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

net/publication/233498605

Optimal Compartment Layout Design for a Naval Ship Using an Improved

Genetic Algorithm

Article  in  Marine technology · July 2002

CITATIONS READS

19 401

3 authors, including:

Myung-Il Roh
Seoul National University
188 PUBLICATIONS   932 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Myung-Il Roh on 25 February 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

© Marine Technology, Vol. 39, No. 3, July 2002, pp. 159–169

Optimal Compartment Layout Design for a Naval Ship Using an

Improved Genetic Algorithm
Kyu-Yeul Lee,1 Seong-Nam Han,2 and Myung-II Roh3

With the trend in modern naval ships towards less dense payloads, space layout design has become more
important. Recent advances in computing science and increased understanding of methods for developing
mathematical models, which form the basis of the space layout design, have helped with the development
of a powerful design procedure. In this study, the compartment layout problem, which can be regarded as
the space layout design of a naval ship, is represented as a mathematical model, and a compartment
layout algorithm based on the genetic algorithm (GA) in order to solve the problem is proposed. Com-
parative testing shows that the proposed algorithm performs better than other existing algorithms for the
optimal compartment layout design. Finally, the proposed algorithm is applied to the compartment layout
problem of a naval ship and the computational results are compared with the actual compartment layout
of the naval ship.

Introduction wholly on the ability of a designer to generate alternative

THE payload density of naval ships has recently been de-
creasing while the payload specific volume has been increas-
ing. This trend is caused by the drive for increased perfor-
mance of the ship by using electronic equipment, which has
lower density, when compared with guns from the past. This
change of focus has also been driven by associated demands
for maintenance and operational spaces. This trend has lim-
ited the volume available on a naval ship, and has meant that
the volume required for a naval ship’s electronic equipment
has become larger than the minimum volume necessary to
float the ship. However, the required volume for the elec-
tronic equipment was limited since the size and building cost
of a naval ship increases as more volume is added. This
means that space layout design has become a much more
important consideration for efficient allocation of all com-
partments, including the electronic equipment, in the limited
volume.
Several approaches have been suggested by many re-
searchers in studies of optimal space layout design for a na-
val ship. Hope (1981) and Andrews (1981,1985) suggested
approaches aimed at improving design synthesis of arrange-
ment design of the naval ship; however, they did not receive
much attention. Brown (1986) insisted that an attempt, us-
ing several techniques proposed in his study, should be made
to evaluate each layout, using a quantifiable approach, while
searching for the best arrangement. Cort & Hills (1987) pro-
posed an optimal design procedure which utilizes fuzzy
theory. In this approach a number of alternative layouts that
satisfy design requirements are generated manually or by
using an automated design procedure, and then an optimal
layout among those alternative layouts is found by using
fuzzy theory. However, all of the possible alternative layouts
cannot be considered because this design methodology relies
1 the passage should be considered and the boundary shape of
Professor, Department of Naval Architecture & Ocean Engineer-
ing and Research Institute of Marine System Engineering, Seoul
National University, Korea.
2
Visiting research officer, Korean Navy and Seoul National Uni-
versity, Korea.
3
Ph.D. candidate, Department of Naval Architecture & Ocean En-
gineering, Seoul National University, Korea.
layouts. Carlson & Fireman (1987) used a computer-based
design system called a general arrangement design system
(GADS) to perform the arrangement design of the naval ship.
Since the optimization module has not been included in the
system, the layout generated from the system was feasible,
but not a best solution.
Alternatively, facility layout problems (FLP) concerning
space layout optimization have been investigated in depth by
researchers in various fields, such as industrial engineering,
management science, and architecture. Layout design inves-
tigations are assisted with recent advances in computing sci-
ence and also with increased understanding of methods used
for developing mathematical models. The FLP, which has
been investigated in various fields, can be regarded as a com-
partment layout problem of a naval ship.
The FLP is a common industrial problem of allocating fa-
cilities to either maximize the adjacency requirement (Sep-
panen 1970) or minimize the cost of transporting materials
between them (Koopmans 1957). These facilities can be re-
garded as compartments in a naval ship. Several facility
(“compartment”) layout algorithms to solve the FLP have
been developed by various researchers (Tam 1992, Islier
1998). However, in these algorithms, structure, number,
width, and location of passages were not an important con-
sideration in solving the FLP. Also the inner structure walls,
which can be regarded as watertight transverse bulkheads of
the naval ship, were not completely considered. These algo-
rithms were developed to handle the FLP in which the pas-
sage and inner structure walls were not explicitly considered
by the designer for an optimal layout of facilities in a factory
or a shop. Moreover, these algorithms could handle the FLP
in which a boundary shape of an available area is rectangular
so these algorithms could not be directly applied to the com-
partment layout problem of the naval ship, in which the in-
ner structure walls (“watertight transverse bulkheads”) and
the available area is curved. A new algorithm that can solve
this problem is required. In this study, a compartment layout
algorithm is proposed based on the genetic algorithm (GA) to
solve the compartment layout problem of a naval ship. Fi-
nally, the proposed algorithm is applied to the compartment
layout problem of a naval ship and the computational results

