out, Fig. 5. Comparison of wave pattern between parent and
including the length between perpendiculars, the maximum optimized hull for 20 knots (up) and 35 knots (down)
beam at the design water line and the longitudinal position speed.
298 © 2011 American Society of Naval Engineers
At the end, for all optimum cases the trend is to increase the
length of the forward bulb: this optimizes the beneficial
interference effect created by the wave pattern generated by
the bulb itself with the first wave crest generated by the
forward hull shoulder.
As expected, results showed that a shape which leads to
maximum improvement at a speed of 35 knots is not
optimal at 20 knots speed, and vice versa; by using above
mentioned decision support functions, it was possible to
choose an optimal solution identified in the following
figures as ID6933.
Fig. 6. Comparison of forward bulb forms of the parent
and optimized hulls
In Fig. 5 the comparison between the wave patterns of the
parent and optimized hull for the speeds of 20 and 35 knots
is shown. In particular for the lower speed (left) the forward
shift of the first peak of the generated wave can be
observed, due to the increasing length of the bulb. For the
higher speed a significant reduction (abt. 15%) of the fore
peak height has been obtained. In terms of wave resistance,
reductions of about 3.5% and 2.5% have been observed
© 2011 American Society of Naval Engineers
respectively for the speeds of 20 and 35 knots. Fig. 6 shows
a comparison between the initial and optimized forward
bulb hull forms: it has to be observed that also the shape of
the rest of the forward part of the hull (which is not shown
in Fig. 6) has been modified, together with the bulb shape.
After completing optimization, calculations have been
performed for the complete speed range, in view of the
successive experimental campaign. Results are reported in
following section 4.
4.0 VALIDATION OF RESULTS
4.1 Experimental campaign
In order to validate numerical results described in previous
sections, an experimental campaign, focused only on calm
water resistance, has been carried out at Genoa University
Towing Tank.
With this aim, models of original and optimised hullform
have been manufactured in accordance to requirements of
ITTC; in following Fig. 7, photographs of the two models
are reported.
Fig. 7. Original (above) and optimised (below) hull
models
Both models were tested in correspondence to 10 different
ship speeds (FN ranging from about 0.15 to about 0.6),
including those considered in the optimisation activity,
measuring resistance, sinkage and trim of the model.
As usual, nondimensional values of total resistance
coefficient CTM in model scale are evaluated from measured
values, and residual resistance coefficient CR is obtained in
accordance to ITTC procedures. In this case, no form factor
was considered.
RTM
CTM  (9)
1 2  M S M VM
2
where:
M water density (model scale)
SM wetted surface (model scale)
VM advance speed (model scale)
C R  C TM  C FM (10)
where:
299
 0.075
C FM  (11)
(log 10 ( R NM )  2) 2 As it can be seen, a reduction of CR coefficient was
RNM Reynolds number (model scale), defined as: effectively measured in the whole speed range considered,
with a reduction of about 5% in correspondence to the two
VM LOSM
RNM  (12) speeds for which optimisation was carried out and a
M maximum reduction of about 7.5% in correspondence to an
LOSM total wetted length (model scale) intermediate speed. In following section, a comparison
M water kinematic viscosity between numerical results and experimental measurements
In Fig. 8, residual resistance coefficients for the two models is reported.
are reported. Regarding ship running attitude, trim angle (positive if
trimmed by bow) and sinkage in percentage of initial draft
are reported in following figure 10.
As it can be seen, trim is almost invariant between the two
models, with only a slight reduction of trim by stern at
maximum speeds.
C R*1000

Also sinkage differences are very small, and may be

considered negligible.
4.2 Comparison between Experimental
Results and Numerical Calculations
In order to compare experimental results with numerical
0.000 0.100 0.200 0.300 0.400 0.500 0.600 0.700
calculations, previously defined resistance over
FN
Original Optimised displacement values have been computed for original and
optimised hull forms. Obviously, since no direct
Fig. 8. Comparison between original and optimised hulls
measurement of wave resistance was performed, residual
Residual resistance coefficient
resistance has been considered for model test results, and
this is compared to wave resistance computed by means of
panel methods.
This approach is not completely correct; however it is
believed that, since relative reductions of both resistances
are considered, it can provide an insight into the capability
of the code to capture differences between the two models.
 [°]

In following Fig. 10, results are reported.

100.0%
(RR/ )OPTIM/ (RR/ )ORIG

97.5%
0.000 0.100 0.200 0.300 0.400 0.500 0.600 0.700
FN 95.0%
Optimised Original

92.5%

90.0%
0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7
FN
 T%

Experimental (RR) Panel (RW)

Fig. 10. Comparison between numerical results (wave

resistance reduction) and experimental measurements
(residual resistance reduction)
0.000 0.100 0.200 0.300 0.400 0.500 0.600 0.700
As it can be seen, numerical code under predicts resistance
FN
reduction measured by means of towing tank results.
Optimised Original
Nevertheless, predictions are qualitatively in a good
accordance with measurements, allowing to capture the
Fig. 9. Comparison between original and optimised hulls correct trend and to predict speed at which maximum
Trim (above) and sinkage (below) reduction is obtained.

