September 3-4, 2021, Virtual Conference, Japan

International Conference on Design and Concurrent Engineering 2021

& Manufacturing Systems Conference 2021
Regular Paper: No. 6

Estimation of Ship Powering in Preliminary Ship Design Using

Graph Theory and Machine Learning Method
Adi MAIMUN*, Kazuo HIEKATA**, Jauhari KHAIRUDDIN*, Chee Loon SIOW* and Arifah ALI*
*Marine Technology Centre, Universiti Teknologi Malaysia
81310 Skudai, Johor, Malaysia
E-mail: scheeloon@utm.my
**Department of Human and Engineered Environmental Studies, University of Tokyo
272, 5-1-5 Kashiwanoha, Kashiwa City, Chiba 277-8563, Japan

Abstract
Designing ships as a large and complex systems involves in the development of prescribed design parameters
that are usually executed exhaustively through iterations. The processes become challenging as the complexity
increases and the domain becomes very large. This is due to the simplistic sequential approach of the conventional
ship design spiral model. To mitigate this, graph theory and machine learning methods are proposed to enable
concurrent design parameters development and analysis at scales, and in relations. It is applied to estimate the
passenger ship preliminary powering requirements. Based on the identified hull parameter variables, data analysis
is carried out to investigate their significance and interrelationships. It is then used to develop the machine
learning model to predict the powering requirements. The results from the empirical approximation and analytical
estimation are then compared and evaluated. The average absolute errors observed are 17.5% for the analytical
model and 23% for the machine learning model respectively in comparison to the empirical approximation. This
contributes to the proposed design process workflow development as a tool for the powering requirement
estimation. Through this concept, the ship design knowledge and processes are visually represented, executed
and analysed, providing better insights, and thus facilitating faster design process.

Key words: Graph theory; machine learning; artificial intelligence; concurrent engineering; ship design

1. Introduction

Ships as large and complex systems design requires multiple and inter-disciplinary organizational and technical
considerations that contribute to the design problem-solution explorations. Practically, the ship design processes are
observed according to existing solutions or basis ship design. It is performed iteratively through the conventional ship
design spiral model to achieve the overall and balanced design parameters.
In general, the ship design process is carried out based on the prescribed design parameters and sequences. As the
design complexity and domain increases, the process tends to become more challenging and time consuming. To
accommodate this, naval architects iterate the design parameters developments in isolation. This causes design problems
oversimplification, compromising weak design parameters and suppressing their interactions. Therefore, the design
problem-solution exploration and innovation tend to be restricted. The effect is particularly significant for one-off and
multi-purpose ship designs due to the limited knowledge on the design solutions. Inevitably, it is also observed in
repetitive designs. This is primarily due to the conflicting functional requirements and ad-hoc design changes.
The process isolation introduced in the design spiral model makes it difficult to assess the overall design parameters
developments at the early design stage. The challenges are; 1) difficulties to evaluate, solve and manage design
complexities due to conflicting functional requirements and design parameters, 2) design solution that is highly
constrained by design criteria, optimization objectives and variants, 3) high design uncertainties due to design problem
simplification, and 4) long development time affected by the sequential and large numbers of design iterations.
Consequently, concurrent engineering (CE) is proposed in this work. It is viewed as potential to solve the conventional
design model limitations. Apart from the organizational context, CE implementation is also aimed at facilitating
concurrent design parameters developments to effectively explore the multiple attributes of ship design problems.

© 2021 The Japan Society of Mechanical Engineers

 International Conference on Design and Concurrent Engineering 2021
& Manufacturing Systems Conference 2021
September 3-4, 2021, Virtual Conference, Japan

