Journal of Ocean Engineering and Science 8 (2023) 15–32

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Ocean Engineering and Science

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/joes

An artificial intelligence-aided design (AIAD) of ship hull structures

Yu Ao a,b, Yunbo Li a,c, Jiaye Gong c, Shaofan Li b,∗
a
College Of Shipbuilding Engineering, Harbin Engineering University, China
b
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of California, Berkeley, CA 94720, USA
c
College of Ocean Science and Engineering, Shanghai Maritime University, China

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Ship-hull design is a complex process because the any slight local alteration in ship hull structure may
Received 15 July 2021 significantly change the hydrostatic and hydrodynamic performances of a ship. To find the optimum hull
Revised 18 September 2021
shape under the design requirements, the state-of-art of ship hull design combines computational fluid
Accepted 9 November 2021
dynamics computation with geometric modeling. However, this process is very computationally intensive,
Available online 18 November 2021
which is only suitable at the final stage of the design process. To narrow down the design parameter
Keywords: space, in this work, we have developed an AI-based deep learning neural network to realize a real-time
Artificial intelligence prediction of the total resistance of the ship-hull structure in its initial design process. In this work,
Deep learning neural network we have demonstrated how to use the developed DNN model to carry out the initial ship hull design.
Hull deformation The validation results showed that the deep learning model could accurately predict the ship hull’s total
Machine learning resistance accurately after being trained, where the average error of all samples in the testing dataset is
Ship hull design
lower than 4%. Simultaneously, the trained deep learning model can predict the hip’s performances in
Total resistance
real-time by inputting geometric modification parameters without tedious preprocessing and calculation
processes. The machine learning approach in ship hull design proposed in this work is the first step
towards the artificial intelligence-aided design in naval architectures.
© 2021 Shanghai Jiaotong University. Published by Elsevier B.V.
This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/)

1. Introduction with the objective to achieve the best hydrodynamic performances.

The most critical stage in shipbuilding is its design stage in ship
engineering [1,2]. The ship designer must consider all technical re-
quirements from the shipowners as well as the performance re-
quirements comprehensively [3]. The whole ship design process
is a very complex process. When processing a ship design pro-
cess, what designers often encounter are complex design steps and
massive workloads. In detail, the whole design process can be di-
vided into five steps, including concept design, initial design, ba-
sic design, detail design, and manufacturing design. Each design
stage has its purpose. For instance, in the conceptual design stage,
the ship’s specifications and purpose need to be determined, while
in the preliminary design, the hull form needs to be determined.
Since the hull shape form has a decisive influence on the ship’s
sailing performance and seakeeping performance, the initial design
is a very critical design stage e.g. [4].
The initial ship hull design [5] is a process of designing and
evaluating hull forms to determine the final optimal hull structure,
∗
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: shaofan@berkeley.edu (S. Li).
The design process of the hull form is a try-and-error or cyclic
process. Designers usually need to select an initial hull model to
avoid a heavy modeling process. Based on the initial hull model,
designers can obtain the optimal solutions by looping over geome-
try modification and performance evaluation [6]. The hull form de-
sign process may require a large workload and cost much time and
resources, which depends not only on the hull modification but
also on the performance evaluation cost. After designers choose a
set of geometric parameters for a possible new hull, the designer
must evaluate the hydrodynamic/hydrostatic performance of the
ship hull. Take resistance calculation as an example: the Compu-
tational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) calculations, e.g. [7], often may cost
several hours or even a whole day, not to mention the modeling
time cost. Thus, in order to shorten the time required for the hull
form design, the best choice is to reduce the workload of the geo-
metric modification process and the calculation process.
The objective of the ship performance evaluation process is to
evaluate the performance of the designed hull form. Therefore, if
we can use a more effective method to evaluate the performances
of the hull form, the time required for hull design can be signifi-
cantly shortened and less dependent on the designers’ experiences.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joes.2021.11.003
2468-0133/© 2021 Shanghai Jiaotong University. Published by Elsevier B.V. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/)
Y. Ao, Y. Li, J. Gong et al.
Often time, it is just impossible to go through all the possible de-
sign scenariosbecause of the time or the limitation of designers’
experience. However, if we are able to find the mappings of all
possible hull forms in the design space to the resistance value, we
may further simplify and optimize the hull form design process in
the largest possible design space, and hence when designers de-
signed a new hull form, they can immediately find the relation-
ship between the ship performance and ship hull geometric shape,
saving much time, labor, experience, and cost. Then, the question is
how to find the complete mapping between various hull forms and
their performances. The mapping relation between the hull form
and its performance is complicated, nonlinear, and non-intuitive
in general. The first reason is that more than hundreds and even
thousands of parameters are required to describe a ship hull form,
which leads to the complexity of the mapping. The second reason
is that this mapping relation is implicitly embedded in a super-
manifold with thousands of dimensions, requiring many different
implicit representations to describe such mapping relation, if it
is explainable and rationalizable. Even if it may be explainable,
it may still be difficult for us to obtain an explicit mathematical
model that can meet the design accuracy requirements.
Deep Learning (DL) technology, in particular the deep neural
network (DNN) [8], is a class of artificial intelligence-based ma-
chine learning methods [9]. DNN is a powerful method, which has
complex network structures and multiple layers of artificial neu-
ral networks. In some cases, DNN can outperform human expert
analysis and performance. Recently, not limited to the computer
science where it was initially located, DL technology has success-
fully applied in other fields, including computer vision, audio pro-
cessing, natural language processing, and search engines. The main
advantage of DL technology is that it enables machines to improve
their decision process based on both data as well as machine ex-
perience. Furthermore, in the past few years, DL technology has
become one of the most versatile and efficient tools for handling
classification and regression tasks [10,11].
As a powerful machine learning tool, DL technology can extract
the complicated relationship between input data and output data
by feeding a DL model with a sample dataset e.g. [12,13]. Through
the training process, the trained DL model can use the uncovered
hidden relationship to make predictions. Thus, DL technology is
very suitable for dealing with the task that needs to deduce the
mapping between two vectors since it allows a DL model to learn
from the sample dataset and deduce the mapping relationships.
In some recent studies, based on DL technology, some re-
searchers have used data-driven approaches to solve many prob-
lems in naval architecture engineering. Representatively, Milaković
et al. [14] developed a machine learning-based method for pre-
dicting ship speed profile in a complex ice field under the situ-
ation that computational methods have difficulties capturing the
entire complexity of the ship-ice interaction process. Wackers et al.
[15] used a machine learning approach to reduce the computa-
tional effort of CFD simulations. Meanwhile, there have been many
researches adopting DL technology to aid engineering design due
to its convenience. For instance, Gunpinar et al. [16] adopted re-
gression/neural network methods to establish a design support
system for car side silhouette design. Shaeffer et al. [17] used a ma-
chine learning approach to regress existing data to obtain a model
to assist the early-stage of the hull form design.
In current literature, most reported researches use the principal
dimensions of the hull as the input parameters of ANN to forecast
its performance. For instance, Cepowski et al. [18] established a DL
model to estimate added resistance of ships based on the principal
dimensions of the hull. Grabowska et al. [19] forecast realized the
prediction of hull’s resistance based on parameters with the high-
est influence by adopting DL models. However, in the initial design
stage, both the principal dimensions and the hull surface should
16
Journal of Ocean Engineering and Science 8 (2023) 15–32
be a design target, which is rarely considered in the current ap-
plication of DL technology in hull design. A DL model which can
only conduct the relationship between the principal dimensions of
the hull and its performances cannot satisfy the ship designer’s re-
quirements.
With the rapid developments of artificial intelligence technol-
ogy, it is possible to use DL-based machine learning methods to ef-
ficiently obtain the mapping relationship between any hull form in
the design space and the performance results required in the per-
formance evaluation stage by revealing the inner relationships of a
sample dataset. In detail, following the ideas of DL technology, we
need to prepare a dataset that contains a suitable amount of sam-
ples located in the designers-required design space to show map-
ping style between hull forms and corresponding evaluated per-
formance, which will be further used to train the DL model. Af-
ter establishing the dataset, we can establish an FCNN model with
correct hyperparameters to ensure the model is suitable for the
current mission, analyze and reveal internal mapping relationships
between hull form and corresponding performance, and store the
relationships in the model for further use. Once the results pre-
dicted by the DL model are close enough to the actual result to
satisfy design requirements, then designers can adopt it to evalu-
ate the performances in real-time, which will save the workload in
the design loop process.
Simply put, the application of DL technology in ship engineer-
ing to assist the ship design can be treated as transforming the
ship design process into a ship selection process, making sure de-
signers can immediately finish the performance evaluation pro-
cess after they finish the geometry modification process to get the
hull form. The main reason for using DL technology-based method
rather than other machine learning methods is that DL technology-
based machine learning method has high accuracy and good adapt-
ability to very complicated problems, especially for an object like
a hull form, a very complex object, which will need many param-
eters to express a complete hull form. Based on DL technology, we
can create a large enough model to discover the mapping relation-
ships among all parameters used to describe a ship hull form and
its hydrodynamic performance.
In this work, we have developed a Deep Learning Neural Net-
work model for the initial design of ship hulls. In specific, we con-
struct a Fully Connected Neural Network (FCNN) model to predict
and evaluate the total resistance for hull form based on geome-
try modification parameters, which can forecast not only the per-
formance of hulls with different principal dimensions but also the
performance of hulls with different hull forms. We believe the DL
model establishment process in this work provides an effective and
practical solution to assist the hull form at its initial design stage.
It is noted that the data-driven design method proposed in this
work aims to save ship designers’ workload and time cost in the
initial design stage. Compared with other design-assistant meth-
ods, such as structural optimization methods [20,21], by adopting
the method proposed in this paper, ship designers can immediately
find the suitable or optimal hull shape and hence the hydrody-
namics/hydrostatic performance of hulls by adjusting the geometry
modification parameters. However, this method sacrifices the cal-
culation accuracy and ignores the inner structure, making it only
suitable to be used in the initial design stage.
The paper is organized as follows. In the rest of the paper, we
first briefly introduce the method of expressing the hull form as
geometry modification parameters. We then outline the process
for gathering the required sample data to train the deep learn-
ing model before demonstrating the trained DL model, followed
by the detailed process about the hyperparameters tuning process
and model training process. Next is followed by several examples
demonstrating how to use the proposed deep learning model to
predict the total resistance of hull structures. Specifically, based
Y. Ao, Y. Li, J. Gong et al.
Fig. 1. The relationship between the global coordinate system and the lattice coor-
dinate system.
on several forms of hull structures located in design space rather
than in the sample dataset, we compare the prediction result of
the deep learning model with the evaluation result of the potential
flow method. Through these cases, we seek to demonstrate that
the deep learning technology-based prediction method proposed in
this work can accurately predict the hull form performance based
on a set of geometry modification parameters, and hence assisting
the hull form design process.
2. Geometry modification expression method
2.1. Free-form deformation (FFD)
Free-Form Deformation (FFD) is a geometric modification tech-
nique mainly used to deal with the deformation of rigid objects.
Sederberg and Parry developed FFD in 1986 [22], where they used
the ternary tensor product Bernstein polynomial control a Bézier
volume in R3 space. In FFD, all the deformation processes hap-
pened in a local parametric normalized coordinate system, which
follows Eq. (1), whose boundary is the lattice space.
X (s, t, u ) = L0 + sS + t T + uU
where
• L0 - the origin of the lattice coordinate system,
• S, T , U - the edge vectors along the axes of the local coordinate
system (S,T,U),
• s, t, u - coordinate values in the local coordinate system, lies in
(0,1) for any point located at the interior of the lattice space.
All control points are attached to the pre-defined lattice coordi-
nate system, with an artificially determined distribution indepen-
dent of the shape of the rigid object. An evenly distributed control
point was adopted here, which is also the most commonly used
distribution. In the even distribution, the lattice space will be di-
vided into l plane, m planes, and n planes in the direction of s-
axis, t-axis, and u-axis, respectively, where the intersection point
of every three planes constitutes a control point. The relationship
between the global coordinate system and the lattice coordinate
system can be seen in Fig. 1. Eq. (2) shows the position of control
point P in the lattice space, which is formed by the intersection of
the ith plane on the s-axis, the jth plane on the t-axis, and the kth
plane on the u-axis,
i j k
Li jk = L0 + S + T + U .
l m n the y-axis as the geometry modification object, which can be done
The position of all rigid object points will be changed based on
the total influence from all the control points, where the influence
weight is inversely proportional to the distance the object point
and the control point. Taking the object point P as an example, we
Journal of Ocean Engineering and Science 8 (2023) 15–32
Table 1
Basic geometric parameters of the initial hull form model.
Geometric parameters Scaled hull model
Length between perpendiculars 7.279 m
Breadth 0.703 m
Draft 0.342 m
Wetted surface area 9.438 m2
Design speed 2.196 m/s
show the relationship between the position after deformation and
the initial position in Eq. (3),
 

