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

net/publication/269632499

CFD-based multiobjective stochastic optimization of a waterjet propelled high

speed ship

Conference Paper · November 2014

CITATIONS READS

15 386

6 authors, including:

Yusuke Tahara Matteo Diez

National Maritime Research Institute Italian National Research Council
45 PUBLICATIONS 675 CITATIONS 149 PUBLICATIONS 1,371 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Silvia Volpi
University of Iowa
13 PUBLICATIONS 221 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

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

FRIDA - FRamework for Integrated Design of Aircraft View project

JSPS (Japan Society for the Promotion of Science) View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Matteo Diez on 03 February 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.


CFD-Based Multiobjective Stochastic Optimization of
a Waterjet Propelled High Speed Ship
Yusuke Tahara1, Matteo Diez2,3, Silvia Volpi2, Xi Chen2,4, Emilio Campana3, and
Frederick Stern2
(1NMRI, National Maritime Research Institute, Japan, 2IIHR–Hydroscience &
Engineering, The University of Iowa, US, 3CNR–INSEAN, Natl. Research
Council–Marine Technology Research Institute, Italy, 4Huazhong University of
Science and Technology, PR China)
ABSTRACT
The paper describes the development and
demonstration of Simulation Based Design (SBD)
methods, which have been developed through the
long-term international collaboration among three
institutes. The methods are capable to solve stochastic
optimization problems, and results for Robust Design
Optimization (RDO) and Reliability-Based Robust
Design Optimization (RBRDO) are presented. Non-
gradient type, global optimization algorithms are
applied, based on the success demonstrated in authors’
recent studies. In addition, the concepts of Variable
Fidelity/Physics approach are adopted, that is, both
Unsteady RANS and Potential Flow based CFD
methods are used. Recent development for geometry
modelling/modification methods are also shown and
found promising. In the following, an overview of the
present method is given, and results are presented and
discussed for the initial design of a waterjet propelled
high-speed ship, namely the Delft Catamaran, where
objective functions are minimized, in stochastic form
and associated to real-ocean design conditions.
Figure 1: Computed wave field around Delft Catamaran
(URANS-CFD results). For Fr=0.5 and model scale Re.
30th Symposium on Naval Hydrodynamics
Hobart, Tasmania, Australia, 2-7 November 2014
INTRODUCTION
The long-term collaboration among IIHR (IIHR-
Hydroscience& Engineering, the University of Iowa),
CNR-INSEAN (Italian Ship Model Basin) and NMRI
research groups focuses on the development of a
Simulation Based Design (SBD) toolbox, which
provides high performance computing CFD solvers,
optimization algorithms, automatic methods for
geometry and grid manipulation, with application to
naval hydrodynamics. The SBD was successfully used
in the optimization of high speed monohull, multihull,
displacement ships, and foil-assisted semi-planing
catamaran ferries (Campana, 2006, 2009; Tahara et al.,
2008, 2011; Kandasamy, 2011, 2013).
A new challenge of ship design optimization is to
introduce stochastic optimization theory, which is able
to consider not only deterministic function but more
complex and realistic design requirements in a form of
Stochastic Objective Function (SOF), accounting for
real sea stochastic environmental operating conditions
(Tahara et al., 2012; He et al., 2013; Diez et al., 2013).
Some related works have been reported, but most of
them are based on classical deterministic optimization
scheme to minimize non-stochastic objective function.
Limitations of pure deterministic optimized
designs are of three types: i) possible degradation of
the performances in off-design conditions due to
stochastic inputs; ii) a deterministic approach to
formulate a multiobjective problem with individual
objective functions for every operational condition of
interest, easily leads to a stiff and almost intractable
optimization problem; and iii) in general, objective
function is defined in a form of non-probability
function, which precludes consideration of SOF. Our
approach is to introduce stochastic optimization