JULY 2002 0025-3316/02/3903-0159$00.47/0 MARINE TECHNOLOGY 159

are compared with the actual compartment layout of the na- Subject to
val ship after efficiency of the proposed algorithm is evalu-
ated. g1 = a m in
k - a k # 0 (3)
g2 = a k- a m ax
k # 0 (4)
Optimal compartment layout problem m in
g3 = a k - ak # 0 (5)
Compartment layout problem having watertight m ax
g 4 = ak - a # 0 (6)
transverse bulkheads and passages k

M
The compartment layout problem in this study is con-
cerned with finding the best compartment layout. The design
g5 = (
k=1
ak - Aavailable # 0 (7)
objective is to minimize the total cost of transporting mate-
rials and to maximize the adjacency requirement between g 6 = ~ xri - xw
s
.t.b
! ~ xw
s
.t.b
- xj! #
l
0 (8)
compartments while at the same time satisfying the con-
k = 1, … , M and s = 1, … , P
straints of areas, aspect ratios of the compartments, and wa-
tertight transverse bulkheads and passages. Finding the best where M is the number of compartments, fi,j is the material
compartment layout means determining sequence and areas flow between compartments i and j, di,j is the distance be-
of the compartments to be allocated, and the location of pas- tween centroids of compartments i and j, and bij is the adja-
sages. In Fig. 1 it is assumed, for convenience sake, that the cency factor which represents the adjacency ratio between
boundary shape of the available area is rectangular. Input compartments i and j. The adjacency factor bi,j is determined
data given by a designer are: from distance di,j between compartments i and j as follows.
1. Number of compartments to be allocated to the avail- bi,j = 1.0 ; if 0 < di,j # dm a x / 6
able area. bi,j = 0.8 ; if dm a x / 6 < di,j # dm ax / 3
2. Available area and its boundary shape. bi,j = 0.6 ; if dm a x / 3 < di,j # dm ax / 2
3. Upper and lower bounds of the required area for each bi,j = 0.4 ; if dm a x / 2 < di,j # 2dm a x / 3
compartment. bi,j = 0.2 ; if 2dm a x / 3 < di,j # 5dm a x / 6
4. Upper and lower bounds of the required aspect ratio for bi,j = 0.0 ; if 5dm ax / 6 < di,j # dm a x
each compartment.
5. Material flows between compartments. where dm ax is the maximum distance between the compart-
6. Adjacency values between compartments. ments.
7. Number and positions of watertight transverse bulk- ci,j is the adjacency value (0–5) between compartments i
heads. and j. The adjacency value ci,j between compartments is a
8. Number and widths of each vertical and horizontal pas- functional relationship which is not always quantifiable and
sage. is sometimes vague and difficult to define. In fact, the opti-
9. Upper and lower bounds of the position of each vertical mization result can vary depending on this value. However,
and horizontal passage. in this study, the quantifiable value for ci,j proposed by Lee
(1988) is used as shown below.
Formulation of compartment layout problem
ci,j = 0 ; it is undesirable for compartments i and j to be
The problem described in the above section is mathemati- located close together
cally formulated as follows: ci,j = 1 ; it is unimportant for compartments i and j to be
located close together
M- 1 M
ci,j = 2 ; it is ordinary for compartments i and j to be
Minimize F1 = ( (
i= 1 j=i+1
~ fi,j 2 di,j! ; total transport cost
ci,j = 3
located close together
; it is important for compartments i and j to be
(1) located close together
and ci,j = 4 ; it is especially important for compartments i
and j to be located close together
M- 1 M
ci,j = 5 ; it is absolutely necessary for compartments i
Maximize F2 = ( (
i=1 j=i+ 1
~ bi,j 2 ci,j! ; adjacency requirement and j to be located close together
(2) a k is the aspect ratio of the compartment k, a m k
in
and a m
k
ax

are the lower and upper bounds of the aspect ratio a k , ak is

the assigned area of the compartment k, am k
in
and am k
ax
are
the lower and upper bounds of the assigned area ak , Aavailable
is the available area, P is the number of the watertight trans-
verse bulkheads, xw s
.t.b
is the position (x-coordinate) of the
watertight transverse bulkhead, and xri and xlj are the x-
coordinates of the right boundary of the compartment i and
the left boundary of the compartment j.
In the above formulas, equations (3) and (4) show that the
aspect ratio a k of the compartment k should vary between the
prescribed upper (a m k
in
) and lower bounds (a m k
ax
), equations
(5) and (6) show that the area ak of the compartment k should
vary between the prescribed upper (am k
in
) and lower bounds
ma x
(ak ). Equation (7) shows that the compartments total area
should be less than the available area Aavailable . Equation (8)
Fig. 1 An example of best layout of compartments (1–8) having watertight trans- shows there should be no interference between the water-
verse bulkheads and passages. tight transverse bulkheads. These constraints are used to