L 
M 
N
P=ψ −1
blmn (ψ (P 0 ))μlmn (3)
l=0 m=0 n=0
where:
• ψ - the transformation from real space to lattice space,
• ψ −1 - the inverse transformation from lattice space to real
space,
• blmn - Bernstein polynomials,
• P 0 - the initial position of the point.
As shown in Eq. (3), due to the characteristics of the Bézier
polynomials, the influence weight of a control point to an object
point will change based on the distance, which leads that with
the increase of the distance, the influence weight of the control
point to the object point decreases quickly, making a control point
can only significant modify nearby part of the object. The charac-
teristic of distance determines the influence weight of the control
point ensures that one can adjust the shape of the object more in-
tuitively.
The application of FFD used in this work is based on the PyGem
framework [23], which is a python library using Free-Form Defor-
mation (FFD), Radial Basis Functions (RBF), and Inverse Distance
Weighting (IDW) to parametrize and morph complex geometries.
2.2. Geometry modification process of hull form
(1)
In the hull form design process, designers usually select an ini-
tial hull form model and modify the initial model to find a new
hull form to avoid a massive modeling process. In this paper, we
select the hull form of the KRISO Container Ship (KCS), which
was developed by the Korean Maritime and Ocean Engineering Re-
search Institute (KMOERI), as the initial hull form. To facilitate the
accuracy verification of the calculation program used to generate
samples in the dataset, the hull form used in this paper is a 1:31.6
scale model. As one of the most commonly used ship models, KCS
has been used as benchmarks for many calculation methods for its
structure, lines plan, and model test results are open to the public.
Table 1 shows the basic geometric parameters of the scaled KCS
hull form model used in this paper.
In this work, we use the right-handed coordinate system to de-
scribe the hull form model and its deformation range, where the
x-axis parallel with the hull length direction and the y-axis parallel
with the hull width direction. Fig. 1 shows the hull structure po-
sition in a fixed coordinate system. Consider that a hull is a sym-
metrical object, we only consider half of the hull model in order
to reduce the number of geometry modification parameters, which
will decrease half the number of geometry modification parame-
ters. In this work, we selected the hull in the negative direction of
(2)
by doing a mirroring process to obtain the complete hull model.
In this work, the geometry modification process of hull form
has been transformed into a set of geometry modification param-
eters by combining the linear transformation method and the FFD
17
Y. Ao, Y. Li, J. Gong et al.
technique. In detail, the linear transformation method was adopted
to adjust the principal dimensions and sailing speed of the hull
form model, and the FFD technique was adopted to modify the ge-
ometry shape of the hull form, which leads to two kinds of geome-
try modification parameters. The geometry modification process of
hull form in this paper has been divided into three sub-stages for
more effortless intuitive operation.
We called the first sub-stage of the geometry modification pro-
cess the hull stretch stage, where only the length, width, and
height will be changed. Suppose that the initial hull model has
been transformed to a hull point set So, whose density is dense
enough to make the result predicted by the calculation method
used satisfies the engineering requirements. Then the relationship
between the intermediate hull point set Se after the first sub-stage
and the initial hull point set So is shown in Eq. (4).
⎡ ⎤
x1 y1 z1
⎢ .. ⎥ points, which follows Eq. (7).
⎢ . ⎥ αx
⎢ ⎥
Se = So · α = ⎢ xi yi zi ⎥ · αy
⎢ .. ⎥ αz
⎣ ⎦
. Oz
xh yh zh
where:
xi , yi , zi - the position of the ith hull point of the initial model,
h - the total number of points used to present hull form model,
αx , αy , αz - length change rate, breadth change rate, and height
change rate.
After finishing the first sub-stage of the geometry modification
process, we continue with the second sub-stage of the geometry
modification process, which is responsible for changing the draft
of the hull structure model. The relationship between the interme-
diate hull point set SI after the second sub-stage and the interme-
diate hull point set Se after the first sub-stage are given as follows,
⎡ ⎤
0 0 Do
⎢ .. ⎥ dimensions of hull structures. We created a (l × m × n ) finite-size
⎢ . ⎥ lattice volume of control points based on the initial lattice space to
⎢ ⎥
SI = Se + αz · αd · ⎢0 0 Do ⎥
⎢ .. ⎥ points in the hull coordinate system was represented by matrix .
⎣ .
⎦
0 0 Do
where:
αd - the draft change rate,
Do - the draft of the initial hull form model.
At the third sub-stage of the geometry modification process, we
adjust hull form shape based on the FFD technique on the interme-
diate hull point set SI . Since FFD deforms the object based on the
control points attached to the lattice coordinate system, and only
the object point inside the lattice space can be modified, we need
to determine the shape and position of the lattice space with the
intermediate hull point set SI to ensure every hull point located
inside the lattice space. Meanwhile, all hull samples in the dataset
have different principal dimensions that lead to the position, and
the size of the lattice space for each sample is different and needs
to be determined in a fixed mode for data validity. The lattice form
chosen in this work is a parallelepiped lattice space, which is ap-
propriate for a slender object like ship hull model, and it is more
convenient to be adopted in real design process, In this work, we
use the extreme coordinate value of the intermediate hull point
set SI to get the position and the size of the lattice space for easy
operation, where we compare all hull points inside it to obtain the
maximum and minimum coordinate values on each axis separately.
Assume that the maximum coordinate value of all points in a hull
Journal of Ocean Engineering and Science 8 (2023) 15–32
structure in the xyz coordinates are x̄max , ȳmax , z̄max , and the min-
imum coordinate value of all points in the hull structure are x̄min ,
ȳmin , z̄min . We can then obtain the length Bl , breadth Bb , and height
Bh of the parallelepiped lattice space as follows,
Bl x̄max − x̄min (1 + 2λx )
Bb = ȳmax − ȳmin  (1 + 2λy ) (6)
Bh z̄max − z̄min (1 + 2λz )
where:
λx , λy , λz - gap rates in the x, y, z directions,
 - the element multiplication.use
As shown in Eq. (6), we added three different gap rates in
the x, y, and z directions to ensure the entire hull model can be
completely enclosed inside the lattice space. Besides, the position
of the origin (Ox , Oy , Oz ) of the lattice space in the hull coordi-
nate system is also related to the extreme coordinate value of hull
x̄min − λx (x̄max − x̄min ) αx
(4) Ox
Oy = ȳmin − λy (ȳmax − ȳmin )  αy (7)
z̄min − λz (z̄max − z̄min ) αz
The control point layout adopts in this work is an even distri-
bution, which is the commonly used distribution and suitable for
the parallelepiped lattice. For the lattice volume that is constructed
based on the extreme coordinate value of hull points, the paral-
lelepiped lattice should also be a slender body with a long length
and a relatively short breadth and height. Due to the shape feature
of the lattice space, the number of control points in the length di-
rection should be much larger than the number of control points
in the other two directions so that the geometry modification can
be more reasonable and the geometry modification results become
abundant. In FFD, the movements of control points are measured
based on the lattice coordinate system, whose actual movements
in the hull coordinate system are related to the size of the lat-
tice space, which gives us the advantage to set up the range of all
control points without attention to the difference of the principal
(5) do the geometry modification, whose current position of all control
Finally, as shown in Eq. (8), based on FFD, we can obtain the final
hull point set S f based on the lattice space and the position matrix
 of the lattice of control points,
S f = F F DSe , B, O, , (8)
where:
F F D - FFD operation.
The entire geometry modification process of the hull form is
shown in Fig. 2. The geometry modification method adopted in
this paper provides an excellent way to summarize the whole ge-
ometry modification process with a smaller number of representa-
tive parameters which can represent the hull form modified from
the KCS hull model. In this work, the geometry modification pa-
rameters used to express the hull form include length change rate,
breadth change rate, height change rate, draft change rate, and the
movement amount of all control points. By modifying the principal
dimension modification parameters, we can change the principal
dimensions of the final hull model, and by modifying the move-
ment amount of control points, we can change the final hull form.
2.3. Various measures to prevent irrational hull models
Since training a DL model requires a large dataset, it will take
much time to generate the dataset by manually changing the de-
formation parameters. Although the new hull model generated
18
Y. Ao, Y. Li, J. Gong et al.
Fig. 2. Entire geometry modification process of the hull form.
by artificially changing the deformation parameters can make the
dataset more intuitive, it is difficult for the artificially generated
hull dataset to cover the entire deformation space. Moreover, when
the designer artificially changes the deformation parameters to
generate a new hull model, the designer will give more consid-
eration to the hull model that he or she considers reasonable due
to the designer’s subjective influence. Considering the above rea-
sons, we use random distribution functions to randomly change
the deformation parameters to specify the ship hull’s deformation.
Randomly changing the deformation parameters will save time and
ensure that the generated dataset elements can be distributed as
evenly as possible in the entire deformation space. However, since
we will randomly change all deformation parameters and the gen-
erated dataset is large, irrational hull forms will inevitably ap-
pear during the hull generation process. Moreover, if we ignore
these irrational hulls, this will cause the finally trained DL model’s
prediction accuracy to decrease. To avoid the appearance of irra-
tional hulls, we have taken several measures to avoid irrational
hulls.
The possibility of generating irrational hulls can be reduced by
adopting different truncated normal distributions and setting dif-
ferent standard deviations. However, due to the need to generate
many hull models, there is no guarantee that irrational hulls will
not appear after deformation. After analyzing the irrational hull
we generated, we found that three reasons mainly cause the ir-
rational hulls. The first and the most important reason is that the
hull points are very close to or even crossing the XoZ plane. When
the control point approaches the XoZ plane, the hull point will also
approach the XoZ plane. When the hull point is very close to the
XoZ plane or even crosses the XoZ plane to the area where Y > 0,
the width of a particular hull area will be very small or even be-
come a negative value. From an engineering perspective, the hull
at this time is irrational. The second reason is that the distance
between the hull points after deformation is too large. When the
distance between the hull points is too large, the panel area will be
too large, which will cause the accuracy of the calculation result of
the panel method to decrease. The third reason is that the local
deformation of the hull is too large. Specifically, when a particular
area of the hull has an immense change and other areas have small
deformations, the calculation core based on the potential flow the-
ory may not handle such a hull. Even if it can, the result will be
inaccurate.
19
Journal of Ocean Engineering and Science 8 (2023) 15–32
When the hull point of a hull is too close to the XoZ plane or
crosses the XoZ plane to the area where Y > 0, then that hull will
not meet the engineering requirements and become irrational. The
hull points being too close to or crossing the XoZ plane are caused
by the preset control points’ offset range. The offset range of the
control point determines the hull’s deformation space, and a suffi-
ciently large offset range of the control point can ensure that the
hull also has a large enough deformation space. To reduce the DL
model’s training time, when setting the control point offset range,
we will compress the control point offset range as much as pos-
sible while ensuring that the deformation space is large enough.
In this paper, the offset range of the control point will change ac-
cording to its location. Specifically, the control points near the bow
and stern will have a more extensive offset range, while the control
points near the parallel middle body of the hull will have a smaller
offset range. We give different offset ranges for the control points
in different regions to reflect our different degrees of emphasis on
different regions. By giving the control points close to the bow and
stern a more extensive offset range, we ensure that the hull’s bow
and stern part have a more extensive deformation range. Since the
hull surfaces at the bow and stern of the KCS are more complex
and have large varying curvatures, the more extensive offset range
makes the hull points near the bow and stern more likely to be too