CE concept in ship design is not new. In fact, it was not very well adopted in the early time due to its perceived
discrepancy with the conventional design spiral model and the organizational lack of acceptance. However, the
requirement for efficient design development and shipbuilding processes, and rapid adaptability to changes has driven the
adoption of this approach (Khairuddin et al., 2019). One of the key interests to this concept emphasises on the application
of decision-making support systems and knowledge management, and their impacts toward rapid design and changes
(Jonkers and Shahroudi, 2019). It highlights the needs for knowledge representation and a common platform to enable
design processes and analysis. This is further supported by the knowledge-based system, robust workflow, and robotic
process automation (RPA) in facilitating and automating basic and routine operations.
Significantly, the knowledge representation plays a major role in the advancement of ship design development. It is
proposed to express the experts’ knowledge in the form of a domain knowledge graph (Kejirwal, 2019, Lin et al. 2020).
The concept emerged from the need to enable computers to reason and process flowing data, thus, to assist in executing
repetitive tasks. This is achieved by applying the information extraction and graph theory. The first deals with extracting
useful information from the raw data. Whereas the latter is used to model the graph in mathematical form; G = (V, E, A)
for G is the graph, V represents the vertices or nodes, E is for the undirected edges and A for directed edges, referring to
the type of relationship in between the nodes.
Furthermore, the machine learning (ML) on graphs has gained considerable attention. One of the approaches includes
the use of ML models at nodes by processing the inflow data (Sheriff, 2021, Yi et al., 2021). Design problems can be
presented as a graph with nodes and links serving specific processes, visualizing a process workflow. In combination with
nodes having scripted processes and rules, data can be passed to the next nodes with ML model to perform inference. For
repetitive processes, this concept serves to minimize iteration by leveraging it on pre-trained models. Importantly in ship
design, this approach is considered novel, advocating process concurrency and artificial intelligent (AI) application. It is
proposed to reduce the design parameter development time by reducing the design iterations.
Observing ML on graphs, this work applies the concept to estimate the powering requirement for passenger ships. It
explores the nonlinear and multivariate ship design parameter data and presents it as a complex, nonlinear regression
problem. For this, the Multilayer Perceptron (MLP) model is considered. Studies show that MLP presents good training
and prediction accuracy and is at par with the other nonparametric ML models such as the random forest (RF) and the
multivariate adaptive regression spline (MARS) (Heddam, 2021).
MLP is a feedforward neural network composed of an input layer that deals with the dataset, set of hidden layers with
hidden interconnected neurons and nonlinear activation functions providing nonlinear mappings between the input and
output and an output layer that formats and outputs the target value. It applies the backpropagation method to find the
best parameters variable for the hidden layer mapping and enable the neural network training. This makes the MLP
capable of broadly fitting any nonlinear problem with inputs and outputs having nonlinear functional relationships.
In general, this work applies CE to model and simulate the passenger ship design processes. Recently, significant
efforts in adopting concurrent design and engineering to ship design processes such as on integrated ship design (Bucci
et al. 2018), initial ship design space exploration (Goodrum et al. 2018) and platform for ship design process integration
(Harries and Abt, 2019) are observed. Though, they are mainly emphasised on the integrated ship design concept. In
particular, the expected impact of this work is to derive near optimal ship design or set of variants and at the early stage
without compromising the traits of every design parameter.
In summary, the key contributions are; 1) understanding of underlying information of the ship design data and their
significance in representing ship design knowledge, 2) exploring knowledge graph and workflow to represent the ship
design processes and to facilitate concurrent ship design, 3) determining best ML model parameters for exploring the ship
design development as nonlinear problems, and 4) facilitating decision making processes in finding the best hull
parameters that suit the established design problem.

2. Methodology

The development and implementation of graph theory and ML method are carried out based on the methodological
flow, as in figure 1. The process is initiated with passenger ship design data analysis in correspondence to the proposed
volume-based ship design model. The ship data represents the actual passenger ship in service with monohull and
propeller propulsion types of overall lengths (LOA) of 80 - 240 m, block coefficient (CB) of 0.5 - 0.7, gross tonnage (GT)
of 1,400 - 60,000 tonne and with 80%MCR brake kilowatts (BkW) power of 3,000 - 70,000 kW for service speeds (VS).

© 2021 The Japan Society of Mechanical Engineers

 International Conference on Design and Concurrent Engineering 2021
& Manufacturing Systems Conference 2021
September 3-4, 2021, Virtual Conference, Japan

The passenger ship design data is explored for the ML model development. Based on the volume-based ship design
model, a process graph or workflow is generated to represent the passenger ship powering requirement estimation
processes. It serves to simulate the passenger ship powering prediction and estimation using a set of new, unseen data.
Continue, this work validates and compares the performance of the ML model to the empirical approximation and
analytical estimation. The discussions on the outcomes are carried out in section 3.