160 JULY 2002 MARINE TECHNOLOGY

ensure that a compartment is not partitioned into two sub- their facility layout design. Details about the GA can be
compartments. found in many references (Goldberg 1989, Davis 1991). A
Since this problem described by equations (1) to (8) has two scheme of the proposed compartment layout algorithm based
objective functions (F1 and F2 ), it is a multi-objective optimi- on the GA in this study is shown in Fig. 2.
zation problem but can be converted to a single-objective op-
timization problem by using the weighting method (Cohon Representation of compartment layout
1978). Applying weight factors (w1 and w 2 ) to the objective
Compartment layout can be represented as a chromosome
functions (F1 and F2 ) in equations (1) and (2) results in the
by an encoding process. The chromosome can be represented
following form.
as the compartment layout be a decoding process. In this
Minimize F = w 1 ? F1 + w2 ? F2 study, a method to model the compartment layout in a four-
M- 1 M segmented chromosome, including positions of passages, is
= w1 ? ( (
i= 1 j=i+ 1
~ fi,j ´ di,j! proposed and is shown in Fig. 3 The first segment of the
chromosome represents a sequence of compartments to be
M- 1 M
allocated. The second segment represents areas of the com-
+ w2 ? ( (
i= 1 j=i+ 1
~ C - bi, j ´ ci, j! (9) partments. The areas of the compartments are given in the
same order as the first segment and are allowed to vary be-
where C is the maximum adjacency rating (say 5), and w1 tween their upper and lower bounds. The third and fourth
and w2 are the weight factors which are equivalent to the segments, respectively, represent positions of the horizontal
tradeoff between the total cost of transporting materials (F1 ) and vertical passages. The positions of the passages are al-
and the adjacency requirement (F2 ). Therefore, the ratios w1 lowed to vary between their upper and lower bounds. Figure
and w2 can vary the optimization result. In this study, the 3 shows an example of the compartment layout together with
suitable values for w1 and w2 (w1 4 1.0 and w2 4 50.0) were the corresponding representation of the four-segmented chro-
chosen so that F1 and F2 , the objective functions, have the mosome.
same effect on the optimization result.
Using a penalty function method, the constrained optimi- Distance calculation method between compartments
zation problem, as defined in equations (3) to (9), can be In the existing compartment layout algorithms a rectilin-
converted to an unconstrained optimization problem stat- ear distance method has been used to calculate the distance
ed as: between compartments di,j. This is included in equation (10)
M- 1 M M- 1 M and needed to determine the adjacency factor bi,j in equation
Minimize F8 = w1 ? ( (
i=1 j= i+1
~ fi, j ´ di, j! + w2 ? ( (
i=1 j= i+ 1
(10). In this method, the distance di,j is calculated by sum-
ming the vertical and horizontal distances between the com-
6 partments, as shown below.
~ C - bi, j ´ ci, j! + (
u= 1
$ Ru ´ max ~ gu, 0 ! %
di,j 4 |xi ­ xj| + |yi ­ yj| (11)
(10) The above method cannot be applied directly to a compart-
where Ru are penalty coefficients. ment layout problem having passages, because materials are
to be moved via the passages. The problem is the method can
miscalculate the actual distance between compartments. In
Proposed algorithm for compartment the present study a new distance calculation method was
layout problem introduced, to determine the distance between compart-
ments, by using graph theory. In this new distance calcula-
Overview of proposed algorithm tion method all relationships between compartments and

The algorithm proposed in the present study is based on

the genetic algorithm (GA), which was first proposed by Hol-
land (1975). The GA is classified as an evolutionary search
and optimization technique which considers the design pro-
cess an evolutionary one. The GA attempts to find the best
solution by generating a collection (“population”) of potential
solutions (“individuals”). Through selection, crossover, and
mutation operations, more accurate solutions are hoped to be
generated from the current set of potential solutions. This
iteration continues until the algorithm finds an acceptably
good solution. The GA has many advantages over other op-
timization techniques, including the ability to deal with
qualitatively different types of domains, such as continuous
variable domains, discrete or quantized variable domains, or
mixed-type variable domains. The classical approach con-
verts all design variables of the problem to the domain of
binary integers and encodes each individual in the popula-
tion as a binary string (e.g., 010010). The crossover and mu-
tation operations then manipulate the bits in the binary
strings (0 or 1). The GA has been successful in solving nu-
merous science and engineering problems, such as traveling
salesman problems (TSP) (Chatterjee 1996), transport prob-
lems (Wren 1995), multi-objective optimization problems
(Kim 1994), and ship structural optimization problems (Lee Fig. 2 Scheme of proposed algorithm for compartment layout problem having
2001). And, currently many researchers are using the GA in watertight transverse bulkheads and passages