close to or crossing the XoZ plane. When generating the dataset,
most of the irrational hulls are caused by the hull points being too
close to or crossing the XoZ plane. Even if only one hull point ap-
proaches or crosses the XoZ plane, the deformed hull is irrational.
If we do not take any measures to avoid such errors, there will be
many invalid elements in the dataset. To solve this kind of error,
we correct the Y coordinate value of the hull point to ensure that
it will not be too close to or cross the XoZ plane. In this way, we
can avoid such errors and obtain a thinner hull without irrational
hull conditions. Eq. (9) expresses the relationship between the hull
point after correction and the hull point before correction.
x̄i = xi
yi , yi ≤ ys
ȳi = (9)
ys · e−a(yi −ys ) , yi > ys
z̄i = zi on i = 1, . . . , h
where:
(xi , yi , zi ) are ith hull point coordinates before correction,
(x̄i , ȳi , z¯i ) are ith hull point coordinates after correction,
Y. Ao, Y. Li, J. Gong et al.
ys is small constant for decide boundary,
a is correction rate.
As shown in Eq. (9), we use the constant ys to determine
whether a hull point being too close to or crossing the XoZ plane.
Since the Y-coordinate values of all hull points are negative, if the
Y-coordinate value of a hull point is less than ys , then the hull
point has enough distance from the XoZ plane, which is accept-
able to us. On the contrary, when the Y-coordinate value of a hull
point is greater than ys , the hull point is too close to the XoZ plane,
which will not meet the requirements we set in advance. When
the Y-coordinate value of a hull point is greater than ys , we will
correct the hull point. Eq. (9) is equivalent to setting a repelling
point for each hull point, which ensures that the closer the hull
point is to the repelling point, the greater the rejection.
The second reason for the appearance of an irrational hull is
that the distance between the hull points after deformation is too
large. When the distance between the hull points of the deformed
hull is too large, the panel’s size will be too large, making the cal-
culation accuracy decrease. Unlike when the hull points are too
close or crossing the XoZ plane, which violates the engineering re-
quirements, the hull with a too large distance between the hull
points does not violate the engineering requirements. The exis-
tence of hulls with too large distances between hull points will
make the accuracy of the dataset elements inconsistent, which will
affect the prediction accuracy of the final DL model. We need to
ensure that the accuracy of the elements in the dataset is roughly
the same. A DL model trained based on a dataset with roughly the
same element accuracy can predict the correct change trend of the
hydrodynamic results with the change of deformation parameters
and guide the design. Simultaneously, excessive local deformation
of the hull may also lead to a decrease in calculation accuracy, so
we also need to avoid this type of hull.
To prevent an irrational hull from appearing in the dataset, we
need to determine that the deformation of a ship hull is reason-
able every time when we generated a new hull. In this work, we
determine whether the deformation of a ship hull is too large or
the distance between the hull points is too large by judging the
change in the distance between the hull points before and after
the deformation. As shown in Eq. (10), suppose that a hull model
contains total h hull points, then we first define a matrix U ∈ Rh×k
to show the distance between each hull point and the k other hull
points closest to it in the hull before FFD deformation.
⎡ ⎤
U11 ... U1k
U= ⎣ .. ..
.
.. ⎦ (10)
. .
Uh1 ... Uhk h×k
After performing FFD deformation, we can obtain a new matrix
based on U, and then we can define the new matrix as V ∈ Rh×k .
The matrix V shown in Eq. (11) reflects the distance between the
hull point and the other k hull points closest to it (based on the
hull before the deformation) after deformation.
⎡ ⎤
V11 ... V1k
V = ⎣ .. ..
.
.. ⎦ (11)
. .
Vh1 ... Vhk h×k
Based on matrix U and matrix V , we can base on Eq. (12) to get
the deformed hull’s distance change rate matrix named W ∈ Rh×k .
⎡ ⎤
V11 /U11 ... V1k /U1k
W =⎣ ..
.
..
.
..
.
⎦ (12)
Vh1 /Uh1 ... Vhk /Uhk h×k
After we obtain a new hull form, we can determine whether the
new hull’s local deformation is too large or the distance between
20
Journal of Ocean Engineering and Science 8 (2023) 15–32
Table 2
Two parameters used to pre-
vent the appearance of irra-
tional hulls.
Parameters Actual values
τ 2.0
ψ 0.8
hull points is too large according to the matrix W . First, we stipu-
late that the maximum element in the matrix W , i.e. Wmax , is not
greater than a constant τ that we set in advance. Second, we stipu-
late that the standard deviation sW of all matrix W elements is not
greater than the constant ψ we set in advance. Therefore, in gen-
eral, judging whether the new hull is reasonable or not depends
on whether or not the matrix W satisfies the conditions posted in
Eq. (13),
Wmax ≤ τ
(13)
and sW ≤ ψ
Adjusting parameter τ can ensure that the distance between ad-
jacent hull points will not increase excessively, therefore ensuring
that the panel area will not become too large. While adjusting pa-
rameter ψ ensures that the entire hull will not have sizeable local
deformation. If the new hull matrix W does not satisfy these two
conditions in Eq. (13), we will deem the new hull as an irregu-
lar or irrational hull form. After several attempts, we can choose a
control parameter group with smaller values, which leads to a high
pass rate for generating ship hull form. Table 2 shows the two pre-
set parameters used to prevent the appearance of irrational hulls.
3. Data collection
3.1. Hull performance acquisition method
One sample in the dataset needs to contain hull form and cor-
responding performances to provide input and output to the DL
model. All methods that can acquire the performance of the hull
form can be adopted. The acquisition method can be a perfor-
mance evaluation method to calculate the performance of each
sample in the dataset or a collection method to collect exist-
ing samples to avoid computational work. The sample collection
method is not suitable for the acquisition method used here since
this paper’s unique geometry modification method. We can use
many calculation methods to evaluate the performance of the hull
form, from the high-precision CFD method based on Navier–Stokes
to the potential flow method based on assumptions.
The choice of calculation method depends on the design stage
and design purpose assisted by the DL model. In detail, because
designers need to determine the principal dimensions and hull
form of the ship in the initial design stage, the design space in the
initial design stage will be larger than that in other design stages,
which leads to the dataset for training the DL model who guides
the initial design should contain more hull samples. It will cause
colossal computing time when using the high-fidelity CFD method
to establish a dataset containing many samples. In contrast, design-
ers need minor and precise modifications to the hull form in the
detail design stage, making the DL model that guides the detail de-
sign needs a dataset with low number requirement but high pre-
cision samples.
The purpose of the DL model established in this paper is to
assist the hull design process, which belongs to the initial design
stage, and because of the need to predict the performance of hull
models with different main sizes and hull forms, it has a larger
design space. Simultaneously, since the hull model needs to be
rechecked and fined at several design stages after the initial de-
Y. Ao, Y. Li, J. Gong et al.
sign, the accuracy of the evaluation results in the initial design
stage is lower compared with subsequent design stages, making
the potential flow method can satisfy the accuracy requirement.
To sum up, in this work, we choose the potential flow method as
the hull performance acquisition method to calculate the perfor-
mance of each sample. The role of CFD simulations in this work
is generating data and establishing the dataset to tune and train
the neural network model. The hull model of each sample in the
dataset is generated by randomly adjusting the geometry modifi-
cation parameters, and the total resistance of each sample in the
dataset is evaluated based on the CFD method.
3.2. The total resistance calculation theory
To reduce the computational workload when constructing the
dataset, we treat the resistance performance of the hull as the only
evaluation indicator. The resistance performance of the hull is one
of the most critical factors when designers evaluate the hull form,
which will directly or indirectly affect many performances of the
ship, including but not limited to design speed, engine horsepower,
and fuel consumption. Considering the verification purpose of the
proposed method, only the situation that the ship hull sailing in
still water has been considered.
The total resistance of a ship sailing in still water consists of
many sources, including wind, hull surface, and ship appendages.
According to the simplification guideline provided by the Interna-
tional Towing Tank Conference (ITTC) [24], the total resistance Rt
was decomposed as frictional resistance R f and wave-making re-
sistance Rw . In this paper, we adopt the classical ITTC frictional
resistance formula [24] to calculate the frictional resistance and
adopt Dawson’s method [25] to calculate the wave-making resis-
tance. The classic ITTC friction resistance formula plays a vital role
in resistance estimation, with the accuracy that can satisfy engi-
neering requirements when dealing with most ship types, which
follows Eq. (15).
1
Rf = ρU 2 SC f (14)
2 resented the geometry modification process of the hull model into
0.075
Cf = (15)
(lgRe − 2 )2
where:
• ρ - density of water,
• U - constant speed,
• S - wetted surface area,
• C f - friction coefficient,
• Re - Reynolds number.
Since Dawson’s method has high calculation efficiency, the
wave-making resistance calculation based on it usually only needs
a few minutes to complete one calculation case. Meanwhile, due to
its lower CPU requirements, Dawson’s method-based computation
code can be run in parallel computations in a personal computer.
In Dawson’s method, the total flow ψ is assumed to be the com-
position of double-body flow φ and wavy flow ϕ , as follows,
ψ = φ + ϕ. (16)
The double-body potential flow and wavy flow satisfy differ-
ent boundary conditions: the double-body flow must satisfy the
boundary conditions on the hull surface, while the wavy flow must
satisfy the boundary conditions on both the hull surface and the
free surface. After twice expansions based on the Taylor series, the
free surface condition can be written as follows,
φx ( φx ϕ x + φy ϕ y ) x + φy ( φx ϕ x + φy ϕ y ) y
1 1
+ ϕx (φx2 + φy2 )x + ϕy (φx2 + φy2 )y + gϕz
2 2
21
Journal of Ocean Engineering and Science 8 (2023) 15–32
Table 3
The variation range of part of the deformation parame-
ter.
Geometry modification parameter Variable range
αx [0.8, 1.2]
αy [0.8, 1.2]
αz [0.8, 1.2]
αd [−0.4, 0]
αf [0.7, 1.3]
1
−φzz (φx ϕx + φy ϕy ) = φzz (φx2 + φy2 − U 2 )
2
1 1
− φx (φx2 + φy2 )x − φy (φx2 + φy2 )y
2 2
on z = 0 free surface. (17)
where:
• g - acceleration of gravity,
• U - constant advance speed of the ship.
The total resistance computation program used in this work is
an in-house computer code developed by the authors’ laboratory
[26], which is based on the classic ITTC friction resistance for-
mula and the Dawson method. The validation and the accuracy
of the method can be found in the previous works, e.g. [26,27].
The in-house computer code can be run in parallel in a personal
computer, further shortening the calculation time to establish the
dataset.
3.3. Design space of samples in the dataset
The final valid space for the prediction of the DL model de-
pends entirely on the design space of the samples in the dataset.
The larger the design space of the sample, the wider the effective
space of the final DL model, which also means that more samples
are needed to train the DL model. Since in this paper, we have rep-
a set of geometry modification parameters, the design space of all
samples depends on the variation range of geometry modification
parameters.
Moreover, we expand the design space by adding speed param-
eters to the sample to help designers further reduce the workload
in the initial design stage. Each sample in the dataset has a differ-
ent sailing speed, which means the final DL model will also have
the ability to predict the total resistance of the hull model under
different Froude numbers. As shown in Eq. (18), the sailing speed
also has been transformed to a speed parameter, just like the ge-
ometry modification parameters.
v = vd · α f (18)
where:
• v - actual Froude number,
• vd - initial Froude number,
• α v - Froude number change rate.
As shown in Table 3, we first set the range of principal di-
mension modification parameters, including length change rate,
breadth change rate, height change rate, draft change rate, and
Froude number change rate, which determines the design space
of the hull model specification. In this paper, we set the vari-
able range of length change rate, breadth change rate, and height
change rate can be changed from 0.8 to 1.2. Moreover, since the
draft of the ship will be changed drastically considering the differ-
ent situations of fully loaded and unloaded, we have given a range
of the draft change rate to simulate the unloaded condition, which
Y. Ao, Y. Li, J. Gong et al. Journal of Ocean Engineering and Science 8 (2023) 15–32