methods, which redefines a deterministic optimal speed is given in a form of PDF. Finally, future work
design problem by introducing the probability of our joint project will be given.
distributions of the stochastic events that one is
interested in taking into consideration. The problem is Table 1: Main particulars for Delft catamaran 372 model.
solved in a form of multiobjective optimization Main particulars Symbol Model
problem, by using a suitable numerical scheme Length overall (m) L OA 3.8220
investigated by the authors. Consequently, the present Length between parpendiculars (m) L PP 3.6274
scheme is capable to consider the multi-objective Length on waterline (m) L WL 3.6274
nature in ship design optimization, where the Beam (m) B 1.1570
improvement of a specific aspect of the global design Clearlance n/n hull CPs (m) - 0.8470
usually causes the worsening for some others. Draft at FP (m) TF 0.1815
The present paper describes the development of a Draft at AP (m) TA 0.1815
Dsiplacement volume (m3) Δ, δ 0.0770
CFD-based multiobjective stochastic optimization
Prismatic coefficient CP 0.6160
method, where in particular, Robust Design
Block coefficient CB 0.4027
Optimization (RDO), and Reliability-Based Robust
Longitudinal C.B. L CB -0.0970
Design Optimization (RBRDO) are investigated. Two Wetted surface area (bare hull) (m2) S 1.4220
SBD approaches are developed and applied with focus
on different aspects. Specifically, NMRI-SBD and
IIHR-INSEAN SBD (hereafter referred to as SBD-A
and SBD-B, respectively) are used in a
complementary manner. SBD-A focuses on
multiobjective deterministic and stochastic RDO
problems for commercial ships, by considering calm-
water resistance (RT) and added resistance in waves
(RAW); SBD-B addresses multiobjective deterministic
and more advanced stochastic RBRDO problems for
high-speed sea lift military ships, by considering
expected value of mean RT in waves and ship
operability in real ocean environment. Figure 2: Main dimensions for Delft catamaran 372 model
Advanced geometry modelling/modification (Kandasamy et al., 2013).
methods, i.e., geometric variability exploration based
on free-form deformation (FFD) and Karhunen–Loève DELFT CATAMARAN GEOMETRY AND
expansion (KLE), are used in SBD-B. KLE is capable CONDITIONS
of producing an efficient representation of design
possibilities, with deeper improvements (Diez et al., The Delft Catamaran (DC) parent design and the main
2013; Chen et al., 2014) and is coupled herein with particulars are shown in Figure 2 (see Kandasamy et
metamodels. SBD-A uses a simpler geometry al., 2013 for details). The model is free to sink and
modeling method, based on a promising design from trim. In NMRI SBD optimization, the reference
SBD-B, and investigates a larger number of objective dimensional speed is equal to 2.98m/s for a 3.627m
functions at the time, involving RT and RAW in towing tank model, corresponding to Froude number
stochastic form, addressing also waterjet effects at (Fr) equal to 0.5 (Table 1). In IIHR-INSEAN SBD, a
different speeds. full ship scale with LPP equal to 100m is considered.
Both SBD make use of the same high fidelity The design speed is taken equal to 35 kt
URANS CFD, along with non-gradient type, global (corresponding to Fr = 0.575 for a 100 m vessel).
optimization algorithms, i.e., Multiobjective Particle Table 2 shows main particulars and conditions,
Swarm Optimization (MOPSO) and Evolutionary compared to the JHSV.
Algorithm (EA), which has been shown capable for
the present problem in the authors’ recent studies. In Table 2: Delft Catamaran full scale particulars, with
comparison to JHSV.
the following, an overview of the present method is Parameter Unit Delft Catamaran JHSV
given, and results are presented and discussed for the Propulsion - water jet (2x) water jet (4x)
initial design of a waterjet propelled high-speed ship, Length m 100 103
Beam m 31.3 28.5
namely Delft Catamaran (Van't Veer, 1988, see Figure Draft m 5.0 3.83
1), where in order to consider real-ocean design Displacement t 3,225 2,397
Design speed kt 35 35÷43
conditions, a stochastic variation of ship operation
NMRI-SBD OPTIMIZATION (SBD-A) somehow. In the present study, RDO and RBRDO are
mainly focused in SBD-A and SBD-B, respectively.
General Definition of Multiobjective Deterministic
and Stochastic Optimization Problem URANS-CFD Method