JULY 2002 MARINE TECHNOLOGY 161

 Fig. 3 Example of compartment layout and corresponding representation of 4-segmented chromosome
passages are first represented as an adjacency graph. Then
the shortest path between compartments i and j, and the
distance di,j between these compartments, is determined us-
ing Dijkstra’s algorithm of the graph theory (McHugh 1990).
Figure 4 shows all paths between compartments 1 and 10,
and the adjacency graph among compartment 1, 10, and the
passages to calculate the distance between compartments 1
and 10.
Improved genetic operations
As mentioned above, the proposed compartment layout al-
gorithm is based on the GA. In the GA, four genetic opera-
tions known as selection, crossover, inversion, and mutation
are typically used to generate new individuals (“children”). In
the present study, these operations of the GA were improved
Fig. 4 All paths between compartments 1 and 10, and adjacency graph to cal-
culate distance
162 JULY 2002
to solve efficiently the compartment layout problems that
have the watertight transverse bulkheads and passages.
These operations were incorporated into the proposed algo-
rithm. Additionally, a modification operation was included in
the crossover operation and a refinement operation was
added to handle void spaces. These “void spaces” are gener-
ated while converting a chromosome into a compartment lay-
out in the decoding process.
Selection operation—The selection operation is a process
performed to select two individuals (“parents”), from the cur-
rent population, for the next genetic operation. Here, a pro-
portionate selection method is employed, as it is the most
popular of the stochastic selection methods and it is some-
times called a roulette-wheel selection method. In the pro-
portionate selection method an individual is selected based
on selection probability pselection (i). This is shown in equation
(12) where, Ft(i) is a fitness value of an ith individual.
Ft~ i !
pselection~ i ! = (12)
( i
Ft~ i!
The probability of selecting the individual from the current
population is purely a function of the individual’s relative
fitness. A fitness function (Ft) of the individual can be for-
mulated as follows:
1
Ft = - F8 or Ft = ~ if F8 > 0 ! (13)
F8
Here, the second formula of equation (13) is used. By this
selection method, individuals having higher fitness will par-
ticipate in the creation of the next generation more often
than those having lower fitness.
Crossover operation—The crossover operation is a process
performed to generate new individuals (“children”) from two
individuals (“parents”) selected by the selection operation.
Two crossover operations, a modified crossover and a one-
point crossover, are used in this study. The modification op-
eration is applied to the children generated from these cross-
over operations to satisfy integrity in the third and fourth
segments.
Modified crossover operation—The modified crossover op-
eration is based on the assumption that the individual hav-
ing higher fitness value between the parents should endow
more genes to the child. This operation is simultaneously
MARINE TECHNOLOGY
applied to the first and second segments of each parent. Ini-
tially s1 positions in the first and second segments of the first
parent are randomly selected. This is to generate the first
and second segments of the first child. The value of s1 rep-
resents the number of genes of the first parent to be replaced
with those of the second parent. Then s1 is determined on the
basis of the first parent’s fitness when compared with the
second parent’s fitness. This is as shown in equation (14).
$ Ft~ p1 ! + Ft~ p2 ! % Ft~ p1!
-
s1 =
Ft~ p1 ! + Ft~ p2!
´ n ~ discard decimals ! , s2 = n - s1 (14)
In equation (14) Ft(p1) is the fitness of the first parent.
Ft(p2) is the fitness of the second parent, s2 is the number of
genes of the first parent to be transmitted to the first child,
and n is the number of the genes in the first and second
segments. From equation (14) the parent having higher fit-
ness has a smaller s1 value than the other parent due to the
assumption mentioned above. The next step in this operation
if for the genes in the s2 positions of the first parent to be
transmitted to the corresponding positions of the first child.
Finally, the genes in the s1 positions are reordered according
to the order of the corresponding genes in the second parent
and then they are transmitted to the corresponding positions
of the first child. These similar steps are applied to the sec-
ond parent to also generate the first and second segments of
the second child. Figure 5 shows an example of the modified
crossover operation applied to the first and second segments
for generating the first and second children.
One-point crossover operation—The one-point crossover
operation is simultaneously applied to the third and fourth
segments of each parent. A split line is randomly determined
in these segments, and then genes behind the split line are
exchanged between the parents. Figure 6 shows an example
of the one-point crossover operation applied to the third and
fourth segments to generate the third and fourth segments of
the first and second children.
Modification operation—As mentioned in the section “Rep-
resentation of compartment layout,” the third and fourth seg-
ments of the children, respectively, represent positions of the
horizontal and vertical passages. The sums of the genes in
the third and fourth segments are, respectively, equal to the
height and breadth of the available area. The modification
operation is applied to the children generated from the cross-
Fig. 5 An example of modified crossover operation applied to first and second
segments of parents
JULY 2002
Fig. 6 An example of one-point crossover operation applied to third and fourth
segments of parents
over operation to satisfy integrity in the third and fourth
segments of the children. The integrity represents that sums
of the genes in the third and fourth segments of each parent
should consist with the height (12) and the breadth (20) of the
available area shown in Fig. 3. The modification operation
satisfies integrity through modifying the last gene of the
third and fourth segments. Figure 7 shows an example of the
modification operation applied to the third and fourth seg-
ments to satisfy the integrity in the third and fourth seg-
ments of the first and second children.
Inversion operation—The inversion operation, which can
be considered as self-crossing, is used to increase population
diversity like the inversion operation. The inversion opera-