300 © 2011 American Society of Naval Engineers

 This result was deemed satisfactory considering the
previously mentioned limits of the numerical code adopted.
In particular it was confirmed that the code has the
capability of ranging the two hull shapes, even if with
different absolute values.
5.0 CONCLUSIONS
In present paper, results of a hull form optimisation activity
have been presented. In particular, a fast naval vessel has
been considered, and a difficult task of optimising resistance
and seakeeping characteristics at two very different speeds
has been carried out. A further difficulty was introduced by
very strict design constraints considered, which limited
considerably hull shape modifications.
Nevertheless, a good convergence toward the optimum
solution in terms of wave resistance performance at two
different speed and seakeeping operability has been found.
The gains in terms of resistance reductions were significant
at both speed considered, and this resulted in improvements
in the whole ship range, in spite of the evidently good initial
hull form designed from shipyard experience and
considering also the rather strict constraints imposed.
Numerical results were confirmed by experimental tests,
which evidenced an even higher reduction of resistance,
confirming the feasibility of use of this design approach as a
very powerful tool for the designer.
REFERENCES
Abt, C.; Birk, L.; Harries, S. (2003), “Parametric Hull
Design: The FRIENDSHIP-Modeler,” International
Conference on Ship and Shipping Research - NAV 2003,
Palermo, June 2003.
Abt, C.; Bade, s.; Birk, L.; Harries, S., (2001) “Parametric
Hull Form Design – A Step Towards One Week Ship
Design,” 8th International Symposium on Practical Design
of Ships and Other Floating Structures-·PRADS 2001,
Shanghai.
Caprino, G., Sebastiani, L., Valdenazzi, F., “Metodologie a
Pannelli Lineari e Non-Lineari per l’Ottimizzazione
Idrodinamica delle Forme di Carena Basate sull’Analisi del
Flusso a Potenziale,” CETENA, Report No. 6117, Genoa,
1997
Harries, S., (1998), “Parametric Design and Hydrodynamic
Optimization of Ship Hull Forms,” Ph.D. Thesis, Institut für
Schiffs-und Meerestechnik, Technische Universität Berlin;
Mensch & Buch Verlag, Berlin.
Harries, S.; Abt, C. (1998), “Parametric Curve Design
Applying Fairness Criteria,” International Workshop on
Creating Fair and Shape-Preserving Curves and Surfaces,
© 2011 American Society of Naval Engineers
View publication stats
Berlin/Potsdam, Teubner Verlag, 1998.
Harries, S.; Abt, C.(1999), “Formal Hydrodynamic
Optimization of a Fast Monohull on the Basis of Parametric
Hull Design,” FAST99 - 5th International Conference on
Fast Sea Transportation, Seattle, August 1999.
Harries, S.; Abt, C.; Hochkirch, K., (2001), “Hydrodynamic
Modeling of Sailing Yachts,” 15th Chesapeake Sailing
Yacht Symposium, Annapolis.
Harries, S.; Nowacki, H. (1999): “Form Parameter
Approach to the Design of Fair Hull Shapes,” 10th
International Conference on Computer Applications in
Shipbuilding·- ICCAS ’99, Massachusetts Institute of
Technology, Cambridge, MA, USA, June 1999.
Harries, S.; Valdenazzi, F., Abt, C., Viviani, U., (2001),
“Investigation on Optimisation Strategies for the
Hydrodynamic Design of Fast Ferries,” FAST 2001.
ITTC procedeure 7.5.01-01-01 “Model Manufacture – Ship
Models”
Koh, L.; Atlar, M.; Mesbahi, E.; Janson, C.-E.; Larsson, L.;
Abt, C. (2005): “Novel Design and Hydrodynamic
Optimisation of a High-Speed Hull Form,” 5th International
Conference on High Performance Marine Vessels,
Shanghai, April 2005.
Poloni, C.; Giurgevich, A.; Onesti, L.; Pediroda, V., (1999),
“Hybridization of a Multi-objective Genetic Algorithm, a
Neural Network and a Classical Optimizer for a Complex
Design Problem in Fluid Dynamics,” Computer Methods in
Applied Mechanics and Engineering, Elsevier Science Ltd.,
North-Holland.
Spicer, D.; Cook, J.; Poloni, C.; Sen, P., (1998), “EP 20082
FRONTIER: Industrial Multiobjective Design
Optimisation,” ECCOMAS 98, Published by John Wiley &
Sons, Ltd.
Vernengo, G., Biliotti, I., Brizzolara, S., Viviani M.,
Bonvicini A., Ruscelli, D., Galliussi M., Manfredini A,
(2009), “Influence of Form Parameters Selection on the Hull
Surface Shape Control for Hydrodynamic Design”.
International Conference on Ships and Shipping Research
NAV 2009, Messina, Italy.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The research project has been partly supported by the Italian
MOD in the frame of National Plan for Defence Research,
managed by SEGREDIFESA.
301