Fig. 1 Proposed volume-based preliminary passenger ship design methodological framework

2.1 Volume-based ship design model

The volume-based model presented in figure 2 shows the high-level passenger design parameters, derived based on
the generic passenger ship design. It is abstracted as a mixed graph, used to represent the data related to each of the design
parameters and their relationships. Subsequently, the graph acts as the basis for design parameter development. In this
work, the “principal parameter” and “powering” design parameters explorations are proposed and highlighted.

Fig. 2 Graph for volume-based passenger ship design model

In figure 2, the hull and superstructure represent the ship's gross volume. They are dictated by cargo, propulsion
systems, tanks, and outfit spaces. The sum of the component's weights defines the ship's total weight and is used to
calculate the hull displacement. Therefore, any changes to the volumes and subsequently the weights are observed through
the graph. Specifically, this work proposed the scope for ship powering prediction based on established passenger ship
principal parameters hence the basis for the process graph or workflow development.

2.2 Ship design data processing

The exploratory data analysis is proposed to; 1) investigate the data distributions and identify the needs for data
processing, 2) determine the needs for feature engineering, and 3) identify, assess, and select input variables that are most
significant. It serves to provide the insights and effective use of the data, in selecting suitable ML model and to improve

© 2021 The Japan Society of Mechanical Engineers

 International Conference on Design and Concurrent Engineering 2021
& Manufacturing Systems Conference 2021
September 3-4, 2021, Virtual Conference, Japan

computational performance. Here, the passenger ship principal parameters are composed of 8 existing and 4 engineered
features. The existing features are the waterline length (LWL), breadth (B), depth (D), draught (T), displacement (Disp or
∇), gross tonnage (GT), service speed (VS) and powering (P) while the engineered features are the length-to-breadth ratio
(L/B), breadth-to-draught ratio (B/T), block coefficient (CB) and Froude number (Fn).
In ship design problems, data processing such as the feature scaling is required for a dataset having different units
and magnitudes in which its distribution does not follow a Gaussian distribution. For this, data normalization is performed
to transform the data having different features to a distribution value between 0 and 1, re-scaling them to a common scale.
The method is important so that the ML model training can be performed effectively.
Feature engineering is another step in the exploratory data analysis. It is viewed as natural to ship design development
due to the design parameter interactions. In the same context, feature engineering is defined as a process of applying
domain knowledge to transform the initial information into meaningful features that present the underlying ship design
problems. Based on the highlighted parameters, the engineered features are derived to represent and describe the ship hull
geometric form and its operational characteristics. In this case, it is used to relate the parameter variables effect to the hull
total resistance and therefore, powering requirements. Technically, the L/T and B/T represent the dimension of the hull,
the CB is defined as the ratio of the displaced volume to the rectangular block volume of the hull while the Fn is the hull
fluid flow characteristics measurement. CB is calculated by;
𝛻
𝐶𝐵 = 𝐿 (1)
𝑊𝐿 ×𝐵×𝑇

Next, the feature importance calculation is carried out to determine the data features relevance for building ML
models. Particularly, large features will cause the ML model to become more complex and prone to overfitting, reducing
its predictive capability towards new, unseen data. Due to the nonlinear dataset characteristic, this work applied the
principal component analysis (PCA) loading scores calculation to identify the feature importance. Fundamentally, the
PCA selects significant features in the high dimension and reconstructs them into a lower dimension by linearly
transforming the initial data correlated features into a set of uncorrelated ones. The process is initiated with estimating
the number of components needed to describe the data. It proceeds with the PCA loadings computation to find the linear
combination coefficients of the original features and the principal components.

2.3 MLP model development

The MLP model development process is initiated with dataset splitting for the training and testing purposes, typically
with the 80:20 ratio. Respectively, they are used for model training, evaluation and the hyperparameter tuning. The model
evaluation is proposed to see if the model prediction can perform well with new data.