Shape design optimization is typically formulated in Adopted URANS-CFD method is CFDSHIP-IOWA

the framework of Nonlinear Problem (NLP), and that version 4.5, which is a general-purpose, multi-block,
is usually multiobjective problem if ship high performance parallel computing, URANS code
hydrodynamics concerns. A general expression of N- developed for computational ship hydrodynamics. The
objective function optimization problem involves the URANS equations are solved using higher-order
objective of the optimization f = (f1,f2,...,fN)T and the upwind finite differences, PISO, and an isotropic
equality and inequality constraints h, g are functions blended k-ω/k-ε two-equation turbulence model. The
 free-surface is modelled using a steady and unsteady
of the design variables x and of the state of the
  single-phase level set method to handle both complex
system u (x ) . A general form for constrained  NLP
problems is then to find the particular vector x in the ship geometry and complex interfacial topology due to
 higher Fr, bluff geometry, and/or large amplitude
subset χ ,i.e., x ∈ χ ⊆ ℜM .
motions and maneuvering. For more details see
Table 3: Definition of stochastic optimization problem for Carrica et al. (2006) and Huang et al. (2008). Overset
SBD-A. grids are used to provide flexibility in grid generation,
Deterministic Problem local grid refinement, and for bodies and/or blocks

Minimize f ( x ; y), for a given y = yˆ with relative motions. Also, waterjet capabilities were

Subject tog j ( x ; yˆ ) ≤ 0, j = 1,...,q implemented, including complete waterjet details, and
RDO Problem
a model for waterjet global effect and performances
 
Minimize µ{f ( x ; y)}and σ 2 {f ( x ; y)}
(Kandasamy et al., 2010). The latter, hereafter referred

Subject tog j ( x ; yˆ ) ≤ 0, j = 1,...,q
to as CFD waterjet model, was used in the present
⎧µ( f ) = f := f ( x ; y) Pr( y)dy
study. The model was evaluated in the previous work
⎪
⎪
∫
B
(Tahara et al., 2012) with particular emphasis on
where ⎨ influences on RT and found suitable for the present
∫{ }
 2
⎪σ 2 ( f ) := f ( x ; y) − f Pr( y)dy
⎪⎩ application.
B

RBDO
 Problem
Minimize f (x ; y)
{ 
}
Subject toP g j (x ; y) ≤ 0 ≥ P0 , j = 1,...,q
RBRDO problem
 
