Ocean Engineering 72 (2013) 124–139

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Ocean Engineering
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/oceaneng

Application of knowledge-based engineering in ship structural design

and optimization
Jin-ju Cui, De-yu Wang n
State Key Lab of Ocean Engineering, School of Naval Architecture, Ocean and Civil Engineering, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai 200240, PR China

art ic l e i nf o a b s t r a c t

Article history: This paper presents an application of knowledge-based engineering in containership cargo tank
Received 12 May 2012 structural design and optimization. Ship design is such a complicated multi-discipline task that design
Accepted 16 June 2013 experiences and examples are indispensable. In this proposed knowledge-based system, experiences of
Available online 17 July 2013
design experts, design rules and successful previous designs are stored in the knowledge base. In the
Keywords: design process of new ship structures, the relevant knowledge are automatically distracted from
Knowledge-based engineering knowledge base and executed together with the knowledge reasoning technique. Both design rules
Rules method method and Interpolation method are introduced into this system. The design results fulfill the design
Interpolation method constraints and requirements, therefore design errors and mistakes can be avoided. What's more, design
Reliability
cycle can be reduced significantly. So it can be an appropriate way applying knowledge-based
engineering in ship structural design. What's more, Finite Element Method is employed to carry out
the strength analysis, and reliability analysis is performed with Monte Carlo Simulation by introducing
uncertainty of design variables under seawater corrosion.
& 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction KBE design system which generates forging molds directly by

Computer-aided design (CAD) has played an important role in
many areas with the rapid development and wide use of compu-
ters. Traditionally, ship design and research was carried out with
human labor, which is not only time-consuming but also error-
prone. So, it is necessary to introduce computer aided design into
modern ship design. As demonstrated by Kim et al. (2012), CAD
has taken roots in ships and offshore structures design in the past
decades, and we have witnessed the applications not only for
visualization purposes but also for other analytical purposes (e.g.
basic structural form design, configurational design, design of final
dimensions, simulation of motion characteristics, structural form
design with outfitting and machinery items, propulsion system
design with/without rudder, bulkhead arrangement design, and
detailed layout designs, design of required plate sizes and thick-
ness for production, design of heating pattern for welding and
joining, material requirement planning and scheduling, and work
assignment for technical workers, etc.). Proved to be so successful,
knowledge-based engineering (KBE) has now become one of the
most active branches of intelligent design in CAD, especially in the
mold design engineering, automobile manufacturing industry and
so on Zhao (2002). For example, Kulon et al. (2006) developed a
n
Corresponding author. Tel.: +86 (021)62933131.
E-mail address: dywang@sjtu.edu.cn (D.-y. Wang).
contours of parts. It integrates all of the mold design process, and
users just need to enter the part geometry, materials and other
information. Besides it achieved user interaction through network
access, greatly improving design efficiency; Chapman and Pinfold
(2001) came up with an automobile structural design and analysis
system. This system allows the user to easily adjust the structure
and assess both strength and economics in the design process, and
any duplication of modeling is avoided. Finally the system derives
the structural design with minimum cost while fulfilling the
strength requirements.
The ship design is a complicated task which is multidisciplinary
and multi-objective in nature, and it largely depends on designers'
experience. Designers need to consider a number of competing
aspects in ship design. So it is necessary and applicable to develop
an expert system to cope with this tough task. Many people have
made attempts in KBE application. For example, Chen et al. (2009)
successfully achieved hull deck design with the knowledge-based
engineering; Lee (2006) studied the maneuvering of damaged
military vessels with knowledge system. He found that the ship
can maintain good floating posture by adjusting the ballast, which
enhances the chances of human survival. This system can be a useful
tool for the ship operators to practice maneuvering of ship. Cai et al.
(1997) studied midship section design system by dividing cross-
section into several typical modules. Through the use of standardized
rules knowledge, expertise, and a typical cross-section databank,
they obtained the cross-section with minimum area.

0029-8018/$ - see front matter & 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.oceaneng.2013.06.013
 J. Cui, D. Wang / Ocean Engineering 72 (2013) 124–139
Nomenclature
Lpp ship length between perpendiculars (m)
D moulded depth (m)
B moulded breadth (m)
d draught (m)
Cb block coefficient
s space between beams (m)
An extensive survey of challenges in current ship and floating
structure design and analysis is made by Sharma et al. (2012), and
the following challenges remain active: to develop novel
approaches to extract design and production information from
previous designs and use them intelligently in the new design and
production schemes, to develop comprehensive functional design
approaches, etc.; to apply the modular approach in the ship/
floating structure design with real concept utilization, industrial
participation and applications; integration of disciplinary simula-
tion tools into complex engineering environment of CAD/CAM/
CAE/FEM/CFD, integration of different geometric models; to
develop integrated computational approaches in CFD, FEA and
manufacturing simulation based upon input geometric definition
and so on.
This paper discusses how to apply methods of knowledge-
based engineering in containership's cargo block structures design,
and integration of design and analysis. Thus some of the chal-
lenges mentioned above are addressed in this paper, e.g. the
methods to extract information from previous designs and use
them in the target ship design, modular approach (standard
sections or bulkheads) in ship design, and integration with FEM
tools based on geometric model information. The performance of
hull structural design is improved with the help of KBE. Addition-
ally, reliability analysis is carried out with FEM by introducing
uncertainty of design parameters, and conclusions are made by
comparing results from both design rules method and Interpola-
tion method. The aims of this paper are to develop a knowledge-
based engineering system by the acquisition of design knowledge
and pervious designs, to improve design efficiency and quality, and
to discuss the influence of design parameters uncertainty on the
structural performance.
2. Knowledge-based engineering
Knowledge-based engineering is a kind of artificial intelligence
technology, and it uses the principles and methods of artificial
intelligence to address difficult problems. The core of knowledge-
based engineering is to integrate professional knowledge, domain
knowledge, users' maturity design experience, the choice of design
parameters based on experimental data, material data, users'
feedback, and relevant design standards and norms into the design
of software through the logical judgments and deduction, achiev-
ing product intelligent design (Helvacioglu and Insel, 2003).
A concise definition of KBE is given by Kim et al. (2012) as follows:
KBE has roots in computer aided design (CAD) and knowledge-
based systems and from early success as a support system for a
design engineer within the context of product design to the basis
for generative design, it can have a wide scope that covers the full
range of activities related to Product Lifecycle Management (PLM)
and Multidisciplinary Design Optimization (MDO). The scope of
KBE includes design, analysis, manufacturing, and support.
As demonstrated by Zhou et al. (2007), knowledge-based engi-
neering connotation includes: knowledge acquisition, knowledge
125
h deck calculation of pressure (m)
l beam span (m)
W minimum section modulus of beam (cm3 )
V speed of ship (kn)
KL coefficient of high strength steel corresponding to
longitudinal strength
K coefficient of high strength steel corresponding to
local strength
representation, knowledge reasoning, with its emphasis on reus-
ing product design knowledge, design experience and other kinds
of knowledge in design, developing new and optimal products at
the top speed.
Knowledge acquisition refers to acquiring knowledge from
knowledge sources, such as design expertise, design standards,
product specifications, design experience and successful prece-
dents, etc. Fig. 1 shows a general approach of knowledge
acquisition.
Knowledge representation refers to expressing problems and
storing knowledge in a computer-interpretable representation,
which can facilitate computers to take advantage of the knowledge
base and solve complicated and difficult problems. Simply speak-
ing, knowledge representation translates human language into
computer language (Zhou et al., 2007).
Knowledge-based reasoning refers to the deductive thinking
process which is deducing another judgment from judgment
known according to a strategy. Designers express the product
knowledge base including expert knowledge, experience knowl-
edge, specifications and precedent through knowledge-based
engineering to guide designer in the design process. The reasoning
methods include rule-based reasoning (RBR) and case-based
reasoning (CBR). The method of RBR is mainly used for specific
parameters based on knowledge advisor and knowledge expert
work system. The method of CBR is used for product and part
design similar with previous design cases based on product
knowledge template.
In this paper, CBR and RBR are both employed in ship structural
design.
The user-friendly interface provided by the software system
helps users export and import design information and manufac-
ture information to achieve a joint of deliberation of human–
computer to address problems, and the design process of
knowledge-based engineering is illustrated in Fig. 2.
The ship structural design system based on KBE includes user
interface, knowledge base, and inference engine. The user inter-
face provides user a quick search and check of knowledge
Knowledge base
Extract and
refine
Documents Experts Cases,etc
Fig. 1. Knowledge acquisition.
126 J. Cui, D. Wang / Ocean Engineering 72 (2013) 124–139