tion is simultaneously applied to the first and second seg-
ments of the first child generated from the crossover opera-
tion. Two genes in the first and second segments of the first
child are randomly selected and are exchanged with each
other. Figure 8 shows an example of the inversion operation
applied to the first and second segments of the first child.
Mutation operation—The mutation operation is applied to
the second segment of the second child generated from the
crossover operation. This normally causes random changes.
In this operation two genes in the second segment of the
second child are randomly selected and a difference value is
also randomly determined. The difference value is then
added to the first gene and at the same time, subtracted from
the second gene. Figure 9 shows an example of the mutation
operation applied to the second segment of the second child.
Refinement operation—The refinement operation was
added in the proposed algorithm to handle void spaces. Void
spaces are generated while converting a chromosome into a
compartment layout during the decoding process. When new
children generated from the operations mentioned above are
converted into the compartment layout by the decoding proc-
ess, a number of void spaces are generated as shown in Fig.
10. This is caused by avoiding interferences between the com-
partments and the watertight transverse bulkheads when
the compartments are allocated according to the sequence of
the compartments in the first segment of the chromosome.
Fig. 7 An example of modification operation applied to third and fourth segments
of children
MARINE TECHNOLOGY 163
Fig. 8 An example of inversion operation applied to first and second segments of
first child
Fig. 9 An example of mutation operation applied to second segment of second
child
Fig. 10 Compartment layouts before and after refinement operation for first child
Here the refinement operation is performed to eliminate the
void spaces and for efficient utilization of the available area.
Figure 10 shows the results of the compartment layout before
the refinement operation including void spaces and after the
refinement operation for the first child.
Comparative test of proposed algorithm with
an existing algorithm
To evaluate the efficiency of the proposed algorithm (par-
ticularly the improved genetic operations) a comparative test
was performed between it and Islier’s algorithm (1998). For a
more accurate comparison, the objective function, the chro-
mosome structure, and the representation method of the
compartment layout of the proposed algorithm were modified
by being made equal to those of Islier’s algorithm. The com-
partment layout of Islier’s algorithm is represented as a
three-segmented chromosome shown in Fig. 11(c). Figure
11(a) shows the placement procedure of the compartment.
The compartment layout of Islier’s algorithm is constructed
not on the available area shown in Fig. 3 but on the grid-
based available area. This available area is divided into unit
area squares or rectangles by a grid, as shown in Fig. 11(b).
For this case the compartments can have polygonal as well as
rectangular shapes, as is shown in Fig. 11(b), as each com-
partment is allocated along the grid. Figure 11 shows an
example of the representation method of the compartment
layout of Islier’s algorithm.
The testing was performed for several cases in which the
compartments number varies from 8, 12, 16, and 20, and the
maximum number of generations being 500 with a popula-
tion size of 500. Both algorithms were run ten times for each
case in the Pentium III system (667MHz, 256MB RAM) and
the results obtained are summarized in Table 1 where the
best among ten objective function values, the mean of ten
164 JULY 2002
Fig. 11 Example of layout of compartments and corresponding three-segmented
chromosome of Islier’s algorithm
objective function values and the ratio of computation times
are shown. From Table 1 it can be seen that the proposed
algorithm is superior to Islier’s algorithm as there are better
values of best and mean objective functions produced from
the proposed algorithm, and it required less computation
time.
Figure 12 shows final layouts obtained from the proposed
and Islier’s algorithms for the case of 20 compartments.
Example application of proposed algorithm
Development of a ship’s arrangement is one of the most
critical aspects of a ship’s design and is an integral part of the
design development, during each phase of design, due to of
three significant factors (Carlson 1987). First, there is in-
creased emphasis on integrating the individual functions of a
ship to form an integrated ship system. Second, most naval
ships are space critical, their size and resulting cost being
governed by spatial requirements. Third, the ship arrange-
ment is a necessary input to most other ship design tasks.
These three factors lead to close management and design
emphasis on the ship’s arrangement. As the design develops,
space is clearly the element in the design process that can be
most effectively controlled. Space allocation is a simple con-
trol mechanism accepted by members of the design team.
With the trend in modern naval ships towards less dense
payloads, space layout design has become more important.
Recent advances in computing science and increased under-
standing of methods for developing mathematical models,
which form the basis of space layout design, have helped with
the development of a powerful design procedure. In the
present study, the proposed algorithm was applied to the
compartment layout problems, which can be regarded as
space layout design, of a naval ship (FF-21 multi-mission
frigate (Afanasieff 1994)). The proposed algorithm was ap-
plied to compartment layouts of an aftbody having the avail-
able area of a rectangular boundary shape. The forebody was
considered as having the available area of a curved boundary
shape on the second deck of the FF-21, as is shown in Fig. 13.
The results from running the proposed algorithm were com-
pared with actual compartment layout (aftbody and fore-
body) on the second deck of the FF-21. The compartment
layout on the second deck of the FF-21 and the regions of the
aftbody and the forebody to which the proposed algorithm
was applied are shown in Fig. 13.
Compartment layout problem of aftbody on second
deck of FF-21
The actual compartment layout of the aftbody on the sec-
ond deck (frame no. 68–92) of the FF-21 is shown in Fig. 14
MARINE TECHNOLOGY
 Table 1 Comparison of computational results of proposed and Islier’s algorithms for various com-
partment layout cases (OFV: objective function value)