Table 4 the control points, and Table 6 shows the location of different ar-
Parameters used to determine the lattice space.
eas and the movement range of the control points in the area.
Parameters x-axis y-axisn z-axis Based on the preset design space and the aforementioned mea-
Offset rate 0.05 0.05 0.05 sures to prevent unreasonable hull models, we can obtain as many
Rotation angle 0.0 0.0 0.0 hull model samples as possible to train the DL model. Benefitting
N control points 20 4 6 from our setting for the movement range of the control points ac-
cording to different hull areas, the randomly generated hull sam-
Table 5 ples will continue to maintain a long parallel mid-body, and the
Location of different areas and their fixed directions. middle part is basically flat instead of a lot of bumps and de-
Boundary area Area location Fixed coordinate
pressions. Moreover, due to the large movement range of the con-
trol points near the bow and stern, we can make drastic geome-
x ∈ [−0.236, 7.063]
try modifications to the bow and stern. Fig. 5 shows a compari-
Boundary-1 y ∈ [−0.572, 0.063] X
z ∈ [−0.400, 0.455] son between a randomly deformed hull model and the initial hull
x ∈ [−0.236, 0.266] model, where we can notice the drastic geometry modifications at
Boundary-2 y ∈ [−0.572, 0.063] X, Z the bow area and a relatively minor modification at the mid-body.
z ∈ [−0.400, −0.105]
x ∈ [7.0625, 7.588]
3.4. Data collection
Boundary-3 y ∈ [−0.572, 0.063] X, Z
z ∈ [−0.012, 0.455]
Training a DL model requires a dataset contains with large
enough samples. In order to save the data collection process, we
can be changed from −0.4 to 0. Further, the Froude number change randomly generate geometric modification parameters according
rate can be changed from 0.7 to 1.3. to the preset variable range to generate each hull model in the
The number of control points determines the fineness of the dataset. For the principal dimension modification parameters, we
geometry modification of the hull form. The more control points, used continuous uniform distributions to generate them to make
the finer the geometric modification of the hull form. In this work, sure all samples can evenly distribute in the principal dimension
we created a (20 × 4 × 6 ) lattice of control points, where exist 20 design space. Besides, we used the truncated normal distribution
control points on the x-axis, 4 control points on the y-axis, and 6 [28], which is a normal distribution with upper and lower limits in
control points on the z-axis. As shown in Table 4, we pre-defined sample space, to generate the movement amount of control points.
the parameters used to determine the lattice space. The truncated normal distribution makes the movement amount
All control points are evenly distributed in the lattice space, of control points concentrated near the mean value, ensuring the
moving freely in three axis directions. To avoid unreasonable hull hull form after geometry modification will be more likely similar
forms and reduce the number of the geometric modification pa- to the initial KCS hull. Besides, since the more similar the hull form
rameters, we select different fixed directions for different control is to the initial hull form, the easier it is for the hull form to meet
points, which is determined by the area where it is located. Fig. 3 engineering requirements, and using a truncated normal distribu-
shows the area division depends on different fixed directions, and tion also means the hull form after geometry modification is more
Table 5 shows the location of different areas and their fixed di- likely in line with engineering requirements.
rections. As shown in Fig. 3 and Table 5, we do not make any re- The degree of similarity between the hull form after geometry
strictions to the bulb bow part, which ensures the fineness of the modification and the initial hull form can be adjusted by changing
geometry modification of the bulb bow. We make sure the control the parameters in the truncated normal distribution. In detail, the
point in Boundary-1 cannot move in the x-axis direction. Further- smaller the standard deviation of the truncated normal distribu-
more, the control points located in Boundary-2 and Boundary-3, tion, the larger possibility the hull form keeps similar to the initial
which are close to the upper structure and propeller, are restricted hull form. The larger the standard deviation of the truncated nor-
to be can only move in the y-axis direction. mal distribution, the greater the possibility of significant geome-
Similar to the principal dimension modification parameters, the try modification. Eq. (19) provides the probability density function
amount of the movement of the control points determines the ge- f (x ) of the truncated normal distribution, which is determined by
ometry modification space of the hull form. Different areas of the the mean μ, the standard deviation σ , low boundary value a, the
ship have different degrees of influence on the ship hull perfor- upper boundary value b, and the probability density function φ
mance, where the geometry modification of the bow and stern has and the cumulative distribution function of the standard normal
a more significant impact on the performance of the ship, and the distribution,
midship has a relatively low influence on the performance of the 1 φ ( x−σμ )
ship. To reflect the degree of influence for different hull areas, we f (x; μ, σ , a, b) = . (19)
σ ( b−σμ ) − ( a−σμ )
set up different control point movement ranges according to differ-
ent areas, making sure we can reduce the difficulty of training the Using continuous uniform distributions and truncated normal
DL model while ensuring sufficient geometry modification space. distributions to generate hull model samples can significantly re-
Fig. 4 shows the area division depends on the movement range of duce the time required for the data collection process. Meanwhile,