Expert Design
Design cases ……
knowledge experience

Knowledge
Inference
Machine

Knowledge Knowledge
Workspace
Explanation Acquisition

User
Interface

Fig. 2. Design process of knowledge-based engineering.

information stored in database, together with knowledge manage-

ment under authorization.
Applying KBE can significantly improve the workflow of the
Personal Peers
ship design. Designers can learn the rules and regulations from the
design design
knowledge base at the modeling stage. The knowledge base experience experience
system cannot only provide proper reference, suggestions, and
supports, but also integrate the design, especially, the rules related Design
Expertise
to the design. So designers can avoid lots of mistakes in design and rules
the pre-production time can be reduced. By increasing the
efficiency and quality of the design and modeling, the total design Successful Failed
time can be reduced significantly. design design
case case
Personal
design case Peers
3. Knowledge base design case

Knowledge base is defined as a collection of experience, rules,

cases and other knowledge. In KBE design methods, knowledge
including expert knowledge, experience and product design stan-
dards, product specifications and successful previous designs will
be collected, sorted and summarized into a number of rules and
problem-solving strategies, and is placed in a particular form of
the document or database to constitute a knowledge base. This
kind of knowledge base can achieve storage and classification
management of product design knowledge and provide best
guidance and recommendations for designer during the design
process (Roh and Lee, 2007). Significant improvement of design in
efficiency and quality can be realized. Knowledge base design is
illustrated in Fig. 3, which consists of expert knowledge, experi-
ence, successful or failure cases, design criteria, standard and so
on. It stores, classifies and manages kinds of knowledge to
facilitate designer to use. Taking advantage of a variety of knowl-
edge established in knowledge base, the workload of the designers
is eased and human-calculation is greatly reduced, resulting in a
quicker and more rational design. Besides, repeated non-
innovation work can be greatly reduced.
As demonstrated by Sharma and Kim (2010), the shipbuilding
industry resembles a “construction industry” more than a “manu-
facturing industry”, so the previous designs play a significant role
in the new ship design and production. The knowledge base
according to previous designs mainly includes three parts, i.e.,
standardization, modularization, and integration and automation
of design and manufacturing process. Standardization means the
Fig. 3. Structure of knowledge base.
classification of ships, and a multi-level system is adopted based
on the purposes and other detailed information of the ships.
Modularization means the separation of particular ships into
modules that have strong similarity in design and production
processes, which enhances the availability of previous designs in
new ship design.
As an important part of knowledge base, some regulations of
CCS rules are introduced in this paper. The CCS rules made detailed
specifications for deck panels, bottom panels, side shell panels etc.,
mainly in the specifications of plate and stiffener properties (China
Classification Society CCS (2009)). Parts of the regulations are
discussed below.
If the ship bottom belongs to longitudinal skeleton, then the
plate thickness t of ship bottom plate within 0:4 L of mid-ship
area should be not smaller than any the following two values:
pffiffiffiffiffi
t 1 ¼ 0:043sðL þ 230Þ F b mm
pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
t 2 ¼ 5:6s ðd þ h1 ÞF b mm ð1Þ
where L, s and d are as listed in nomenclature; h equals maximum
of 0:26C and 0:2d; F b denotes reduction coefficient; C is a
 J. Cui, D. Wang / Ocean Engineering 72 (2013) 124–139 127