Fig. 13 Compartment layout plan of second deck of FF-21

and it has the available area of a rectangular boundary shape
with 20 compartments, two watertight transverse bulkheads,
two horizontal passages, and two vertical passages.
Optimization by the proposed algorithm was performed
100 times on a Pentium III system (667 MHz, 256 MB RAM).
The optimization result and the best compartment layout
obtained from 100 runs are shown in Table 2 and Fig. 14,
respectively. Also the actual compartment layout of the aft-
body and the convergence history of the objective function
value during iteration are also shown in Fig. 14. Table 2
shows the best, mean, and standard deviation of the objective
function values found by 100 runs.
To solve this problem, assumed input data for material
flow fi,j and the adjacency value ci,j were used for optimiza-
tion. Material movement was hardly observed between com-
partments 9 (“electronic equipment room”) and 15 (“elec-
tronic equipment room”), and among compartments 11 (“ship
office”), 17 (“officer room”), 18 (“officer room”), and 19 (“officer
room”). Therefore, if only the total transport cost F1 in equa-
tion (1), an objective function, is considered, optimization can
generate a compartment layout in which these compart-
ments having relatively low material flows are separately
located. However, it is generally understood that these com-
partments should be adjacent to each other. Thus, the adja-
cency requirement F2 in equation (2) should be additionally
considered as the objective function in order to obtain a rea-
sonable, optimal compartment layout. For verification, very
small material flows fi, j between the electronic equipment
rooms (“compartments 9 and 15”), and among the ship office
(“compartment 11”) and the officer rooms (“compartments 17,
18, and 19”) are assigned as input data since material move-
ments are hardly observed between them. Of the adjacency
conditions, the conditions that the compartments 9 and 15
should be adjacent to each other (i.e., c9 ,15 4 5), and the
compartments 11, 17, 18, and 19 should be adjacent to one
another (i.e., c11,17 4 c11,18 4 . . . 4 c18,19 4 5) were also

JULY 2002 MARINE TECHNOLOGY 165

 Fig. 14 Actual and computed compartment layouts of aftbody on second deck of FF-21 and convergence history
of objective function value during iteration
Table 2 Optimization result by proposed algorithm for 100 runs (OFV: objective function value)
given. The optimized compartment layout, generated by the
proposed algorithm, satisfies the adjacency conditions, as
shown in Fig. 14. In Fig. 14, two electronic equipment rooms
were adjacent to each other and the ship office and the three
officer rooms were also adjacent to one another. The proposed
algorithm considered both the total transport cost and the
adjacency requirement in its generation of the optimal facil-
ity layout.
However, the result obtained from the proposed algorithm
is somewhat different from the actual compartment layout.
Of course, the actual compartment layout shown in Fig. 14
may not be an optimal compartment layout of the second
deck of the FF-21. Here, however, the actual compartment
layout was used only for comparison purpose with the results
by the proposed algorithm. This difference is considered to
arise from the input data assumptions made for material
flows and the adjacency values between the compartments in
the proposed algorithm, because no quantifiable data for
them were available on the second deck of the FF-21. The
weight factors (w1 and w2 ) may have had a role in the ap-
parent difference; they are not always quantifiable, vague
and hard to define, were assumed to be w 1 4 1.0 and w2 4
50.0, and used for optimization. In fact, the various optimal
compartment layouts could be obtained by varying the
weight factors that reflect the influence of F1 (“total trans-
port cost”) and F2 (“adjacency requirement”) on the optimi-
zation result. The compartment layout design of an actual
ship is developed from the designers’ experiences. If data
about material flows and adjacency values can be quantita-
tively determined, and the weight factors more precisely de-
fined, then the proposed compartment layout algorithm
would be able to yield a satisfactory compartment layout of
an actual ship. That is, the proposed algorithm would be able
to yield better results than the actual compartment layout
shown in Fig. 14.
166 JULY 2002
Compartment layout problem of forebody on second
deck of FF-21
The actual compartment layout of the forebody on the sec-
ond deck (frame no. 17–44) of the FF-21 is shown in Fig. 15
and it has the available area of a curved boundary shape, 20
compartments, two watertight transverse bulkheads, two
horizontal passages, and one vertical passage.
Optimization by the proposed algorithm was performed
100 times on a Pentium III system (667 MHz, 256 MB RAM).
The optimization result and the best compartment layout
obtained from 100 runs are shown in Table 3 and Fig. 15,
respectively. The actual compartment layout of the forebody
and the convergence history of the objective function value
during iteration are also shown in Fig. 15. Table 3 shows the
best, mean, and standard deviation of the objective function
values found by 100 runs. The adjacency conditions used to
solve this problem were as follows: compartments 1 (“scul-
lery”), 2 (“food service office”), and 3 (“dry provisions room”)
should be adjacent to one another (i.e., c1,2 4 c1,3 4 . . . 4
c2,3, 4 5); compartments 9 (“crew messroom and lounge”) and
10 (“chief petty officer messroom and lounge”) should be ad-
jacent to each other (i.e., c9 ,10 4 5); and compartments 13
(“galley”), 14 (“refrigerating machine room”), 15 (“chill store
room”), and 16 (“freeze store room”) should be adjacent to one
another (i.e., c13,14 4 c13,15 4 . . . 4 c1 5,16 4 5). The com-
partment layout satisfying the adjacency conditions was ob-
tained as shown in Fig. 15, where the scullery, food service
office, and dry provisions room are adjacent to one another;
the crew messroom and lounge, and the chief petty officer
messroom and lounge, are adjacent to each other; and the
galley, refrigerating machine room, and chill and freeze store
rooms are also adjacent to one another. The optimal facility
layout, generated by the proposed algorithm, incorporates
MARINE TECHNOLOGY
 Fig. 15 Actual and computed compartment layouts of forebody on second deck of FF-21 and convergence history
of objective function value during iteration
Table 3 Optimization result by proposed algorithm for 100 runs (OFV: objective function value)