Fig. 3. Area division depends on different fixed directions.

22
Y. Ao, Y. Li, J. Gong et al. Journal of Ocean Engineering and Science 8 (2023) 15–32

Fig. 4. Area division depends on the movement range of the control points.

Table 6 ples. The performance evaluation process of the dataset was con-
Location of different areas and the movement range of the con-
ducted on a personal laptop computer (Alienware Area-51 m, CPU:
trol points in the area.
Intel Core I9-9900 K, 3.60 GHz, RAM: 32.0 GB, and GPU: Nvidia
Area Location Direction Scope Geforce RTX 2070). After performing evaluation and sample valid-
x ∈ [7.063, 7.588] ity tests, we generated a dataset that contains 31,058 hull samples
SABED y ∈ [−0.572, 0.063] X [−0.1, 0.1] inside it.
z ∈ [−0.400, −0.012]
x ∈ [−0.236, 7.588]
SACQM y ∈ [−0.572, 0.063] Y [−0.1, 0.1]
z ∈ [−0.400, 0.455] 4. Construction and training of the deep learning model
x ∈ [−0.236, 7.588]
SABPM y ∈ [−0.572, 0.063] Y [−0.2, 0.2] 4.1. Fully connected neural network (FCNN)
z ∈ [−0.400, −0.012]
x ∈ [−0.236, 0.266]
SKLQP y ∈ [−0.572, 0.063] Y [−0.3, 0.3] DL technology has a unique ability to extract internal relation-
z ∈ [−0.105, 0.455] ships from complex or even inaccurate data, thereby finding a
x ∈ [6.477, 7.588] mathematical model that is too complex for the human brain or
SABHG y ∈ [−0.572, 0.063] Y [−0.3, 0.3] other computer technologies [8]. In recent years, DL technology
z ∈ [−0.400, −0.012]
x ∈ [7.063, 7.588]
has developed rapidly and has been found to have many successful
SABED y ∈ [−0.572, 0.063] Y [−0.4, 0.4] applications in many other fields not limited to computer science
z ∈ [−0.400, −0.012] [29].
x ∈ [−0.236, 0.266] As one of the most representative DL methods, Fully Connected
SKLQP y ∈ [−0.572, 0.063] Z [−0.2, 0.2]
Neural Network (FCNN), also known as Artificial Neural Network
z ∈ [−0.105, 0.455]
x ∈ [6.477, 7.588] (ANN), is a DL technology-based parallel computational machine
SABHG y ∈ [−0.572, 0.063] Z [−0.2, 0.2] learning method, whose feature is that neurons will receive the
z ∈ [−0.400, −0.012] processed information from all neurons in the previous layer. Fig. 6
x ∈ [7.0625, 7.58811] shows a schematic diagram of the topology structure of FCNN and
SABED y ∈ [−0.572, 0.063] Z [−0.3, 0.3]
z ∈ [−0.400, −0.012]
a single neuron processing unit.
Different layers perform different information transformation
purposes in the FCNN model. Specifically, the input layer respon-
sible for receiving data information from the outside world, which
does not contain any calculation work. The hidden layer is equiva-
lent to the information processing system, which is responsible for
the main calculation work. Relying on the hidden layer, an FCNN
model can extract internal rules from the dataset and store “mem-
ory” and “experience” in it. The most distinguishing feature of the
FCNN model is that every hidden layer is fully connected with two
adjacent layers, where each neuron in the layer l receives all neu-
ron processed information in the layer (l − 1 ) and then distributes
its processed information to all neuron located in the layer (l + 1 ).
The output layer located at the end of the FCNN model is respon-
sible for exporting predicted results to the outside world.
In this work, the input layer accepts the geometry modification
parameters used to describe different hull forms, where each neu-
ron in this layer represents an individual geometry modification
parameter from a given sample in the dataset. The output layer,
Fig. 5. Comparison of deformed hull model and initial hull model. which coalesces the influence caused by the replacement of ge-
ometry modification parameters, exports the current inputted hull
form performances. Due to the structure topology characteristics,
not like manually generating hull model samples, randomly gener- when the FCNN model faces a large number of input parameters,
ating samples can make sure all samples can be as much as pos- it will become computationally intensive and prone to overfitting,
sible evenly distributed in the entire design space and also avoid leading to poor performance in specific tasks. However, many prac-
the subjective influence of designers. tices have proved that the FCNN model has shown stable perfor-
Before and after calculating the performance of hull samples, mance in dealing with non-image-related tasks. Hence, consider-
we checked the hull samples in the dataset twice to ensure the ing that we need to build a model to simulate the function be-
validity of the samples. Specifically, before calculating the perfor- tween the geometry modification parameters and the total resis-
mance of hull samples, we checked the hull forms in the dataset to tance, which does not involve image processing, we choose the
ensure there are no unreasonable hull forms. After calculating the FCNN model as the DL model used in this work . Besides, unlike
performance of hull samples, we checked the results and the wave classification tasks, it is a better choice to keep the information
pattern of all hull samples and eliminated all incorrect hull sam- channels of all neurons connected to uncover the actual mapping

23
Y. Ao, Y. Li, J. Gong et al.
Fig. 6. The schematic diagram of FCNN topology structure and single neuron processing.
Fig. 7. Simplified schematic of the FCNN model.
relationship of regression tasks. Therefore, we choose the FCNN
model as the DL model used in this paper.
4.2. FCNN model construction
The DL model adopted in this paper is the FCNN model. A sim-
plified schematic illustration of FCNN model is shown in Fig. 7. The
input layer of the DL model contains 501 neurons, including length
change rate, width change rate, height change rate, draught change
rate, Froude number change rate, and the movement amount of all
control points. It is worth noting that the order of all input neurons
must be the same, and when we want to verify and use the DL
model, we must also ensure that the order of input neurons does
not change. The output layer of the DL model contains one neuron,
which exports the total resistance of the current hull model.
Before tuning the FCNN model, we need to set several hyper-
parameters to make the FCNN model ready to be tuned, includ-
ing activation function, loss function, and the method to judge the
prediction accuracy. The activation function is a mathematical con-
verter that can transform the information of the current neuron
into the information flowing into the next neuron. The purpose of
24
Journal of Ocean Engineering and Science 8 (2023) 15–32
setting the activation function is to add nonlinear properties to the
DL model. To make the DL model easy to train without the vanish-
ing gradient problem, the neurons in the input layer and hidden
layer adopt the ReLU activation function [30], which is defined as
the positive part of its argument,
a = f (x ) := x+ = max(0, x ). (20)
Compared with the sigmoid function, ReLU is not easy to cap-
ture the performance of vanishing gradient, in which even when
the activation function input reaches the boundary, the gradient of
the neuron will not be too small. We adopted a linear activation
function for neurons located in the output layer to ensure predic-
tion accuracy, which is given as follow,
a = f (x ) = x. (21)
The loss function is an indicator for evaluating the completion
degree of DL model training, where the lower the value of the loss
function, the higher the training completion of the DL model. The
loss function plays the role of supervisor and guides the update
of weights and biases. This paper adopted the Mean Absolute Per-
centage Error (MAPE) [31], which is given as follow to direct the
Y. Ao, Y. Li, J. Gong et al.
DL model to update to reduce the gap between the predicted re-
sult and the actual result,
1  yˆi − yi
N
Loss = | | (22)
N yi
i=1
where:
• N - total number of samples in dataset,
• yˆi - ith predicted value,
• yi - ith actual value.
The loss function value is an evaluation index that is easy for
computers to understand since the only point that the machine
needs to pay attention to reduce the value of the loss function as
much as possible. However, when comparing the prediction accu-
racy between DL models, the value of the loss function becomes
incomparable considering the different regularization parameters
and different hidden structures. In this paper, we choose the mean
and standard deviation of the absolute percentage difference of
samples in the testing dataset as the indicators to determine the
prediction accuracy between different DL models to avoid the in-
fluence caused by the different loss functions, which is shown as
follows,
n v
i=1 pi
Emean = (23)
nv