coefficient, if 90 ≤ L ≤ 300 m, target ship's scantlings and design rules formulations, expertise
  and so on. In this paper, the standard parts library for stiffeners'
300L 3=2
C ¼ 10:75 ð2Þ cross-section is stored in access sheets as shown in Fig. 4.
100
The minimum modulus W 0 of mid-ship section should be not
smaller than: 5. Design example
2 3
W 0 ¼ CL BðC b þ 0:7Þ cm ð3Þ 5.1. Design process explanations
Additionally, considering the effects of high-strength steel's
application in structural components, we introduced material In our previous paper, the design of containership midship
coefficient K L for longitudinal strength in Table 1, and K for local section is investigated by knowledge-based engineering (Cui et al.,
strength. Detailed specifications are shown as follows. 2012), and this paper is an extended study of the previous one.
Material coefficient of local strength K is defined as follows. The structural design based on knowledge-based engineering can
be divided into 3 steps. The first step is to establish a design
K ¼ maxf235=ReH ; 0:66g ð4Þ
knowledge base including design expertise, design rules, design
where ReH denotes the yielding stress for the material (MPa). examples and other useful knowledge. The second step is to choose
the optimum design model from design examples, and the final
step is to achieve automated design through a variety of knowledge
4. Standard parts library reasoning methods such as CBR and RBR. The design interface for
longitudinal structures and design parameters of target ship are
Although ship structures are very complicated and vary greatly shown in Fig. 5.
from each other, they are constructed by standard parts from the In the above interface, users input the target ship scantlings
same standard parts library. That is because the techniques and such as length, breadth, depth etc., and then the design system
manufacturing facilities restrains its products so that the parts will automatically choose an appropriate mother ship for reference
used in building ships are structures with discrete properties. in target ship's design. Thus the longitudinal structures' locations
Model components are stored as standard parametric model and boundaries will be set by appropriate topology adjustment
components in standards parts library. Once new structural parts according to target ship's scantlings. The remaining work is to
are introduced, the library will be updated as necessary. In the determine the final structural properties such as the thickness of
design process with CBR in this paper, the target ship's structural deck, the cross-section scantling of stiffeners and the application
component type will inherit the similar design case's (mother scope for each structural property. Generally speaking, there are
ship) while the component parameters will be adjusted due to two ways in dealing with this scantling design, i.e., the design
rules method and the interpolation method. Take the ship bottom
Table 1 plate as an example, the two methods are of different emphasis in
Material coefficient K L of longitudinal strength.
the implementation of design rules.
ReH ðN=mm2 Þ KL
(1) Design rules method:
235 1 In this method, we calculate the values of t 1 and t 2 according to
315 0.78
formula (1). Taking the material coefficient into accounts, both
355 0.72
390 0.68
the values of t 1 and t 2 will be adjusted and the maximum of
these two values will be chosen as the thickness of bottom plate.

Fig. 4. Standard parts library (stiffeners' cross-section).

128 J. Cui, D. Wang / Ocean Engineering 72 (2013) 124–139
Fig. 5. Interface of longitudinal structures design.
So in this method, we apply the rules directly to determine the
structural properties.
(2) Interpolation method:
In this method, first, we calculate the values of t 1 and t 2
according to formula (1). Taking the material coefficient into
accounts, both the values of t 1 and t 2 will be adjusted and we
can get the maximum of these two values. We call this the key
design factor. Then we select two ships from database for
reference, and the two ships are called mother ships. After
calculating the key design factors of the mother ships, we can
resort to interpolation of key design factors for the design of
target ship's bottom plate, as shown below. So in this method,
we apply the rules indirectly to determine the structural
properties.
kmother2 knew knew kmother1
t new ¼ t þ t ð5Þ
kmother2 kmother1 mother1 kmother2 kmother1 mother2
Meanwhile, users can choose to resort to Multi-Island Genetic
Algorithm (MIGA) for mid-ship section optimization. Additionally,
detailed parameters of this method can be specified by users, e.g.
islands number, population size, evolutional generation, mutation
probability etc. The typical flow chart of MIGA is shown in Fig. 16.
Hence, users can adjust this optimization at convenience accord-
ing to their needs. The design progress bar shows the whole design
progress, so it's very useful for users to check the design progress.
Fig. 6 shows the design process of longitudinal structures.
Similarly, design interface and process flow of transverse
structures are shown in Figs. 7 and 8, respectively. Design para-
meters of target ship are in accordance with Fig. 5.
5.2. Design results
When the design process is completed, we can get the design
results in Access tables. Then we convert design results information
into 3D model in Tribon and Finite Element model in MSC/Patran.
Then we resort to Nastran for direct strength analysis according to
CCS rules and Isight for reliability analysis. Software used in this
paper mainly includes: Tribon (by Kockums ComputerSystem AB),
Patran/Nastran (by MSC Software), Isight (by Dassault Systemes),
SJTU/Tribon (by Shanghai Jiao Tong University) etc.
5.2.1. Tribon modeling
After finishing the KBE design for container ship's cargo tank,
we exported the design data from KBE system as text files. With
original programs created in Python, we can automatically import
the design result into Tribon. The developed model of container
ship cargo tank and its shaded viewport are shown in Fig. 9.
5.2.2. FE modeling
After getting the Tribon model, we can export the model data
as XML files and then use the SJTU/Tribon software to convert the
Tribon model into MSC/Patran FE model. The XML file structure
and interface of SJTU/Tribon software can be found in Fig. 10.
After some settings corresponding to the FE model required, we
can build FE model in Patran software. Some elements may be
processed incorrectly and need to be modified. After dealing with
the misfit elements, we can get the FE model as shown in Fig. 11.
5.2.3. Load cases
After getting the geometric model of container ship's cargo
tank, we can specify the loads and boundary conditions corre-
sponding to each load cases concerned. According to China
Classification Society (CCS) (2005), the detailed model definition
is listed as follows.
(1) The model's longitudinal range is “1/2 cargo hold+1 cargo hold
+1/2 cargo hold”, and horizontal range the breadth of ship, and
 J. Cui, D. Wang / Ocean Engineering 72 (2013) 124–139 129

Assign
dimensions for
target ship

Mothership Select
database mothership

Abstracting
Mothership
mothership
database Topological
information
transformation

Inherit
structural
styles and
materials

Determining
structural
arrangements
for target ship

Design
method
selection

Determining Determining
Mothership scantlings for scantlings for
CCS Rules
database plates and plates and
stiffeners stiffeners

Select design
variables and
allowed values
for optimization

Optimization
with Genetic
Algorithm

Save design results

in database

Fig. 6. Process of longitudinal structures design.