Fig. 3 Example MLP neural network for regression problem with 1 hidden layer

The process proceeds with configuring the neural network layers. As in figure 3, the first layer specifies the shape of
input features, Xn. Next, each node at the hidden layer transforms the values from the previous layer with weighted linear
summations. The values are then passed to the output layer and transformed into output value. Through backpropagation,
the network training updates the neurons mapping weight, reducing the errors resulting from the previous computations.

© 2021 The Japan Society of Mechanical Engineers

 International Conference on Design and Concurrent Engineering 2021
& Manufacturing Systems Conference 2021
September 3-4, 2021, Virtual Conference, Japan

Hyperparameter tuning is then performed to find the best hyperparameter values that would produce the best
performance model in terms of training time and prediction accuracy. The parameters of interest are the number of hidden
layers and neurons, regularization parameter value, learning rate and number of epochs.

2.4 Graph development

Proceed, the QFD-AD method (Khairuddin et al. 2020) is applied to synthesise the passenger ship design workflow.
The graph construction is initiated by the functional requirements and design parameters decompositions following the
volume-based model. However, this work only considers the power prediction and estimation processes.
The ship design knowledge is abstracted and derived into a knowledge graph and executed based on the customer
requirements and the passenger ship design goals. Then, the functional requirement decomposition proceeds into defining
the tasks required to determine and verify the passenger ship design powering requirement. Concurrently, the design
parameters related to the functional requirements are established and referenced to the volume-based ship design model
as in figure 2, and the associated design data i.e., functional requirement: develop hull → design parameter: hull parameter.

2.5 Simulate powering estimation

Implementing the generated graph, the powering requirement prediction is executed based on the trained MLP model
while the powering estimation is carried out based on a regression model (Fung, 1991). The ship principal parameters and
hull form data for the simulation are augmented based on the hull series experiment (Bailey, 1976).
The regression model is developed based on a large database of numerous ship types and has been validated on
random hull form and methodological studies. It serves the hulls that are designed within the range of the passenger ship
principal parameters data. For the powering estimation, the model proposed emphasises on the estimation of residuary
resistance coefficient (CR). It is consisting of 10 principal parameter variables and represented as;

𝐵
𝐶𝑅 = 𝑓(𝐷𝐿, 𝑇 𝑋 , 𝐶𝑃 , 𝐶𝑋 , 𝐼𝐸, 𝑇𝐴, 𝑇𝑊, 𝑇𝑇, 𝐵𝐴, 𝐶𝑊𝑆) (2)
𝑋

Where DL is the displacement-length ratio, BX/TX is the breadth-draught ratio at x, CP is the prismatic coefficient, CX
is the maximum section area coefficient, IE is the half entrance angle, TA is the transom area ratio, TW is the transom
width ratio, TT is the transom depth ratio, BA is the bow area ratio and CWS is the wetted surface coefficient. The effective
powering (PE) calculation is executed based on;

𝑃𝐸 = 𝑅𝑇 𝑉 (3)

Where RT is the total hull resistance and V is the speed. It can be calculated by;

𝑅𝑇 = 𝑅𝑅 + 𝑅𝐹 (4)

Where RR is the residuary resistance and RF is the skin friction resistance. The RR and RF is calculated based on the
ITTC’57 formulations;

1
𝑅𝑅 = 𝐶𝑅 ∙ 2 𝜌𝑆𝑉 2 (5)

And,

1
𝑅𝐹 = 𝐶𝐹 ∙ 2 𝜌𝑆𝑉 2 (6)

Where CF is the skin friction coefficient, 𝜌 is the saltwater mass density, S is the hull wetted area at rest, and V is the
ship speed. CF is calculated by;

0.075
𝐶𝐹 = (𝑙𝑜𝑔 2 (7)
10 𝑅𝑁−2)

© 2021 The Japan Society of Mechanical Engineers

 International Conference on Design and Concurrent Engineering 2021
& Manufacturing Systems Conference 2021
September 3-4, 2021, Virtual Conference, Japan

Where RN is Reynold's number. Then, the estimated PE is compared to the powering requirement predicted using the
ML model and validated and verified using the hull series experiment (Bailey, 1976) approximation.
Finally, the process to determine the passenger ship powering can be developed based on established workflow, using
the flow-based programming approach. The process is then demonstrated and evaluated based on time taken to complete
the outlined tasks and the prediction or estimation accuracy.