Minimize µ{f (x ; y)}andσ 2 {f (x ; y)}
{ 
}
Subject toP g j (x ; y) ≤ 0 ≥ P0 , j = 1,...,q
In extension for stochastic optimization problem, a
focus can be on the objectives or on the constraints:
dependently, one can have Robust Design
Optimization (RDO) and Reliability-Based Design
Optimization (RBDO). Reliability-Based Robust
Design Optimization (RBRDO) refers finally to a case
in which objectives or constraints are considered in a
probabilistic manner. See Table 3 for the three forms
of the problem (for simplicity a single objective
optimization case is considered), where y is the design
parameter collecting the quantity that is independent
of the designer choice (e.g., environmental conditions),
ŷ is a user assigned threshold, and q is number of
inequality constraints. To formulate a stochastic
optimization problem, the probability density function
(PDF) of y, Pr(y), has to be evaluated or given
PF-CFD Method
The PF-CFD methods used to evaluate seakeeping
performance is FreDOM code, which is a frequency
domain, Rankine-source type panel method developed
in INSEAN (Lugni et al., 2004). In the theory, the
free-surface flow generated by a ship advancing at
constant forward speed in regular incoming waves is
considered. The problem is solved by using the
potential flow theory and neglecting the nonlinearities
connected with the wave-body interactions. The total
velocity potential of the fluid is decomposed as the
sum of the steady and unsteady wave fields, the latter
consisting of the incident, the diffraction and the
radiation waves. Then the problem is split into eight
sub-problems: one steady and seven unsteady. Small
amplitude of the incident waves and ship motions are
assumed, then the free surface conditions is linearized
for the unsteady problems around the steady free
surface. Once velocity potential is determined,
pressure integration over the hull surface yields the
added mass and damping coefficients, the restoring
forces and the wave exciting forces. The restoring
terms are due to both the hydrostatic pressure and the
steady hydrodynamic pressure. Finally, the Response
Amplitude Operator (RAO) is obtained by coupling where S(ω) is Bretschneider spectrum. In the present
the fluid dynamic problem with the body motion study, Sea state 3 is assumed for the most common
through the hydrodynamic loads. For more details, see state in Pacific Ocean route. More details of this
Lugni et al. (2004). scenario are described in He et al. (2013).
Consequently, Tm=2π/ωm=7.5(s) and H1/3=0.9(m) are
Evolutionary Algorithm - Real-Coded used together with Bretschneider spectrum.
Multiobjective Genetic Algorithm
Stochastic Modeling of Speed Variation in Real
EA adopted in SBD-A is the Real-coded Seas
MultiObjective Genetic Algorithm (RC-MOGA). The
authors competitively evaluated both RC-MOGA and In SBD-A, probability density function (PDF) to
more classical Binary-coded MOGA (BC-MOGA) in express ship operation speed variation in real sea is
the earlier work (Tahara et al., 2008). It is found that based on Johnson SU distribution (Johnson, 1949),
each approach offers the advantage over the other which is the four parameter function and capable to
depending on the problem setup, e.g., if the design model a random variable that can take on any value
variables are given as continuous real number, RC- between minus infinity and plus infinity. It was shown
MOGA is more suitable. Otherwise, in more general in our precursory work that on-board measurements
engineering applications details of both algorithms are by Tsujimoto el al. (1996,1998) are well represented
discussed by Deb (2001). In the present basic by using this function. In the present application, the
algorithm of RC-MOGA higher fitness f is given to function is used in the following form:
individuals of higher Pareto ranking RP, i.e., f =1/RP.
A drawback of evolutionary family algorithms, i.e., an f Fr (ΔFr) =
increase of the computational load, is overcome by
introducing parallel computing technique, i.e., ⎧⎪ 1 ⎛ ⎛ ΔFr − ξ ⎞⎞
2⎫
⎪
Message Passing Interface (MPI) protocol with AE δ exp⎨− ⎜⎜ γ + δ sinh −1 ⎜ ⎟ ⎟⎟ ⎬
2
⎩⎪ ⎝ ⎝ λ ⎠⎠ ⎪⎭ (3)
model. See Tahara et al. (2012) for more details.
⎧⎪⎛ ΔFr − ξ ⎞ 2 ⎫⎪
Evaluation of Added Resistance in Waves 2πλ2 ⎨⎜ ⎟ + 1⎬
⎪⎩⎝ λ ⎠ ⎪⎭
Added resistance in waves (RAW) are evaluated by
method of Tsujimoto et al. (2008), which utilizes an where γ and δ (δ > 0) are shape parameters; ξ is
extensive set of NMRI tank test data. In the theory, location parameter; and λ (λ > 0) is scale parameter.
RAW is divided into two parts: RAW (ω, Fr) Also, statistical parameters are analytically given, e.g.,
= RAWm (ω, Fr) + RAWr (ω, Fr) , where, RAWm and RAWr cumulative distribution function and mean value are
are decomposed components due to ship motion and given by F ( x) = Φ(γ + δ sinh−1 z) and ξ − λ ω sinh Ω ,
wave reflection, respectively. The former is given by where z = (ΔFr − ξ ) / λ , ω = exp(δ −2 ) , Ω = γ / δ , and
Maruo’s theorem (1963), and the latter is computed by Φ is cumulative distribution function of the normal
method of Tsujimoto el al. (2008). The theory is distribution. This PDF is used with assumption that
implemented in NMRI RIS code, and used in the mean speed loss ( ΔFr ) is specified as part of design
present study together with FreDOM code described conditions. The present work assumes that ΔFr = -
earlier. On the other hand, wave height is given by 0.03, -0.06, and -0.09; for which corresponding PDF
the Rayleigh distribution, i.e., distribution and function parameters are shown and
given in Figure 3 and Table 4, respectively. For
H ⎛ H2 ⎞ (FL,FU)=(0.1,0.7), where FL and FU are the lower and
f H (H ) = exp⎜⎜ − ⎟
⎟
(1) upper bounds of Fr for evaluation (i.e., ΔFr=-0.4 and
4m0 ⎝ 8m0 ⎠ 0.2, respectively), resultant cumulative probability
distribution are more than 99.5% for all cases.
with
Table 4: Parameters for assumed mean ΔFr ( ΔFr )
⎧ 5 ωm4 2 ⎛ 5 ωm4 ⎞
⎪S (ω ) = H exp⎜− ⎟ Mean ΔFr γ δ ξ λ
⎪ 16 ω 5
1 / 3 ⎜ 4 ω4 ⎟
⎨ ⎝ ⎠ (2) -0.03 2.50 2.00 0.01653 0.00
⎪ ∞ -0.06 2.50 2.00 0.03305 0.00
∫
k
⎪⎩mk = 0 ω S (ω )dω -0.09 2.50 2.00 0.04958 0.00
 30 angle of the new design, while 0 and 1 correspond to 0
25 Pr.
 JSU
 (Average
  ΔFr=-­‐0.3)
and -2 degs., where the angle is defined as negative
Pr.
 JSU
 (Average
  ΔFr=-­‐0.6)
bow downward (see Figure 4), and rotational
20
movements associated with trim are given by matrix
Pr.
 JSU
 (Average
 ΔFr=-­‐0.9)