nv
i=1 ( pi − μ )2
and Estd = (24)
nv
where:
• nv - total number of samples in the testing dataset,
• pi - ith absolute percentage error,
• μ - population means.
Note that Emean represents the average of the absolute percent-
age differences of all samples in the testing dataset, representing
the average prediction accuracy of the DL model. The smaller Emean
of a DL model, the higher the prediction accuracy the DL model is.
Estd is the standard deviation of the absolute percentage difference
of all samples in the testing dataset, representing the degree of
normalization of a DL model when predicting different hull forms.
The smaller Estd of the DL model, the higher the degree of normal-
ization of a DL model.
The construction, training, and testing of the DL models were
all developed based on the Keras framework [32] with the Tensor-
Flow backend [33]. In the developed python code of the computer
program, the (keras.models.Model) was adopted to construct the
FCNN model, with (keras.layers.core.Dense) to add the hidden layer.
The regularization parameters were added into the DL model by
adopting (keras.regular izer s.l1_l2) and (keras.layers.core.Dropout).
The optimizer was established based on (keras.optimizers.Adam),
with the access to adjust the initial learning rate and decay rate.
All the tuning, training, and testing processes were conducted
on a personal laptop computer with the following specifications:
Alienware Area-51 m, CPU: Intel Core I9-9900 K, 3.60 GHz, RAM:
32.0 GB, and GPU: Nvidia Geforce RTX 2070.
4.3. Hyperparameters tuning
The tuning process is one of the most time-consuming stages
in developing a deep learning method because almost all the hy-
perparameters are independent, and various hyperparameter com-
binations need to be tested to obtain the best or optimum com-
bination. In the hyperparameters tuning process for the DL model
25
Journal of Ocean Engineering and Science 8 (2023) 15–32
used in this work, we need to determine hyperparameters includ-
ing hidden layer structure, regularization parameters, dropout rate,
learning rate, batch size, and training epochs.
For a supervised learning problem, it usually needs to divide
the dataset into two parts: training dataset and testing dataset.
In this research, we take 75% of samples in the dataset as the
training dataset while using the remaining 25% of samples in the
dataset as the testing dataset. In the actual computation, the to-
tal 31,058 hull structure samples were divided randomly into the
ratios 23,293:7765.
The hidden layer structure determines the ultimate prediction
capability of the DL model. Considering that we have selected
FCNN as the DL model, we only need to determine the number of
hidden layers and neurons in each hidden layer. We adopted L1, L2
regularization methods and the dropout technique to avoid over-
fitting, in which we add a correction term to the loss function as
shown in Eq. (25),
 
ˆ = Loss + λ1
Loss |β j | + λ2 β 2j (25)
j j
where:
• ˆ - revised loss function,
Loss
• λ1 - L1 regularization rate,
• λ2 - L2 regularization rate,
• β j - jth parameter in the DL model.
There are other techniques that one may use to avoid overfit-
ting, such as inactivating neurons randomly.
The learning rate controls the learning speed of the DL model,
where the lower the learning rate, the slower the learning speed of
the DL model. We can regard the training process of the DL model
as to find extreme values in the n-dimensional parameter space (n
is the number of the DL model parameters), and the learning rate
determines the step size of the finding process. Considering the
DL model is far away from the extreme point at the beginning of
the training process, then an appropriately large learning rate can
help shorten the epoch number required to approach the extreme
value. Once the DL model is close to the extreme value, a lower
learning rate is assigned to the DL model, which ensures that the
DL model can continuously get close to the extreme value instead
of oscillating near the extreme value. This process is described by
the following equation,
ini_lr
lri = (26)
1 + i · dr
ini_lr
and dr = (27)
te
where:
• i - the current epoch number,
• lri - the actual learning rate of ith epoch,
• ini_lr - the initial learning rate,
• dr - the decay rate,
• te - the total number of training epoch.
Here, we adopt a variable learning rate strategy that has the
advantage to achieve large learning rate at the early stage while
attain a small learning rate at the late stage, as shown in Eq. (26),
where the current learning rate is related to the initial learning
rate, and the learning decay rate is determined by the epoch num-
ber. As shown in Eq. (27) the learning decay rate will decrease with
the increase of the epoch number.
Note that the number of epochs is a hyperparameter that de-
fines the number of times that a learning algorithm will work
through the entire training dataset. One epoch means that each
Y. Ao, Y. Li, J. Gong et al. Journal of Ocean Engineering and Science 8 (2023) 15–32

Table 7
Default hyperparameters at the begin-
ning of the tuning process.

Hyperparameters Default value

L1 regularition rate 0
L2 regularition rate 0
Dropout rate 0
Batch size 4096

sample in the training dataset has had an opportunity to update

the internal model parameters.
An epoch has one or more batches, and the batch size is the
number of samples fed in the DL model in each epoch. The pur-
pose of the application of batch size is to reduce the memory re-
quired during training. Batch size is the amount of training data
that the computer needs to process simultaneously, making the
lower the batch size, the less memory required during the train-
ing process. Nevertheless, too small a batch size may result in
inaccurate gradient values, leading to possible oscillations during Fig. 8. Loss vs. learning rate curve.
training. Training epochs represent the total epoch number of the
dataset through the DL model during the training process. In this Table 8
research, the batch size was fixed to 4,096, considering the sample Parts of tuning result of hidden structure.
number in the training dataset. The training epochs are always the
Hidden sturcture Emean (% ) Estd (% )
larger, the better, and we should set the training epochs as high
as possible and decide whether to stop based on the loss function (64) 24.898 24.131
(256, 4) 15.386 12.712
value.
(32, 32) 13.473 12.071
In the hyperparameter tuning process, the most straightforward (128, 4, 2) 9.882 8.357
method is to try all hyperparameter combinations to select the
best one. However, if we try all the possible combinations in actual
operation, then we need to try tens of thousands of combinations, Table 9
Parts of tuning result of regularization parameters.
which is unacceptable in workload. Thus, we used some techniques
to reduce the number of attempts required when doing the hy- L1 rate L2 rate dropout rate Emean (% ) Estd (% )
perparameters tuning process. In the beginning, we first keep all case 1 0 0 0 26.167 194.706
hyperparameters unchanged except the hidden layer structure and case 2 0.004 0.001 0.001 8.314 6.985
change the hidden layer structure of the DL model to obtain the case 3 0 0.128 0 6.512 5.752
case 4 0.016 0 0.002 5.389 5.182
most suitable hidden structure for predicting the total resistance
of hull models, where the default hyperparameters are shown in
Table 7.
We first determined the range of hidden layers number and the the DL model has a tiny change, expressed the increase of learn-
range of neurons number after comparing the capability and train- ing rate here can not improve too much training speed. By the
ing time. We first set the number of hidden layers between 1 and time when the learning rate reaches 10−1 , the loss value of the
3. We also stipulate that the neurons in each layer are between 2 DL model begins to increase, meaning the learning rate is far too
and 501 and must be a power of two. Simultaneously, considering large. Based on the curve, we choose 5E − 4 as the learning rate
that the number of input parameters is greater than the number and choose 20 0 0 as the training epoch number used for hyperpa-
of output parameters, we stipulate that the number of neurons in rameters tuning, which gives the DL model a fast learning speed.
the back layer will not larger than the number of neurons in the Depending on the hidden layer structure, every step costs 9 and 10
front layer. We can obtain all the hidden layer structure possibili- us. We calculated 164 possible hidden layer structures, and Table 8
ties through the above regulations and obtain the optimal hidden shows parts of tuning results with different hidden structures.
layer structure by training all DL models and comparing the indi- Fig. 9 (a)–(d) show the training history of the four DL models
cators. mentioned in Table 8. As can be seen from these four images, we
In this research, we adopted a rate finding method developed can find that the testing loss begins to increase, especially at epoch
by Leslie Smith in [34] to automatically find the range of optimal 2,0 0 0, compared with the decrease of the testing loss, meaning the
learning rates, where the whole process of the rate finding method DL model has overfitted, which can be avoided by tuning suitable
was explained in detail in Smith [34]. Based on the rate finding regularization parameters.
method, we create a loss vs. learning rate curve to show how the We choose the hidden layer structure with relatively low Emean
learning rate affects the value of the loss function, shown in Fig. 8. and Emean , no obvious overfitting, and low training loss as the final
As shown in Fig. 8, we can visualize how the learning rate af- choice, which is (256, 4, 2 ). Then we used a hidden layer struc-
fects the training speed of the DL model, where the DL model loss ture (256, 4, 2 ) to do further tuning to determine the regulariza-
value stays stable unless the learning rate exponentially increased tion parameters, which can help us avoid overfitting and further
from 10−10 to 10−8 , which means when the learning rate is too train the DL model. Before tuning the regularization parameters,
low cause the DL model can not learn anything. When the learn- we set the range of all regularization parameters between 0 and
ing rate arrived at 10−8 , the learning rate is just large enough that 0.128. We calculated 729 possible regularization parameter combi-
our model can start learning, and when the learning rate arrived at nations, and Table 9 shows parts of tuning results with different
10−3 , the DL model has a considerable learning speed. When the regularization parameters. Fig. 10(a)–(d) shows the training history
learning rate locates between 10−3 and 10−2 , the learning speed of of the four DL models mentioned in Table 9.

26
Y. Ao, Y. Li, J. Gong et al. Journal of Ocean Engineering and Science 8 (2023) 15–32

Fig. 9. (a) Training history for (64), (b) Training history for (256, 4), (c) Training history for (32, 32), and (d) Training history for (128, 4, 2).