3. Result and discussion

The data preprocessing, model, development, workflow programming and verification are carried out using a mobile
workstation with 6 cores processor running at 4.10 GHz and 16 GB of memory. The program and ML model are developed
using python 3.7 and scikit-learn ML library and trained without GPU acceleration. The work is carried out using 117 of
preprocessed passenger ship data collected from 1991 till 2016.
The data normalization applied to the data provides interpretable insights on the principal parameters. Figure 4
visualised the differences between the raw and normalized data and that can be used to extract meaningful information.

Fig. 4 Raw and normalized passenger ship principal parameter data

The preprocessed dataset as in figure 4 presents a fairly distributed data hence its suitability in developing the base
ML model. This is crucial so that the developed model is not biased thus capable of producing reliable prediction. In this
case, the dataset represents a single class of passenger ship design problem, presented as in Table 2. The dataset is selected
for a passenger ship design problem with typical displacement type monohull, CB range of 0.5 - 0.7 and operating at
displacement mode with Fn range of less than 0.5.

Table 2: Passenger ship principal parameter data range

Parameter Value Parameter Value

LOA, m 80 - 240 Disp, t 2,500 - 32,000
B, m 15 - 32 CB 0.5 - 0.7
D, m 9 - 21 GT, t 1,400 - 60,000
T, m 3-8 Vs, kn 14.5 - 30.5
L/B 3.5 - 9.0 Fn 0.20 - 0.40
B/T 3.0 - 5.5 P, kW 3,000 - 70,000

Figure 5 shows the calculated feature importance of each parameter to P, performed based on the PCA principal
component (PC) loading scores. It is observed that the L/B, D, VS, T, Disp, GT, LWL and B are significant in determining
the value P. It can be summarized that the significant features consist of the existing geometric related parameters, while
the engineered features such as the CB, B/T and Fn are deemed less important. Practically, the feature importance
calculation is proposed to identify and drop out insignificant features to simplify the ML model. However, in this case,
CB, B/T and Fn are not excluded as they serve to provide immediate information for the ship design characteristics as
well as to avoid the ML model from being underfitting.

© 2021 The Japan Society of Mechanical Engineers

 International Conference on Design and Concurrent Engineering 2021
& Manufacturing Systems Conference 2021
September 3-4, 2021, Virtual Conference, Japan

Fig. 5 PCA principal component-1 (PC1) loading score

The processed data is split into 93 train and 24 test datasets and fed into the configured MLP model. Here, the MLP
number of layers and neuron configurations are determined heuristically through the hyperparameter tuning processes.
The performance measure and hyperparameter tuning are executed based on the MLP configurations as in Table 3.

Table 3: MLP model configuration tests

Model 1 2 3 4 5 6
Hidden layers, # 2 3 4 5 3 3
Nodes per layer, # 256 512 1024 2048 128 256
128 256 512 1024 64 128
128 256 512 32 64
128 256
128
Training time, s 0.27 1.02 4.59 12.5 0.11 0.35
Accuracy, % 82.8 83.4 83.4 80.9 36.5 84.6

The result in Table 3 shows that the best base MLP model configuration is the model 6, followed by the model 1.
Additional hyperparameters applied to the models are the random seed, L2 regularization (0.01), Adam optimization
algorithm, learning rate (0.01) and early stopping function. These parameters are selected based on the result from the
optimization process using scikit learn library built-in tool.
From the result, it can be observed that the prediction accuracy increases as the number of hidden layers and neurons
increases. Inevitably, the training time is also increased as the model becomes more complicated. However, the prediction
accuracy starts to drop when the hidden layers increase further as shown by configuration 4, affected by the L2
regularization. In addition, the prediction accuracy is also affected by the lack of neurons as exhibited by configuration
5. This is mainly due to the model incapability to adequately fit the data causing the underfitting issue. The model testing
result for the remaining 20% sampled data is presented as in figure 6.