vertical range the depth. Additionally, after FE analysis, only
structures in evaluation area are considered, as shown in
Fig. 12.
(2) The load cases that should be considered in FE analysis are
listed in Table 2.
Where ds denotes the structural draught, P w denotes wave
crest caused pressure.
In LC4 and LC5, the rolling angle takes the minimum of 30 deg
and tan 1 ð2ðDds Þ=BÞ; As to the container loads (20 ftor 40 ft)
in tank and on hatch cover, we take the maximum allowed weight
of containers; LC1G, LC2G and LC3G correspond to LC1, LC2 and
LC3, respectively, together with consideration of longitudinal
moment.
5.2.4. Loads and boundary conditions in load cases
a. Longitudinal bending moment includes the static moment and
wave induced moment. Static moment corresponds to the
maximum hogging moment in 0:4 L mid-ship range. In this
case, we can get an estimation of the static moment for target
ship by referring to the DNV's regulations on static moment
and mothership's static moment, as shown in formula (6).
M SðtarÞ
M SðtarÞ ¼ M SðmotherÞ ð6Þ
M SðmotherÞ
where M S denotes the corresponding static moment of mother-
ship or target ship and M S denotes the static hogging moment
defined by Det Norske Veritas (DNV) (2013) as follows.
M S ¼ ð0:12250:015C b ÞCL2 B kN=m ð7Þ
130 J. Cui, D. Wang / Ocean Engineering 72 (2013) 124–139

Fig. 7. Interface of transverse structures design.

(1) Additional pressure on bottom and side caused by local

Design results of wave loads can be seen from Fig. 14, ds denotes the
longitudinal structures waterline location; P s ¼ 0; P w ¼ 3:3C kN=m2 ; P b ¼
2:25C kN=m2 . Pressure in bilge is obtained by linear inter-
polation of side pressure and bottom pressure.
Determining
(2) In the rolling load cases (LC4, LC5), hydrostatic pressure
boundaries of
and inertia forces are calculated according the rolling angle.
transverse panels
(3) Longitudinal forces caused by longitudinal acceleration on
containers in cargo hold should be assigned on the corre-
Determining scantlings sponding locations of main transverse structures. The
and boundary acceleration concerned should be determined by the
Knowledge following formula.
connections of qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
base
transverse panels and al ¼ a2x þ ½ap ðzzrp Þ þ 10 sin φm 2 ð9Þ
stiffeners
where z denotes the distance of calculation point from
baseline and zrp denotes the vertical distance from rolling
Determining scantlings axis and pitching axis
  from the baseline,
for transverse girders D D ds
zrp ¼ min ; þ m ð10Þ
2 4 2
ax denotes pthe
ffiffiffiffiffiffi surging acceleration, which is determined
Tribon modelling by ax ¼ 2a0 C b .
pffiffiffi!
3C L V
Fig. 8. Process of transverse structures design.
Here a0 ¼ þ min 0:2; pffiffiffi ð11Þ
L 50 L

ap denotes the pitching angular acceleration, which is

On the other hand, hogging wave induced moment is calcu-
determined by
lated by the following formula.  
6:28 2
a p ¼ φm rad=s2 ð12Þ
M w ðþÞ ¼ þ 190MCL2 BC b  103 kN=m ð8Þ Tp
pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
where M denotes the moment distribution coefficient as shown where pitching period T p ¼ 1:8 L=10 s and maximum
in Fig. 13. L denotes the length of ship, and B denotes the breadth, pitching angle
and C b denotes the block coefficient (no smaller than 0.60 in  
0:25a0
calculations), C is a coefficient calculated according formula (2). φm ¼ min 0:14; rad ð13Þ
Cb
b. The local load cases mainly contain the following loads: light ship
weight; container loads; hydrostatic pressure caused by displace-
ment; additional pressure caused by local wave loads; long- c. Generally speaking, displacement restraints are assigned to
itudinal loads caused by the acceleration acted on containers. points marked in boundary A and B in Fig. 12.
 J. Cui, D. Wang / Ocean Engineering 72 (2013) 124–139 131

Fig. 9. Designed ship cargo tank and its shaded viewport in Tribon.

Fig. 10. XML file structure and interfaces of SJTU/Tribon software.

5.2.6. Buckling strength analysis

a. The object plate is defined as the rectangular plate with no

stiffeners in its field. Before buckling analysis, the thickness
should be modified according to the corrosion in Table 3.
The corresponding stress should be modified according to the
corrosion:

t
s′ ¼ s ð14Þ
tt c

where s′ denotes the modified compression stress used for

buckling analysis; s denotes the stress obtained from the FE
analysis; t denotes the building thickness in FE model; t c
denotes the corrosion thickness.
Fig. 11. Finite Element model in MSC/Patran. b. Critical buckling stress
Critical buckling stress with compression on short edge is
5.2.5. Yielding strength analysis determined by:
The mid-face stress is adopted as the evaluation stress for shell
 2
elements in yielding analysis, while the maximum combined π2E t
stress is adopted for evaluation of beam and bar elements. sxcr_e ¼ kx C 1 MPa ð15Þ
12ð1ν2 Þ s
132 J. Cui, D. Wang / Ocean Engineering 72 (2013) 124–139

Fig. 12. FE evaluation area and boundary details.

Table 2
Load cases with corresponding loads.

Load cases description Load cases ID External loads Container loads Load condition type

Static Wave In tank hold Over hatch cover

1 void space of 40 ft container LC1 ds (1) P w (2) Void location – Void location – Symmetric
LC1G Other locations 40 ft Other locations 40 ft
LC2 ds (1) P w (2) Void location – Void location 40 ft Symmetric
LC2G Other locations 40 ft Other locations 40 ft
LC3 ds (1) P w (2) Void location – Void location 20 ft Symmetric
LC3G Other locations 20 ft Other locations 20 ft
Rolling with 1 void space of 40 ft container LC4 ds (4) – Void location – Void location – Asymmetric
Other locations 40 ft Other locations 40 ft
Rolling LC5 ds (4) – All locations 20 ft All locations 20 ft Asymmetric
Surging LC6 – – Loads caused by Symmetric
accelerations of
40 ft containers

Fig. 13. Moment distribution coefficient M.

where kx denotes the buckling coefficient with compression on

short edge; C 1 denotes the boundary constraint coefficient; E
denotes the elastic modulus coefficient; ν denotes the Poisson's
ratio; t denotes the plate thickness with consideration of the
corrosion thickness; s denotes the short edge length; x denotes
the axis along long edge.
Critical buckling stress with compression on long edge and
critical buckling stress with shearing stress on edge are of the
similar forms. Coefficients kx , ky and kt are determined as
Table 4 (most common conditions listed). Fig. 14. Pressure distribution on hull.
 J. Cui, D. Wang / Ocean Engineering 72 (2013) 124–139 133