Table 10 ducing the learning rate when needed. The entire training history
Hyperparameters of the DL model at
of the DL model is shown in Fig. 11. Considering the training pro-
the beginning of the training process.
cess lasted for 20,0 0 0 epoch, we divide it into two parts for bet-
Hyperparameters Value ter observation, showing the application of stopping and resuming
Hidden sturcture (256, 4, 2 ) technique.
L1 regularition rate 0.032 Fig. 12 (a) shows the training history of the DL model from
L2 regularition rate 0 epoch 0 to epoch 30 0 0, where we set the initial learning rate as
Dropout rate 0
10−3 and decrease the learning rate from 10−3 to 10−4 at epoch
Batch size 4096
20 0 0. As shown in Fig. 12(a), both the training loss and the testing
loss drop very quickly at the beginning, where the loss value de-
As shown in Fig. 10(a)–(d), the regularization parameters play creases about 98% in the first 100 epoch compare with the whole
an important role in preventing overfitting. By comparing the indi- training history, which means a relatively large learning rate can
cators Emean and Emean and ensure that overfitting does not occur, accelerate the initial training process. During epoch 100 to epoch
we finally set the L1 regularization parameter as 0.032, set the L2 20 0 0, both the training loss and the testing loss appear stochas-
regularization parameter as 0, and set the dropout rate as 0. tic shock, but the overall trend is still declining, showing the DL
Finally, after tuning hidden structure and regularization param- model can still learn based on the current learning rate. The learn-
eters, all the hyperparameters of the final DL model are deter- ing rate was decreased to 10−4 at epoch 20 0 0, followed by a sig-
mined, which is shown in Table 10. nificant drop-down for both the training loss and the testing loss
after epoch 20 0 0.
4.4. Training and testing Fig. 12 (b) shows the training history of the DL model from
epoch 30 0 0 to epoch 20,0 0 0, where we decrease the learning rate
In this research, during the training process of the DL model, from 10−4 to 10−5 at epoch 10,0 0 0. As shown in Fig. 12(b), the
we used the technique of stopping and resuming the training pro- learning rate continued to decrease to 10−5 at epoch 10,0 0 0, fol-
cess so that we can monitor the loss and reduce the loss by re- lowed by a relatively significant drop-down for both the training

27
Y. Ao, Y. Li, J. Gong et al.
Fig. 10. (a) Training history for case 1, (b) Training history for case 2, (c) Training history for case 3, and (d) Training history for case 4.
Fig. 11. The entire training history of the DL model.
loss and the testing loss after epoch 16,0 0 0. Although it is not ap-
parent, it can be noticed that the testing loss has risen slightly
between epoch 10,0 0 0 to epoch 20,0 0 0, which means the appear-
ance of overfitting. The DL model has been continued trained till
it reached epoch 20,0 0 0, where there has no pronounced decrease
for both the training loss and the testing loss.
28
Journal of Ocean Engineering and Science 8 (2023) 15–32
Table 11
Training results of the final DL model.
Loss Emean Estd
Training 3.8844 – –
Testing 5.1630 3.9754% 4.7562%
We choose to stop the training process at epoch 19,900, where
the testing loss reached the minimum in the entire training his-
tory, and we also store the DL model located at epoch 19.900 for
further use. As shown in Table 11, the final training and testing loss
values were close to each other. The Emean shows that the average
difference between the predicted and actual total resistance in the
testing dataset is 3.9754%. The Estd shows that the standard devia-
tion between the predicted and actual total resistance in the test-
ing dataset is 4.7562%. The results show that the DL model defined
and trained in this work performs well in predicting the testing
data, and no severe overfitting problem exists. The final trained DL
model can be used to predict the total resistance of the hull form,
which can evaluate the total resistance of the hull form modified
from the KCS to assist the hull design stage.
5. Model verification
The weights and biases of the deep learning model can be
saved to be further used to predict the total resistance of the
Y. Ao, Y. Li, J. Gong et al.
Fig. 12. (a) The training history from epoch 1 to epoch 3,0 0 0, and (b) The training history from epoch 30 0 0 to epoch 20,0 0 0.
Table 12
The details of the testing cases in step 1.
Testing case Length rate
Case 1 (0.7, 1.3)
Case 2 1
Case 3 1
Case 4 1
Case 5 1
hull structure form generated by the geometric modification of the
KCS. The most convenient of the DL model is that once we im-
port all geometry modification parameters to the DL model, then
the DL model can immediately evaluate the performance of the
hull form, which can save the modeling and calculating workload,
and designers do not need to consider any hydrodynamic the-
ory. In real situations of engineering design of the hull form, the
hull form after geometry modification will be randomly located
in the design space, and it is most likely on the interval or gap
space among training samples. However, the total resistances of
hull forms located in the interval space are not contained in the
training dataset, and they are very different from training samples.
Predicting a case not located in the range of training samples is al-
ways a challenge, especially for the DL model in this paper, which
needs to deal with the design space with 501 dimensions. To test
the generality of the trained DL model, we performed several val-
idation cases by comparing the result evaluated through the po-
tential flow method and the DL model, in which the hull form af-
ter geometry modification is located in the interval space between
training samples.
Considering that the geometry modification parameters contain
the principal dimension modification parameters and the move-
ment amount of control points, we verify the prediction accuracy
of the DL model in three steps in different ways. In the first step,
we verify the prediction accuracy of the DL model by fixing the
movement amount of control points and when only the principal
dimension modification parameters can be changed. To test the
generality of the DL model, in step 1, we performed all testing
cases when all the movement amount of control points equal to
0.05, ensuring the test cases do not have a chance to appear in
the dataset. The details of the testing cases in step 1 are shown in
Table 12. To be statistically representative, we also check the case
in which the principal dimension is out of the domain by extend-
ing the range scope of principal dimensions.
Journal of Ocean Engineering and Science 8 (2023) 15–32
Breadth rate Height rate Draft rate Froude number rate
1 1 0 1
(0.7, 1.3) 1 0 1
1 (0.7, 1.3) 0 1
1 1 (−0.45, 0.05) 1
1 1 0 (0.6, 1.4)
Fig. 13 (a) shows the curves for total resistance predicted by
the potential flow method and the DL model when the length
change rate in the scope range (0.7, 1.3) but the scope range of
the dataset is (0.8, 1.2). For the entire range, the maximum er-
ror is 27.85%, located at 0.7, with the average error of all sam-
ple points in the entire range equals 6.90%. Moreover, for the do-
main, the maximum error is 7.90%, located at 0.85, with the av-
erage error of all sample points in the domain is 4.08% which
can meet the engineering requirements of the hull form design
stage.
Fig. 13 (b) shows the curves for total resistance predicted by the
potential flow method and the DL model when the breadth change
rate in the scope range (0.7, 1.3) but the scope range of the dataset
is (0.8, 1.2). For the entire range, the maximum error is 13.93%,
located at 1.3, with the average error of all sample points in the
entire range equals 5.44%. Moreover, for the domain, the maximum
error is 10.85%, located at 1.2, with the average error of all sample
points in the domain is 4.92%.
Fig. 14 (a) shows the curves for total resistance predicted by the
potential flow method and the DL model when the height change
rate in the scope range (0.7, 1.3) but the scope range of the dataset
is (0.8, 1.2). For the entire range, the maximum error is 15.64%,
located at 1.3, with the average error of all sample points in the
entire range equals 4.92%. Moreover, for the domain, the maximum
error is 6.95%, located at 1.2, with the average error of all sample
points in the domain is 4.25%.
Fig. 14 (b) shows the curves for total resistance predicted by the
potential flow method and the DL model when the draft change
rate in the scope range (−0.45, 0.05) but the scope range of the
dataset is (−0.4, 0). For the entire range, the maximum error is
9.62%, located at −0.28, with the average error of all sample points
in the entire range equals 4.22%. Moreover, for the domain, the
maximum error is also 9.62%, located at −0.28, with the average
error of all sample points in the domain is 4.63%.
29
Y. Ao, Y. Li, J. Gong et al.
Fig. 13. (a) Curve of total resistance vs. length change rate, and (b) Curve of total resistance vs. breadth change rate.
Fig. 14. (a) Curve of total resistance vs. height change rate, and (b) Curve of total resistance vs. draft change rate.
Fig. 15. Curve of total resistance vs. Froude number change rate.
Fig. 15 shows the curves for total resistance predicted by the
potential flow method and the DL model when the Froude num-
ber change rate in the scope range (0.6, 1.4) but the scope range
of the dataset is (0.7, 1.3). For the entire range, the maximum er-
ror is 33.87%, located at 0.6, with the average error of all sample
30
Journal of Ocean Engineering and Science 8 (2023) 15–32
points in the entire range equals 8.35%. Moreover, for the domain,
the maximum error is 19.12%, located at 1.2, with the average error
of all sample points in the domain is 5.67%.
In step 2, we performed all testing cases for different move-
ment amounts of control points to test the generality of the DL
model, ensuring the test cases do not have a chance to appear
in the dataset. Considering that there are 406 parameters related
to control points among the geometric modification parameters,
it will be complicated to choose the movement amount of con-
trol points one by one. Hence, to test the generality of the DL
model, we generated testing cases using linear functions to gen-
erate the movement amount of control points, avoiding the testing
cases have a chance to appear in the training dataset. Assuming
the movement amount of the first control point parameter is m1 ,
and the movement amount of the last control point parameter is
m496 , then the movement amount of the ith control point param-
eter mi is given in the following equation,
mi = (m496
495
−m1 )
( i − 1 ) + m1 . (28)
Fig. 16 shows the curves for total resistance predicted by the
potential flow method and the DL model when m1 was in the
scope range (−0.1, 0.1) and the m406 was fixed to 0.1. The de-
tails of Case 6 in step 2 are shown in Table 13. Since the mini-
mum scope range of the movement amount of control points is
Y. Ao, Y. Li, J. Gong et al. Journal of Ocean Engineering and Science 8 (2023) 15–32

Table 13
The details of the testing cases in step 2.

Testing case Length Breadth Height Draft Froude m1 m406

Case 6 1 1 1 0 1 (−0.1, 0.1) 0.1

Case 7 1 1 1 0 (0.7, 1.3) 0.1 −0.07
Case 9 1 1 1 0 (0.7, 1.3) −0.07 0.1

Table 14
Predicted errors in method verification.