Fig. 6 MLP model 6 prediction using 20% new and unseen data

© 2021 The Japan Society of Mechanical Engineers

 International Conference on Design and Concurrent Engineering 2021
& Manufacturing Systems Conference 2021
September 3-4, 2021, Virtual Conference, Japan

The test result above shows that the model can fit new and unseen data, producing good predictions and close to the
training accuracy. This verifies the base model and potential for the passenger ship early design exploration. In practice,
the ML model can be further improved by re-training and testing the model with more reliable data.
As for the proposed passenger ship powering requirement determination, figure 7 shows the workflow to predict,
estimate and verify the preliminary passenger ship powering requirement. It represents the hull and ship principal designs
parameters explorations.

Fig. 7 General ship powering estimation and verification workflow

The case study used in this work is based on the Bailey’s 100A basis hull form and passenger ship database,
summarised as in Table 4. The ML model prediction and analytical resistance and powering estimation is carried out using
the augmented data and then validated and verified with Bailey's experiment approximation. First, the resistance and
powering estimation using the analytical model is determined and evaluated. The result is then concatenated to the original
dataset and fed back to retrain the ML model. It proceeds with the same step as previously described resulting in a new
and improved ML model configuration; 4 hidden layers each with 1024, 512, 256 and 128 nodes and without the L2
regularization. The training ran for 3.83 seconds. The model is then run through with the dataset as in Table 4 again. The
results for the experimental approximation, analytical estimation and the ML model are presented in figure 8.

Table 4: Augmented passenger ship parameters

Parameter Value Parameter Value

LWL, m 80 B/T 2.8
B, m 12.4 Disp, t 1,712
D, m 10.8 CB 0.40
T, m 4.4 GT, t 13,275
L/B 6.5 Fn 0.20 - 0.50

Fig. 8 Ship powering results comparison between the Bailey’s empirical model, Fung’s analytical model and MLP model

© 2021 The Japan Society of Mechanical Engineers

 International Conference on Design and Concurrent Engineering 2021
& Manufacturing Systems Conference 2021
September 3-4, 2021, Virtual Conference, Japan

Figure 8 shows a close approximation of the prediction values to the empirical model throughout the Fn ranges with
an average absolute error of 23%. As reference, the average absolute error for the analytical model is 17.5%. This shows
the influencing factors of adding reliable dataset and optimized hyperparameter settings to the ML model that can produce
positive impact to the prediction accuracy and processing time. Continued, the processes as conducted above are
programmed as a process workflow and demonstrated to simulate the powering estimation, prediction, validation, and
verification processes. Conceptually, it is presented as in figure 9 and aimed as a tool to facilitate design processes through
the proposed graph theory and ML method.

Fig. 9 Passenger ship data processing, powering requirement estimation, validation, and evaluation workflow

Utilising the ship data, the proposed workflow above is devised to simulate the concurrent process for the ship
powering empirical approximation, analytical estimation, and comparisons with the predicted power. This allows for
decision-making on suitable hull design selection for a known design problem. Based on the processes, the best result is
stored in the database and used to re-train and improve the ML model. Additionally, scaling out this workflow would
follow the ship design model as presented in figure 2. It is intended to enable further ship design parameters developments
and thus functions as a platform for concurrent engineering ship design.

4. Conclusion

This study presents the passenger ship powering requirement determination processes using the graph theory and ML
method. It introduces the methodological framework to devise a ship design parameter development workflow for the
concurrent ship powering experimental approximation, analytical estimation, ML model prediction and results
verification and validations.
The workflow incorporates the data analysis, data processing, ML model training, powering estimation methods,
results evaluation, and selection processes, presenting ship design tasks that are usually performed separately and in
sequence. It serves to permit ship designers to understand the dataset and processes underlying information as well as to
assist in decision-making within a single platform. Significantly with the advancing computer technology, the processes
can be carried out in parallel within set accuracy in seconds hence resulting in high productivity.
Regarding the ML prediction accuracy, there is a need for some degree of model overfitting characteristic. This is
due to the magnitude difference in the ship design parameters values caused by the displacement (Disp), gross tonnage
(GT) and powering (P). This is undesirable especially for P as it is crucial from the energy efficiency & environmental
perspective while the Disp and GT are related to the build cost. Additionally, other potential ML algorithms to be explored
are the random forest (RF) and multivariate adaptive regression spline (MARS). This is to observe the algorithms
performance as they are viewed as more flexible in learning and picking up more detailed information in the dataset.
Furthermore, the applicability of the QFD-AD method in developing the proposed workflow based on the volume-
based ship design model is demonstrated. It facilitates in finding the relationship between the ship design parameters and
deducing the processes graph representation as in figure 7. Hence, further extension of the application is recommended
to scale out, analyse and demonstrate the overall ship design processes. Therefore, it is acknowledged that graph theory