Boundary constraint coefficients C 1 (in accordance with com- 5.2.7. Results of strength analysis
pression on short edge and shearing), C 2 (in accordance with Fig. 15 shows the shaded drawing of stress distribution inside
compression on long edge) are determined as Table 5. the model.
Then we should modify the critical buckling stresses as follows. Where, sL denotes the longitudinal stress; sW denotes the
horizontal and vertical stress; se denotes the von-mises stress for
s xcr shell elements or maximum combined stress for beam elements
8 and bar elements. τ denotes the average shearing stress along web
>
> s xcr_e when s xcr_e ≤ s2S height; λ denotes the buckling safety factor.
> ðycr_eÞ
>
>
> ðycr_eÞ
>
< 0 1 From Tables 7 and 8, we can conclude that both design
ycr ¼ methods are feasible solutions according to strength analysis by
> B C
>
> sS B sS C sS FE method, including both yielding strength and buckling analysis.
>
> @1 s xcr_e Awhen s xcr_e 4 2
>
>
: ðycr_eÞ
ðycr_eÞ

5.2.8. Structural optimization

8
< τcr_e when τcr_e ≤ τ2S To reduce structural weight without causing strength failure,
τcr  
we employed Multi-Island Genetic Algorithm to optimize the
: τS 1 4ττcr_e
S
when τcr_e 4 τ2S
scantlings of key structures. These key design variables are chosen
by Sensitivity Analysis (SA), the method employed to calculate the
where sxcr , sycr , τcr are the critical buckling stresses after modifica- sensitivity of function f ðXÞ to parameter xi is shown as follows.
tion; sSpdenotes
ffiffiffi the critical yielding stress of material, while
τS ¼ sS = 3 denotes the critical shearing stress. ∂f ðXÞ Δf ðXÞ
Sðxi Þ ¼ ≈ ð16Þ
Considering the combination of compression loads, the buck- ∂xi Δxi
ling strength safety factor λ should be determined as Table 6. By selecting the most important variables affecting strength
where, restraints that are likely to fail, we can obtain the optimization
design variables. The design variables include thicknesses of
sy1 =sycr τxy =τcr τxy =τcr
k1 ¼ ; k2 ¼ ; k3 ¼ panels and scantlings of longitudinals and stiffeners, as shown in
sx1 =sxcr sx1 =sxcr sy1 =sycr
Table 9.
The weight optimization is finding the solution X ¼ ðx1 ; x2 ;
⋯; xn Þ for the following problem.
Table 3
Corrosion thickness in different locations. Minimize
weight ¼ f ðx1 ; x2 ; ⋯; xn Þ
Location Corrosion thickness t c (mm)
subject to
Deck, side tank deck 1
Longitudinal bulkhead plate 1 g 1 ðx1 ; x2 ; ⋯; xn Þ≥0
Side shell, bottom, inner bottom 1
double bottom, side tank structure 1
g 2 ðx1 ; x2 ; ⋯; xn Þ≥0
Transverse bulkhead 0 ⋮
Deck transverse torsion box 0 g m ðx1 ; x2 ; ⋯; xn Þ≥0

Table 4
Coefficients in corresponding loading conditions.

Compression on short edge 0 ≤φ ≤1

8:4
kx ¼
φ þ 1:1

Compression on long edge 0 ≤φ ≤1

 s2 2 2:1
ky ¼ 1 þ
l φ þ 1:1

Shearing on edge kt ¼ 5:34 þ 4 s 2

l
134 J. Cui, D. Wang / Ocean Engineering 72 (2013) 124–139

We employed the Multi-Island Genetic Algorithm (MIGA) to
optimize the structures in order to reduce the weight of ship cargo
tank. MIGA is built based on traditional genetic algorithm (TGA).
TGA get inspiration from Darwin's theory of evolution. Each
candidate solution for the optimization problem is encoded like
chromosome, then fitness for each solution is calculated which
considers both the target function and violations of restraints.
Candidates for the next generation are generated by choosing from
current population of individuals according to fitness, crossing
between individuals, and mutation of individuals. Finally the best
solution in the final generation is chosen as the optimum solution.
The character of MIGA different from TGA is that the individuals
are divided into several groups called “island”. All the operations of
TGA are carried out in each island, and the individuals selected in
each island are migrated to another island, and then TGA are
carried out again in each island with new individuals. As demon-
strated by Li et al. (2011), the iteration flow chart of MIGA is shown
in Fig. 16. The basic parameter settings in this paper are shown in
Table 10.
The optimization results for design rules method and Inter-
polation method are listed in Tables 11 and 12, respectively. After
optimization, we get a weight reduction of 0.3% and 1.7%, respec-
tively, for design rules method and Interpolation method, while
the structural strength satisfies the rules requirements.
We can conclude that the design solutions by design rules
method have economical advantage over that by design rules
method, i.e., it provides solutions with lower cost. Furthermore,
the solutions by Design Rules method are very close to the
optimum solutions in terms of design weight.

Table 5
Boundary constraint coefficients in different conditions.

Boundary conditions C1 C2
Population
End
initialization
In double bottom or side tank Elsewhere

“L” or “T” bar 1.1 1.3 1.2 YES

flat or flat-bulb bar 1 1.2 1.1
Fitness
NO
calculation and Completed?
Choosing

Table 6
Buckling strength safety factor in different loading conditions.
Copy,
Stress conditions Plate length width ratio New
Mutation and
pffiffiffi pffiffiffi Population
1≤ ≤ 2l l
4 2 Crossover
s s

X compression and Y compression 1 sxcr 1 sxcr

qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
1 þ k1 sx1 2 sx1
1 þ k1 Migration
X compression and shearing 1 sxcr Migrating? between
qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
2 s NO
1 þ k2 x1 islands
Y compression and shearing 1 sycr
qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
2 s
1 þ k3 y1 YES
X,Y compression and shearing 1 ffi ssxcr
pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
2 2 x1
1þk1 þk2
Fig. 16. The flow chart of Multi-Island Genetic Algorithm.

Fig. 15. FE analysis results.

 J. Cui, D. Wang / Ocean Engineering 72 (2013) 124–139 135

Table 7
Strength analysis results of solution from design rules method.