Testing case Max (entire) Ave (entire) Max (domain) Ave (domain)

Case 1 27.85% 6.90% 7.90% 4.08%

Case 2 13.93% 5.44% 10.85% 4.92%
Case 3 15.64% 4.92% 6.95% 4.25%
Case 4 9.62% 4.22% 9.62% 4.63%
Case 5 33.87% 8.35% 19.12% 5.67%
Case 6 12.50% 3.09% 12.50% 3.09%
Case 7 14.37% 4.68% 14.37% 4.68%
Case 8 15.70% 4.48% 15.70% 4.48%

Fig. 17 (b) shows the curves for total resistance predicted by

Fig. 16. Curve of total resistance of step 2.
(−0.1, 0.1), all samples tested in step 2 are in the design space.
For the entire range, the maximum error is 12.50%, located at
−0.1, with the average error of all sample points is 3.09% which
can meet the engineering requirements of the hull form design
stage.
In step 3, we verify the prediction accuracy of the DL model
by simultaneity change both the principal dimension parameters
and the movement amount of control points to ensure the con-
sistency for different kinds of geometry modification parameters.
The details of Case 7 and Case 8 in step 3 are shown in Table 13.
Fig. 17(a) shows the curves for total resistance predicted by the
potential flow method and the DL model when m1 was fixed
to 0.1 and the m406 was fixed to −0.07, with the Froude num-
ber change rate in the scope range (0.7, 1.3). For the domain
range, the maximum error is 14.37%, located at 0.7, with the
average error of all sample points in the domain range equals
4.68%.
the potential flow method and the DL model when m1 was fixed
to −0.07 and the m406 was fixed to 0.1, with the Froude num-
ber change rate in the scope range (0.7, 1.3). For the domain
range, the maximum error is 15.70%, located at 0.7, with the
average error of all sample points in the domain range equals
4.48%.
The predicted errors of all testing cases in method verification
are shown in Table 14. As shown in Table 14, the DL model can
predict the total resistance of the hull form model generated by
the geometry modification of the KCS with high prediction accu-
racy. It is worth noting that all cases tested in this chapter have
never appeared in the dataset, meaning that the DL model we con-
structed and trained here can predict a sample it is never seen,
which gives designers an excellent method to assist the hull de-
sign stage. We can find that the maximum error and average error
in the entire range are almost always larger than the maximum
error and average error in the domain range through the above
test cases. Meanwhile, the maximum error in the domain range al-
ways happened in the boundary of the domain range, which shows
that the prediction accuracy is related to the sample number in the
training dataset and the distribution density of the samples in the
design space, and the higher sample density, the higher prediction
accuracy.

Fig. 17. (a) Curve of total resistance of Case 6, and (b) Curve of total resistance of Case 7.

31
Y. Ao, Y. Li, J. Gong et al.
6. Conclusions
In this work, we have developed a deep learning neural net-
work model to predict the total resistance of ship hull form gen-
erated based on the geometry modification of the KRISO Container
Ship (KCS), which can assist the hull form design at the prelimi-
nary ship design stage.
Expressly, we set the KRISO Container Ship (KCS) as the initial
hull model and simplified the geometry modification process into
a set of geometry modification parameters by combining the lin-
ear transformation method and Free-Form Deformation (FFD) tech-
nique. By randomly generating hull form samples and adopting a
potential flow method to calculate the total resistance of all sam-
ples, we established a dataset used to train and test the DL model.
The generality test shows that the trained DL model can predict
the total resistance of hull forms accurately and quickly in the de-
sign stage, which is a remarkable success for applying deep learn-
ing techniques in the hull form design process. Based on this study,
we have concluded that by using deep learning techniques, one can
predict the performances of the hull form with high accuracy to
meet the engineering requirements of the initial design.
The DL-based hull form performance prediction model devel-
oped in this work adopts the potential flow method generated data
sample as the virtual training data to train a DL model and then
uses it to predict actual hull performance. Considering that the
initial design stage belongs to the preliminary design, which has
a lower accuracy requirement than those in other design phases,
the potential flow method adopted in this work has sufficient ac-
curacy to meet the design requirements and has a faster speed of
constructing the sample dataset. Furthermore, we think that the
successful application of deep learning technology in this work of-
fers an efficient method to assist the ship design process, with
currently commonly used design methods incurring large time re-
quirements due to the massive calculation workload of ship design.
In this work, we only take the total resistance as the only pre-
dictive target. The dataset only contains the hull form generated
based on the geometry modification of the KCS, which means the
final DL model can only predict the total resistance of specific hull
forms. We can further expand the application range of the deep
learning model by adding more hull models to the dataset, and
we can also increase the prediction accuracy of the deep learning
model by increasing the sample density. In work in progress, we
may extend the prediction method to other performance of hull
forms and further increase the design space by increasing the va-
riety and number of dataset samples.
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing finan-
cial interestsor personal relationships that could have appeared to
influence the work reported in this paper.
Acknowledgments
The work was performed in the University of California, Berke-
ley. YA is supported by a fellowship from China Scholar Council
(No. 201806680134), and this support is greatly appreciated.
32
Journal of Ocean Engineering and Science 8 (2023) 15–32
References
[1] D. Watson, Practical Ship Design, vol. 1, Elsevier, 1998.
[2] H. Schneekluth, V. Bertram, Ship Design for Efficiency and Economy, vol. 201,
Butterworth-Heinemann Oxford, 1998.
[3] S. Harries, Tradition and Future of Ship Design in Berlin, Technical University
of Berlin, 2008.
[4] M. Roh, K. Lee, Comput. Ind. 58 (6) (2007) 539–557.
[5] A. Papanikolaou, Ship Design: Methodologies of Preliminary Design, Springer,
2014.
[6] F. Mistree, W. Smith, B. Bras, J. Allen, D. Muster, Trans., Soc. Naval Arch. Mar.
Eng. 98 (1990) 565–597.
[7] J.D. Anderson, J. Wendt, Computational Fluid Dynamics, vol. 206, Springer,
1995.
[8] Y. LeCun, Y. Bengio, G. Hinton, Nature 521 (7553) (2015) 436–444.
[9] E. Alpaydin, Introduction to Machine Learning, MIT Press, 2020.
[10] Y. Chen, Z. Lin, X. Zhao, G. Wang, Y. Gu, IEEE J. Sel. Top. Appl. Earth Obs. Re-
mote Sens. 7 (6) (2014) 2094–2107.
[11] A. Kendall, R. Cipolla, Geometric loss functions for camera pose regression with
deep learning, in: Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and
Pattern Recognition, 2017, pp. 5974–5983.
[12] J. Friedman, T. Hastie, R. Tibshirani, The Elements of Statistical Learning, vol. 1,
Springer Series in Statistics New York, 2001.
[13] C.M. Bishop, Pattern Recognition and Machine Learning, Springer, 2006.
[14] A. Milaković, F. Li, M. Marouf, S. Ehlers, Ships Offshore Struct. 15 (9) (2020)
974–980.
[15] J. Wackers, M. Visonneau, A. Serani, R. Pellegrini, R. Broglia, M. Diez, 33rd Sym-
posium on Naval Hydrodynamics, 2020.
[16] E. Gunpinar, U.C. Coskun, M. Ozsipahi, S. Gunpinar, Computer-Aided Des. 111
(2019) 65–79.
[17] A.K. Shaeffer, W. Wilson, C. Yang, SNAME Maritime Convention, OnePetro,
2020.
[18] T. Cepowski, Ocean Eng. 195 (2020) 106657.
[19] K. Grabowska, P. Szczuko, Ship resistance prediction with artificial neural net-
works, in: 2015 Signal Processing: Algorithms, Architectures, Arrangements,
and Applications (SPA), IEEE, 2015, pp. 168–173.
[20] P. Prebeg, V. Zanic, B. Vazic, Ocean Eng. 84 (2014) 259–272.
[21] E.F. Campana, D. Peri, Y. Tahara, M. Kandasamy, F. Stern, Trans. - Soc. of Naval
Arch.Mar. Eng. 117 (2009) 30.
[22] T.W. Sederberg, S.R. Parry, Free-form deformation of solid geometric models,
in: Proceedings of the 13th Annual Conference on Computer Graphics and In-
teractive Techniques, 1986, pp. 151–160.
[23] M. Tezzele, N. Demo, A. Mola, G. Rozza, PyGeM: Python geometrical morphing,
Software Impacts 7 (2021) 10 0 047.
[24] J. Holtrop, G. Mennen, Int. Shipbuild. Prog. 29 (335) (1982) 166–170.
[25] C. Dawson, A practical computer method for solving ship-wave problems, in:
Proceedings of Second International Conference on Numerical Ship Hydrody-
namics, 1977, pp. 30–38.
[26] Y. Li, J. Gong, Q. Ma, S. Yan, Eng. Anal. Bound. Elem. 95 (2018) 266–285.
[27] X. Chen, R. Zhu, C. Ma, J. Fan, Ocean Eng. 114 (2016) 142–153.
[28] John. Burkardt, in: The truncated normal distribution, Department of Scientific
Computing Website, Florida State University, 2014, pp. 1–35.
[29] I. Goodfellow, Y. Bengio, A. Courville, Deep learning, MIT Press, 2016.
[30] P. Ramachandran, B. Zoph, Q.V. Le, Searching for activation functions, arXiv:
1710.05941(2017).
[31] A. De Myttenaere, B. Golden, B. Le Grand, F. Rossi, Neurocomputing 192 (2016)
38–48.
[32] F. Chollet, in: Keras: The python deep learning library, Astrophysics Source
Code Library, 2018, pp. ascl–1806.
[33] M. Abadi, P. Barham, J. Chen, Z. Chen, A. Davis, J. Dean, M. Devin, S. Ghemawat,
G. Irving, M. Isard, Tensorflow: a system for large-scale machine learning, in:
12th {USENIX} Symposium on Operating Systems Design and Implementation
({OSDI} 16), 2016, pp. 265–283.
[34] L. Smith, Cyclical learning rates for training neural networks, in: 2017 IEEE
Winter Conference on Applications of Computer Vision (WACV), IEEE, 2017,
pp. 464–472.