15
AT. Consequently, initial sinkage σ I must be given to
10 yield the same displacement, which is done by vertical
5
translation and σi is numerically obtained as the two
ΔFr design variables are given. The computational volume
0

-­‐0.200 -­‐0.150 -­‐0.100 -­‐0.050 0.000 0.050 0.100 0.150 0.200
grid is re-generated similarly, by defining P1 and P2
Figure 3: Probability density function (PDF) of ship to be grid points in solution domain for the baseline
operation speed variation as stochastic input (SBD-A). designs for zero trim condition.

Definition of Stochastic Objective Function

The stochastic objective function is composed of

added resistance in waves (RAW) and total resistance
(RT). Those are given as corresponding stochastic
input, a variation of ship operation speed of Equation
3. Finally, the functions are given by,

⎧ FU
⎪⎪ EVRT =
FL ∫
RT ( Fr) f Fr ( Fr)dFr
(4)
⎨ FU ∞ ∞
⎪ EV
⎪⎩ RAW
=
FL 0 0 ∫ ∫ ∫
I RAW ( Fr, T , H )dTdHdFr
Figure 4: Consideration of initial trim (SBD-A).
with I RAW = 2m0 RAW (Fr;2π / T , H ) fT (T ) f Fr (Fr) Overview of SBD-A and Setup of Numerical
S (2π / T ) Optimization
and fT (T ) = 2π
m0T 2
NMRI-SBD is composed of three basic components:
The integration in the above equation is done by i.e., OPT (optimizer) module, GM (Geometry
using 3rd order spline function. RAW is directly Modeling) module, and finally AE (Asynchronous
evaluated by using PF-CFD and NMRI-RIS code, Evaluator) module to make flexible interface with
while RT is given by URANS CFD as described later. both parallel and/or serial mode PF and/or more
The present stochastic optimization test cases includes expensive URANS-CFD. AE and CFD methods
two objective function, where EVRT and EVRAW are utilize MPI parallel computing architecture. See
related to two objective functions to be minimized. Figure 4 for an overview. NMRI-SBD was
demonstrated at NMRI by using a compact LINUX-
Shape Parameterization and Grid Re-Generation based PC-Cluster equipped by 10 gigabit network
connecting HP ProLiant BL460 nodes of Intel Xeon
Since SBD-A assumes late stage of initial design by E5-2667 (64bit, 2.9 GHz). In the present optimizations,
using limited number of design variables, a relatively the population size of genetic algorithm coincides
simple approach is used to yield a new design, i.e., with number of MPI groups, each of which utilizes 6
CPUs to fully accelerate the computation. Hence,
 