Structure name Checked load cases Allowed stress, N/mm2 Buckling safety factor

sL sW se τ λ

Bottom and inner bottom LC1G,2G,3G 252/282 – – – 1.12/1.0

LC1,2,3 118/128 123/179 – – –
Double bottom longitudinal stringer LC1G,2G,3G 252/282 – 262/301 – 1.10/1.0
LC1,2,3 118/128 – 170/231 96/115 –
Double bottom floor and transverse frame LC1,2,3,4,5 – – 159/231 75/115 1.36/1.1
Side shell and longitudinal bulkhead LC1G,2G,3G – – – – 1.05/1.0
LC1,2,3,4,5 – 123/179 – 74/115 –
Longitudinal platform in side tank LC1G,2G,3G – – – – 1.49/1.0
LC1,2,3,4,5 72/128 – 137/231 79/115 –
Transverse bulkhead plate LC1,2,3 – 52/179 123/231 60/115 1.17/1.1
Transverse bulkhead web LC1,2,3 – 121/179 123/231 – 1.41/1.1
LC4,5 – 101/179 106/231 – –
LC6 – – 64/109 – –
Deck transverse torsion box LC4,5 – 93/194 108/250 57/125 1.38/1.1
LC6 – – 149/171;113/118 – –
Bracket toes LC1,2,3,4,5,6 – – 111/282 – –
Longitudinals & stiffeners LC1,2,3,4,5,6 – – 225/231 – –

Table 8
Strength analysis results of solution from Interpolation method.

Structure name Checked load cases Allowed stress, N=mm2 Buckling safety factor

sL sW se τ λ

Bottom and inner bottom LC1G,2G,3G 245/282 – – – 1.17/1.0

LC1,2,3 101/128 95/179 – – –
Double bottom longitudinal stringer LC1G,2G,3G 245/282 – 256/301 – 1.14/1.0
LC1,2,3 101/128 – 169/231 95/115 –
Double bottom floor and transverse frame LC1,2,3,4,5 – – 158/231 75/115 1.34/1.1
Side shell and longitudinal bulkhead LC1G,2G,3G – – – – 1.08/1.0
LC1,2,3,4,5 – 95/179 – 73/115 –
Longitudinal platform in side tank LC1G,2G,3G – – – – 1.52/1.0
LC1,2,3,4,5 72/128 – 134/231 77/115 –
Transverse bulkhead plate LC1,2,3 – 100/179 122/231 60/115 1.19/1.1
Transverse bulkhead web LC1,2,3 – 120/179 122/231 – 1.42/1.1
LC4,5 – 100/179 105/231 – –
LC6 – – 64/109 – –
Deck transverse torsion box LC4,5 – 93/194 107/250 57/125 1.38/1.1
LC6 – – 149/171; 111/118 – –
Bracket toes LC1,2,3,4,5,6 – – 111/282 – –
Longitudinals & stiffeners LC1,2,3,4,5,6 – – 220/231 – –

Table 9 Table 10
Design variables in structural optimization. Parameter settings in Multi-Island Genetic
Algorithm.
shell_bottom Thickness of bottom plate
shell_coam_flat Thickness of coaming flat plate Number of generations 10
shell_coam_web Thickness of coaming web plate Number of Islands 5
shell_inner_bottom Thickness of inner bottom plate Rate of crossover 1
shell_lbhd2 Thickness of longitudinal bulkhead above inner bottom Rate of migration 0.01
at y ¼ 7 11580 Rate of mutation 0.01
shell_strg_11580 Thickness of longitudinal bulkhead under inner bottom Sub-population size 10
at y ¼ 7 11580
shell_strg_4026 Thickness of longitudinal stringer at y ¼ 7 4026
shell_transtors_2 Thickness of transverse torsion box plate at ends along
breadth 5.2.9. Reliability analysis
shell_transtors_3 Thickness of transverse torsion box plate in middle of Due to the corrosion in sea water, the structural design
breadth
shell_wtbhd_4 Thickness of lower part of water tight bulkhead
scantlings are subject to reduction. To find the important design
stiff_bottom_2 Scantling of longitudinal section in bottom plate variables, we employed the sensitivity analysis to assess the
stiff_inner_2 Scantling of longitudinal section in inner bottom plate strength restraints that are most likely to fail (according to FE
stiff_lbl_3 Scantling of longitudinal section between 12196 and results) in the corrosion area. The results are shown in Fig. 17.
14800 platform
From the above figures, we can find that one or two specific
stiff_lbl_5 Scantling of longitudinal section between 6988 and 9592
platform design variables play the dominating role in the corresponding
strength restraint. So we can determine the design variables.
136 J. Cui, D. Wang / Ocean Engineering 72 (2013) 124–139

Table 11 shell_inner_bottom thickness of inner bottom;