both the total transport cost consideration and the adjacency
requirement.
However, the layout obtained from the proposed algorithm
is also somewhat different from the actual compartment lay-
out. The reasons for this difference are similar to those of the
compartment layout problem of the aftbody mentioned in the
foregoing section. In the next section, the representation of
the hull form and calculation of the position of the compart-
ment will be described.
Representation of hull form and calculation of
area/position of compartment
In this study, the hull form of the FF-21 was represented
with the NURBS (Non Uniform Rational B-Spline) curve by
using offset data in text file format to solve the FF-21 com-
partment layout problem having an available area of a
curved boundary shape. When each compartment is allocated
according to the representation method of the compartment
layout mentioned in the section “Representation of compart-
ment layout,” then the x-coordinate of the right boundary (xr )
of the compartment is determined by using the x-coordinate
of the left boundary (xl) and the assigned area (a) of the
compartment. To do this an area curve with respect to the
x-coordinate of the right boundary (xr ) of the compartment
should be generated first. Then the x-coordinate of the right
boundary (xr ) of the compartment, having the arbitrary as-
signed area, is determined using the curve-plane intersec-
tion. Figure 16 shows the procedure followed to determine

Fig. 16 Scheme of representation of hull form and calculation of right boundary x-coordinate
(xr) for compartment with arbitrary area

JULY 2002 MARINE TECHNOLOGY 167

 Fig. 17 Chromosome structure of proposed algorithm for multideck layout problems

the x-coordinate of the right boundary (x19 r ) of compartment path between compartments i and j, and the distance di,j
No. 19 when the x-coordinate of the left boundary (x19 l ) and between these compartments, is determined using the Dijk-
the assigned area (a19 ) of compartment No. 19 are given. stra’s algorithm of the graph theory. Figure 18 shows the
distance calculations in the single-deck and multideck layout
Expansion of proposed algorithm to multideck problems.
layout problems Modification of the genetic operations—Since the chromo-
some structure must be modified to treat the three-
The proposed algorithm in this study was applied only to dimensional multideck layout problems as mentioned above,
two-dimensional ship compartment layout problems (“single- the genetic operations such as crossover, mutation, and re-
deck layout problems”) to show its applicability to three- finement, which are applied to the chromosomes, must also
dimensional ship compartment layout problems. However, a be modified. This can be done by expanding the genetic op-
compartment layout problem of a naval ship is a three- erations for two-dimensional compartment layout problems
dimensional multideck layout problem. That is, ship com- of the proposed algorithm because the chromosome structure
partments have functional relations with other compart- to treat the multideck layout problems is composed of several
ments not only horizontally but also vertically. And, support four-segmented chromosomes as shown in Fig. 17. Figure 19
spaces on different deck levels such as vertical ladders must shows an example of a modified crossover operation to treat
be considered to minimize the movement of personnel as well the multideck layout problems.
as material. The proposed algorithm can be expanded to ap-
ply to more realistic multideck layout problems of three-
dimensional ship compartment layout problems with some
modifications as follows.
Modification of the four-segmented chromosome to repre-
sent the compartment layout—The chromosome structure is
the most important item to consider when applying the pro-
posed algorithm to three-dimensional multideck layout prob-
lems. The structure must be modified by combining several
four-segmented chromosomes as shown in Fig. 17, where
each four-segmented chromosome represents a compartment
layout on the corresponding deck level.
Modification of the distance calculation method between
the compartments—The distance calculation method also
must be modified to treat the multideck layout problems. In
three-dimensional multideck layout problems, the distance
calculation method between compartments can be expanded
by from that of the two-dimensional compartment layout
problem. That is, the two-dimensional distance calculation
method can be expanded into a three-dimensional case. All
relationships between compartments, passages, and vertical
ladders (referred to passages between different decks) are
first represented as an adjacency graph. Then the shortest Fig. 18 Distance calculation in single-deck and multideck layout problems