(  
P = {A T ( β )} a1 P1 + a 2 P2 + σ I ) total number of CPUs used is n(m+1) + 1 = 61 (i.e., n
⎧a1 = (1 − α ) (5) = 6, m+1=10, where m+1 is population size). The GA
where⎨ system parameter, crossover rate, was 0.75, which is
⎩a 2 = α
the same as the one used in Tahara et al. (2012). For
So that a1 + a 2 = 1
the present URANS-CFD, three-block grid system is
  used, i.e., two blocks are used for ship domain and one
where P1 and P2 are surface points for corresponding block is used for background domain. The
two baseline designs; and 0≤α≤2 and 0≤β ≤1 are computational domain is only port half side with about
design variables. β is linearly related to initial trim
4.7 million grid points. For this grid arrangement, an
extensive verification and validation studies were
performed by Chen et al. (2014), and detailed
uncertainty quantification (UQ) was presented by Diez
et al. (2014). As mentioned earlier, the present
URANS CFD utilizes CFD WJ model, which model
parameters are given for Fr=0.3, 0.5, and 0.7 for
respective Fr flow simulation. Redesign of WJ is not
considered here, i.e., the same model parameters are
used for the original and optimal designs.
Figure 6: Comparison of geometry for base designs B1 and
Present System B2. Note that B1 is the original design (red and blue outlines,
respectively).
GUI Extended CAD/OPT GUI

Refined Version Parallel Architecture Table 5: Comparison of RT for baseline designs.

OPT (Network Distributed Processing) Fr=0.3
Initial Trim * Final Trim
RT Sinkage
CAD GM AE URANS CFD Model (deg.) (deg.)

B.1 [Original] 0.00 100.0%O 100.0%O -0.01

PF-CFD 1
B.1 [Original] -1.00 102.5%O 110.1%O -1.07
BCGA SQP B.2 [2nd Baseline] 0.00 105.4%O 97.8%O -0.06

RCGA SWARM * CT S_Dynamic

PF-CFD n
Fr=0.5
MOOP SOOP Initial Trim Final Trim
*
More focus on MOOP: Extended version for stochastic theory RT Sinkage
Model (deg.) (deg.)
together with new version HTMM is used

Figure 5: SBD-A system overview. Basic components and B.1 [Original] 0.00 100.0%O 100.0%O 2.13
module interfaces. B.1 [Original] -1.00 98.6%O 140.4%O 1.09
B.2 [2nd Baseline] 0.00 89.3%O 97.0%O 1.65

General Geometrical and Flow Features of * CT S_Dynamic

Baseline Designs Fr=0.7
Initial Trim * Final Trim
RT Sinkage
Model (deg.) (deg.)
Two baseline designs are the original design and the
single-objective minimum RT design of Chen et al. B.1 [Original] 0.00 100.0%O 100.0%O 1.99
(2014); hereafter, those are referred to as B1 and B2 B.1 [Original] -1.00 97.5%O -47.0%O 1.58
designs, respectively. Importantly, B2 design indicates B.2 [2nd Baseline] 0.00 92.6%O 133.1%O 1.60

significantly reduced RT for a primary target Fr =0.5 * CT S_Dynamic

both for with and without CFD Waterjet (WJ) model.
Tahara et al. (2011) showed that reduced RT designs
General geometrical and flow features of the
without WJ model do not always indicate reduced RT
baseline designs are summarized as follows. The trend
with WJ model, which is apparently caused by the
of B2 is forward shift of LCB, where overall volume
significant changes in sinkage and trim due to effects
distribution is moved forward, downward and outward,
of waterjet. On the other hand, we decided to include
which yields asymmetric frameline demihulls (see
B1 design as one of baselines, since this indicates
Figure 6). Reduction of RT for Fr=0.5 is achieved in
advantage over B2 for lower Fr (e.g., around Fr=0.3),
associated with reduction of sinkage and trim along
where smaller RT and RAW are indicated.
with reduction of low pressure region on hull surface
Consequently, the present two baseline design
due to reduced wave trough near the stern (Figure 7)
approach is aiming at: (i) significant reduction of
On the other hand, wave filed for Fr=0.3 indicates
calmwater RT with WJ effects for wider range of Fr
different trends, i.e., bow wave crest as well as wave
with assumed PDF of operation speed; (ii) improved
trough near the stern are higher and lower than the
RAW over the range; and (iii) realistic design
original design, which is related to larger RT for the Fr.
modification where too drastic changes from the
It is also seen that overall boundary layer aspects
original design is avoided.
indicate that B2 design yields larger longitudinal
vortices along with three-dimensional separations
(Figure 8), which are likely caused by asymmetric
shape of demihull framelines, and may yield larger
induced drags. Apparently, significant reduction of with conflicting multiobjective functions;
wavemaking resistance overcomes those issues for consequently, effort is on finding multiple trade-off
higher Fr. Comparison of RT for the baseline designs solutions for multiobjective optimization problem. As
are shown in Table 5, in association with trends of shown later, new designs on and near Pareto front are
initial trim on the functions. For B1 design, bow down effectively redefined as Pareto optimal designs in
initial trim yield reduced running trim for Fr=0.5 and stochastic optimization discussed later, where EA
0.7, along with about 1.4% and 2.5% reduction of RT, based approach has been shown very capable in this
respectively: i.e., consideration of initial trim is respect. The present test case is formulated as
effective approach as recently often demonstrated in follows:
commercial ship applications.