Optimization results of solution from design rules method. shell_lbhd2 thickness of longitudinal bulkhead;
shell_strg_4026 thickness of stringer at location of y ¼ 7 4026;
Variables and targets Initial design Optimum design
shell_bottom thickness of bottom;
shell_bottom 21 mm 21 mm shell_strg_11580 thickness of stringer at location of y ¼ 7 11580.
shell_coam_flat 42 mm 50 mm
shell_coam_web 55 mm 48 mm In Reliability Analysis, each of the chosen design variables
shell_inner_bottom 13 mm 13 mm
shell_lbhd2 15 mm 15 mm
follows the single-sided Gaussian distribution, and lower bounds
shell_strg_11580 12 mm 13 mm are assigned in case of minus thicknesses. As a case study, we set
shell_strg_4026 12 mm 14 mm the standard deviation of the variable xi as si ¼ 0:05μi , where μi is
shell_transtors_2 15 mm 14 mm the mean value of xi , i.e., μi is the design value (also upper bound
shell_transtors_3 12 mm 13 mm
of xi in this case study). The probability density function is shown
shell_wtbhd_4 12 mm 12 mm
stiff_bottom_2 L200  120  16  16 L200  120  14  14 as the shaded part in Fig. 18.
stiff_inner_2 L180  120  16  16 L180  120  16  16 We employed the Monte Carlo Simulation to simulate the
stiff_lbl_3 L120  80  12  12 L140  90  10  10 performance of structures corresponding to the corrosion
stiff_lbl_5 L200  125  12  12 L200  90  9  13 uncertainty of structural scantlings. MCS methods are a broad
stiff_stringer_1458 L200  90  9  12 L180  120  14  14
Total Mass 2663 t 2656 t
class of computational algorithms that rely on random sampling
to obtain numerical results. They are often used in physical and
mathematical problems and are most suited to be applied when
it is impossible to obtain a closed-form expression or infeasible
Table 12 to apply a deterministic algorithm. MCS is mainly used in three
Optimization results of solution from Interpolation method. distinct problems: optimization, numerical integration and
generation of samples from a probability distribution. In this
Variables and targets Initial design Optimum design
paper, MCS is used for the last purpose. The key factor in this
shell_bottom 22 mm 20 mm
study is choosing the appropriate sampling methods. The Latin
shell_coam_flat 55 mm 51 mm Hypercube technique is employed to address the sampling
shell_coam_web 50 mm 40 mm problem in Monte Carlo Simulation. It's a class of experimental
shell_inner_bottom 13 mm 14 mm designs that efficiently samples large design spaces. The design
shell_lbhd2 15 mm 15 mm
space for each factor is divided to several levels according to the
shell_strg_11580 12 mm 13 mm
shell_strg_4026 12 mm 12 mm probability of each factor. These levels are randomly combined
shell_transtors_2 15 mm 18 mm to specify the design points. The detailed implementation
shell_transtors_3 12 mm 12 mm methods are as demonstrated by Olsson et al. (2003). Then
shell_wtbhd_4 12 mm 15 mm
based on the MCS results, we obtain the approximation curves
stiff_bottom_2 L250  160  18  18 L250  100  12  12
stiff_inner_2 L180  120  16  16 L180  110  12  12
for the probability density of desired features (e.g. the main
stiff_lbl_3 L120  80  12  12 L125  80  8  8 failure constraints) with minimum square error. And finally we
stiff_lbl_5 L200  125  12  12 get the probability distribution of the main failure restraints
stiff_stringer_1458 L200  90  9  12 L180  120  16  16 according to minimum square error principle, as shown in
Total Mass 2698 t 2652 t
Figs. 19 and 20.

Fig. 17. Sensitivity analysis results.

 J. Cui, D. Wang / Ocean Engineering 72 (2013) 124–139 137

From the Sensitivity Analysis results, we can see that the safety we can assume that the safety factors are also independent from
factors depends mostly on one or two design variables, i.e., λinner  each other, so we can simplify the reliability problem as follows.
shell_inner_bottom; λlbhd2  shell_lbhd2;
P saf e ¼ Pðλinner ≥1 and λlbhd2 ≥1 and λlsothers ≥1 and λstrg_11580 ≥1
λlsothers  shell_strg_4026, shell_bottom; λstrg_11580  shell_strg_
and sbeam ≤231Þ
11580;
≅Pðλinner ≥1Þ  Pðλlbhd2 ≥1Þ  Pðλlsothers ≥1Þ  Pðλstrg_11580 ≥1Þ
sbeam  shell_bottom: Pðsbeam ≤231Þ ð17Þ

We can see that the safety factors depend on different design By calculating the corresponding area under probability density
variables, as the design variables are independent from each other, function curve, we can get that Pðλinner ≥1Þ ¼ 99:6%; Pðλlbhd2 ≥1Þ ¼
98:0%; Pðλlsothers ≥1Þ ¼ 100%;
Pðλstrg_11580 ≥1Þ ¼ 99:5%; and Pðsbeam ≤231Þ ¼ 83:8% for design
probability density function fi(x)

rules method. Hence we can calculate the reliability of structures

as follows,
P saf e ¼ 0:996  0:980  1:0  0:995  0:838 ¼ 81:4%:

2σi Similarly, we can get the information for Interpolation method

as follows,
Pðλinner ≥1Þ ¼ 100%; Pðλlbhd2 ≥1Þ ¼ 99:4%; Pðλlsothers ≥1Þ ¼ 100%
Pðλstrg_11580 ≥1Þ ¼ 100%; and Pðsbeam ≤ 231Þ ¼ 97:8% with the
reliability of the structures being

lower limit ai mean value μi P saf e ¼ 1:0  0:994  1:0  1:0  0:978 ¼ 97:2%:
design variable xi
We can conclude that the design solutions by Interpolation
Fig. 18. Probability density function of variable. method have much greater reliability than that by design rules

Probability distribution of inner bottom buckling safety factor Probability distribution of longitudinal bulkhead buckling safety factor
6 10
9
Probability distribution
Probability distribution

5
8
Monte Carlo Simulation points Monte Carlo Simulation points
4 Minmum square error fitting 7
Minmum square error fitting
6
3 5
4
2
3
1 2
1
0 0
1 1.05 1.1 1.15 1.2 1.25 1.3 1.35 0.95 1 1.05 1.1 1.15 1.2
buckling safety factor λinner buckling safety factor λIbhd2

Probability distribution of longitudinal stringer2 buckling safety factor

Probability distribution of longitudinal stringer buckling safety factor
10 9
9
Probability distribution

Probability distribution

8
8
7
7 Monte Carlo Simulation points
6 Minmum square error fitting
6
5
5
4 4
3 3
2 2
1 1
0 0
1.08 1.1 1.12 1.14 1.16 1.18 1.2 1.22 1.24 1.26 1.28 1 1.05 1.1 1.15 1.2 1.25
buckling safety factor λlsothers buckling safety factor λstrg-11580

Probability distribution of maximum von-mises stress in longitudinals and stiffeners

0.18
Probability distribution

0.16
0.14 Monte Carlo Simulation points
0.12 Minmum square error fitting
0.1
0.08
0.06
0.04
0.02
0
224 226 228 230 232 234 236 238
stress in longitudinals and stiffeners σbeam

Fig. 19. Probability density function of responses in design rules method.