168 JULY 2002 MARINE TECHNOLOGY

 Conclusions and discussions
In general, up to the present time, the compartment layout
design of the naval ship has been performed manually. In the
study herein, the compartment layout algorithm by the op-
timization technique was proposed for solving the compart-
ment layout problem involving watertight transverse bulk-
heads and passages. The compartment layout problem with
watertight transverse bulkheads and passages was mathe-
matically formulated. The layout of compartments was mod-
eled in a four-segmented chromosome; this included positions
of passages. A new method was proposed for calculating dis-
tances between the compartments using the Dijkstra’s algo-
rithm of the graph theory. A comparison with an existing
algorithm was performed to evaluate the proposed algo-
rithm’s efficiency. The comparison results show that the pro-
posed algorithm is superior to the existing one. Finally, the
proposed algorithm was applied to ship compartment layout
problems and the computational results were compared with
the actual ship compartment layout. From this, the applica-
bility of the proposed algorithm was shown and discussed.
The proposed algorithm in this study was first applied to
two-dimensional ship compartment layout problems to show
its applicability to three-dimensional ship compartment lay-
out problems. What remains is the modification of the pro-
posed algorithm for application to more realistic multideck
layout problems of the three-dimensional ship compartment.
Finally, the optimization results obtained from the proposed
algorithm could be improved by developing new genetic op-
erations and testing the improved algorithm.
Acknowledgments
This work was supported partially by the Korea Science
and Engineering Foundation (KOSEF) as part of the re-
search project “Web based Multidisciplinary Robust Ship De-
sign” and also sponsored partially by the Research Institute
of Marine Systems Engineering of Seoul National University.
JULY 2002
View publication stats
References
AFANASIEFF , L. AND MABRY, J. P. 1994 The design of the FF-21 multi-
mission frigate. Naval Engineers Journal, 106, 3, 150–162.
ANDREWS , D. 1981 Creative ship design. Transactions RINA, 447–472.
ANDREWS , D. 1986 An integrated approach to ship synthesis. Transac-
tions RINA, 73–104.
BROWN , D. K. 1986 Defining a warship. Naval Engineers Journal, 98, 2,
31–40.
CARLSON, C. M. AND FIREMAN, H. 1987 General arrangement design com-
puter system and methodology. Naval Engineers Journal, 99, 3, 261–273.
CHATTERJEE, S., CARRERA, C., AND LYNCH, L. A. 1996 Genetic algorithms
and traveling salesman problems. European Journal of Operational Re-
search, 93, 3, 490–510.
COHON, J. L. 1978 Multiobjective Programming and Planning. New
York: Academic Press Inc.
CORT, A. AND HILLS, W. 1987 Space layout design using computer as-
sisted methods. Naval Engineers Journal, 99, 3, 249–260.
DAVIS , L. Ed. 1991 Handbook of Genetic Algorithms. New York: Van
Nostrand-Reinhold.
GOLDBERG , D. E. 1989 Genetic Algorithms in Search, Optimization, and
Machine Learning. Reading, MA: Addison Wesley.
HOPE, J. P. 1981 The process of naval ship general arrangement design
and analysis. Naval Engineers Journal, 93, 4, 29–38.
HOLLAND , J. H. 1975 Adaptation in Natural and Artificial Systems, Ann
Arbor: The University of Michigan Press.
ISLIER, A. A. 1998 A genetic algorithm approach for multiple criteria
facility design. International Journal of Production Research, 36, 6,
1549–1569.
KIM , H. 1994 Multicriteria structural optimization by genetic algo-
rithm. Ph.D. thesis, Seoul National University of Korea, written in Ko-
rean.
KOOPMANS, T. C. AND BECKMANN , M. 1957 Assignment problems and the
location of economic activities. Econometrica, 25, 1, 53–76.
LEE , H. J. 1988 Heuristic graph-theoretic approach in facility layout
problem: The development of a decision support system. Ph.D. thesis, The
University of Texas at Arlington.
LEE , K. Y. AND ROH, M. I. 2001 An efficient genetic algorithm using
gradient information for ship structural design optimization. Journal of
Ship Technology Research, 48, 4, 161–170.
MC HUGH, J. A. 1990 Algorithm Graph Theory. New Jersey: Prentice-
Hall Inc.
SEPPANEN , J. AND MOORE , J. M. 1970 Facilities planning and graph
theory. International Journal of Management Science, 17, 242–253.
TAM , K. Y. 1992 Genetic algorithms, function optimization and facility
layout design. European Journal of Operational Research, 63, 2, 322–346.
WREN , A. AND WREN , D. O. 1995 A genetic algorithm for public transport
driver scheduling. Computers & Operations Research, 22, 1, 101–110.
MARINE TECHNOLOGY 169