© 2021 The Japan Society of Mechanical Engineers

 International Conference on Design and Concurrent Engineering 2021
& Manufacturing Systems Conference 2021
September 3-4, 2021, Virtual Conference, Japan

and ML method as the potential approach in adopting the artificial intelligence concept to ship design development. In
essence, it is presented in this work based on the workflow and the proposed design tool development.

5. Acknowledgement

This work is funded by the Universiti Teknologi Malaysia (UTM) under the Research University Grant (RUG).
Project number: Q.J130000.3851.19J88 and titled: “Predictive Model for Ship Design and Configuration Using Machine
Learning - Model Development and Validation”.

6. Reference

Bailey, D. (1976). The NPL high speed round bilge displacement hull series: resistance, propulsion, manoeuvring and
seakeeping data. Royal Institution of Naval Architects.
Fung, S. (1991). resistance and powering prediction for transom stern hull forms during early stage ship design.
Transactions-Society of Naval Architects and Marine Engineers, 99, 29-84.
Goodrum, C., Taylordean, S., & Singer, D. J. (2018, June). Understanding initial design spaces in set-based design
using networks and information theory. In Marine Design XIII, Volume 1: Proceedings of the 13th International
Marine Design Conference (IMDC 2018), June 10-14, 2018, Helsinki, Finland (p. 385). CRC Press.
Harries, S., & Abt, C. (2019). CAESES—The HOLISHIP Platform for Process Integration and Design Optimization. In
A Holistic Approach to Ship Design (pp. 247-293). Springer, Cham.
Heddam, S. (2021). New formulation for predicting soil moisture content using only soil temperature as predictor:
multivariate adaptive regression splines versus random forest, multilayer perceptron neural network, M5Tree, and
multiple linear regression. In Water Engineering Modeling and Mathematic Tools (pp. 45-62). Elsevier.
Jonkers, R. K., & Shahroudi, K. E. (2019, April). Reducing the Costs of Engineering Design Changes Through
Adoption of a Decision Support and Knowledge Management System Early in the Design. In 2019 IEEE
International Systems Conference (SysCon) (pp. 1-8). IEEE.
Khairuddin, J., Maimun, A., & Siow, C. L. (2019, July). Review of systems engineering methods, techniques and tools
for ship design as large and complex systems. In International congress and conferences on computational design
and engineering (pp. 82-91).
Khairuddin, J., Maimun, A., & Siow, C. L. (2020, July). Ship systems synthesis and analysis using holistic design
approach: The QFD-AD method. In IOP Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering (Vol. 884, No. 1,
p. 012091). IOP Publishing.
Kejriwal, M. (2019). What Is a Knowledge Graph? In Domain-Specific Knowledge Graph Construction (pp. 1–7).
Cham: Springer International Publishing.
Lin, J., Zhao, Y., Huang, W., Liu, C., & Pu, H. (2020). Domain knowledge graph-based research progress of knowledge
representation. Neural Computing and Applications, 1-10.
Sheriff, F. (2021). ELMOPP: an application of graph theory and machine learning to traffic light coordination. Applied
Computing and Informatics.
Yi, Z., Liu, X. C., Markovic, N., & Phillips, J. (2021). Inferencing hourly traffic volume using data-driven machine
learning and graph theory. Computers, Environment and Urban Systems, 85, 101548.

© 2021 The Japan Society of Mechanical Engineers