138 J. Cui, D. Wang / Ocean Engineering 72 (2013) 124–139

Probability distribution of inner bottom buckling safety factor Probability distribution of longitudinal bulkhead buckling safety factor
9
6

Probability distribution
Probability distribution

8
5 Monte Carlo Simulation points 7 Monte Carlo Simulation points
Minmum square error fitting
6 Minmum square error fitting
4
5
3 4
2 3
2
1
1
0 0
1.05 1.1 1.15 1.2 1.25 1.3 1.35 1.4 1 1.05 1.1 1.15 1.2 1.25
buckling safety factor λinner buckling safety factor λIbhd2

Probability distribution of longitudinal stringer2 buckling safety factor Probability distribution of longitudinal stringer buckling safety factor

12 9
Probability distribution

Probability distribution
8
10
7
Monte Carlo Simulation points
8 6 Monte Carlo Simulation points
Minmum square error fitting
Minmum square error fitting
5
6
4
4 3
2
2
1
0 0
1.15 1.2 1.25 1.3 1 1.05 1.1 1.15 1.2 1.25 1.3
buckling safety factor λIsothers buckling safety factor λstrg-11580

Probability distribution of maximum von-mises stress in longitudinals and stiffeners

0.16
Probability distribution

0.14
0.12 Monte Carlo Simulation points
0.1 Minmum square error fitting

0.08
0.06
0.04
0.02
0
220 222 224 226 228 230 232 234
stress in stiffeners and longitudinals σbeam

Fig. 20. Probability density function of responses in Interpolation method.

method, i.e., it provides better robustness in terms of sea water methodology. As expertise and design considerations are dealt
caused corrosion uncertainties. The solutions by Interpolation with as implicit knowledge, this design idea may be more
method may represent the considerations of robust design practical.
methodology.

This paper shows the great advantages of knowledge-based

6. Conclusions engineering in ship structural design. Utilizing both knowledge
base and the standard parts library, together with the use of Case-
This study is an application of knowledge-based engineering in Based Reasoning and Rules-Based Reasoning methods, this paper
ship structural design. We introduced two different design meth- shows the high design efficiency without introducing any human-
ods, i.e., the design rules method and Interpolation method. Both caused calculation mistakes.
methods get feasible solutions according to direct strength analy- Furthermore, design results are automatically saved in knowl-
sis (including yielding strength analysis and buckling strength edge base without losing any important information and available
analysis). However, they have different advantages as follows. for the next design task; both the knowledge base and the
standard parts library can be updated by users, and ready to
(1) The design rules method can provide results with lower cost. accept more and more expertise, new design knowledge and
Compared with the Interpolation method, it can get solutions standard parts. Additionally, designers are liberated to do more
closer to the optimum. So it has economical advantage over creative work other than repeated non-creative but complicated
the latter in terms of the deterministic design. work, e.g. CAD modeling and repetitive calculations.
(2) The Interpolation method can provide results with higher cost With more and more popular use of high performance com-
than design rules method. However, according to reliability puters, the design ideas of knowledge-based engineering can be
analysis results in the case study, it provides design solutions well performed and introduced into the traditional ship design
with much better reliability than the latter. Hence The Inter- industry, hence the application of knowledge-based engineering
polation method may represent the ideas of robust design should be an important issue in future ship design.
 J. Cui, D. Wang / Ocean Engineering 72 (2013) 124–139
Acknowledgements
The present paper is supported by both the project of Ministry
of Education and Finance (No. 200512) and the project of the State
Key Laboratory of ocean engineering (GKZD010053-10).
References
Olsson, A., Sandberg, G., Dahlblom, O., 2003. On Latin hypercube sampling for
structural reliability analysis. Struct. Saf. 25 (1), 47–68.
Chapman, C.B., Pinfold, M., 2001. The application of a knowledge based engineering
approach to the rapid design and analysis of an automotive structure. Adv. Eng.
Software 32, 903–912.
China Classification Society (CCS), 2005. Guidelines for Direct Strength Analysis of
Container Ship. China Communications Press.
China Classification Society (CCS), 2009. Rules and Regulations for the Construction
and Classification of Sea-going Steel Ships. China Communications Press.
Det Norske Veritas (DNV), 2013. Rules for Classification of Ships. Det Norske Veritas
AS, (DNV).
Lee, Dongkon, 2006. Knowledge-based system for safety control of damaged ship.
Knowl. Based Syst. 19, 187–191.
Helvacioglu, S, Insel, M, 2003. An expert system approach to container ship layout
design. Int. Shipbuilding Prog. 50, 19–34.
Li, Huili, Lang, Lihui, Zhang, Jianyong, Yang, Huai, 2011. Cost optimization method of
large-scale prestressed wire winded framework on Multiple-Island Genetic
Algorithm. Chin. J. Aeronaut. 24 (5), 673–680.
139
Jin-feng Chen, He-zhen Yang, Ru-hong Jiang, De-yu Wang, 2009. Application of
knowledge-based engineering methods for hull structure member design.
In: International Conference on Computer Application in Shipbuilding. pp. 87–93.
Cui, Jin-ju, Wang, De-yu, Xia, Li-juan, Ma, Chong, 2012. Mid-ship section structural
design and optimization based on knowledge based engineering. J. Shanghai
Jiao Tong Univ. 46, 368–373.
Kulon, J., Mynors, D.J., Broomhead, P., 2006. A knowledge-based engineering design
tool for metal forging. J. Mater. Process. Technol. 177, 331–335.
Roh, M.I., Lee, K.Y., 2007. Generation of the 3D CAD model of the hull structure at
the initial ship design stage and its application. Comput. Ind. 58, 539–557.
Cai, Qian-ya, Qiu, Yong-ming, Lu, Wei-dong, 1997. Knowledge based CAD system for
containership midship section structural design. J. Shanghai Jiao Tong Univ. 31,
61–64.
Sharma, R., Kim, Tae-wan, 2010. Development of a logic-based product life-cycle
management (LBPLM) System for Shipbuilding Industry—Conceptual Develop-
ment. J. Ship Prod. Des. 26 (4), 231–251.
Sharma, R., Kim, Tae-wan, Lee Storch, Richard, Hopman, Hans J.J., Ove Erikstad,
Stein, 2012. Challenges in computer applications for ship and floating structure
design and analysis. Comput. Aided Des. 44 (3), 166–185.
Kim, Tae-wan, Lee Storch, Richard, Hopman, Hans J.J., Ove Erikstad, Stein, 2012.
Editorial: applications in ship and floating structure design and analysis.
Comput. Aided Des. 44 (3), 163–165.
Zhou, X.H., Qiu, Y., Hua, G., 2007. A feasible approach to the integration of CAD and
CAPP. Comput. Aided Des. 39, 324–338.
Zhao, Zhen, 2002. Research on KBE Technologies for Intelligent Blanking Process
Planning facing Theory and System of Innovative Design. Shanghai Jiao Tong
University Doctorate Dissertation.