⎧ F1 = RT ( x; Fr = 0.3)
⎪  
Min. ⎨ F2 = RT ( x; Fr = 0.5) , x = (α , β )
Z Z
0.02 B1 0.02 B1 (6a)
⎪ F = R ( x; Fr = 0.7)
B2 B2
0.01 0.01

⎩ 3 T
0 0

⎧  LOA ( x )
⎪ g1 ( x ) = L −1 ≤ 0
-0.01 -0.01

X X
-0.02 -0.02
0 0.5 1 1.5 0 0.5 1 1.5
⎪ OA,ori

(Fr=0.3) (Fr=0.5) ⎪  B( x )
Z g
⎪ 2 ( x ) = −1 ≤ 0
0.02
B1
⎪ Bori
0.01 B2 Sub. ⎨  (6b)

0
⎪g3 ( x) = T ( x) −1 ≤ 0
-0.01 ⎪ Tori
-0.02 ⎪ 
⎪ g ( x ) = δ ( x ) − δ ori = 10 −2 ≤ 0
X
0 0.5 1 1.5
(Fr=0.7)
Figure 7: Comparison of centerline wave profile between ⎪ 4 δ ori
⎩
the baseline designs. The original and optimal designs are B1
design and B2 design (minimum-RT design for Fr=0.5, Chen
et al., 2014), respectively.
where the three functions F1 through F3, are calm-
water model scale RT for Fr=0.3, 0.5, and 0.7,
respectively. Design constraints follow those of
single-objective RT minimization performed by Chen
et al. (2014) and summarized in Table 6.

Table 6: Design constrains (SBD-A optimization).

Geometric constraints Symbol Value*
Max. Length overall L OA 100.0
Max. Beam B 100.0
Figure 8: Comparison of Helicity field between the Max. Draft T 100.0
baseline designs. Left and right are B1 and B2 designs, Max. Dsiplacement variation |δ| 1.0
respectively (Fr=0.5) * Value refer to % original

Multiobjective Deterministic Optimization Table 7: Objective function and design parameters for
sharing points (SBD-A deterministic optimization).
The initial case for NMRI-SBD is multiobjective Initial Trim
F1 * F2 * F3 *
deterministic optimization. Focus here is to obtain Model (deg.)
Pareto optimal set as solutions, explore design space
F1 Minimum (B1 design) 0.00 100.0%O 100.0%O 100.0%O
and capture important trends of new design and flow,
F2 Minimum -0.25 105.0%O 88.2%O 94.6%O
and finally create new design dataset (NDD) which F3 Minimum 0.00 101.2%O 91.6%O 91.1%O
includes a diverse set of new designs and RT data.
NDD is used in stochastic optimization discussed later. * %Original
To represent practical operation range and limit Design variables Blending parameters* Initial Trim
Model x 1 (α) x 2 (β) a1 a2 (deg.)
computational load, two additional speeds are F1 Minimum (B1 design) 0.000 0.000 1.000 0.000 0.000
considered besides a primary target Fr is 0.5, i.e., F2 Minimum 0.840 0.126 0.160 0.840 -0.251
Fr=0.3 and 0.7. As expected from Table 5 (also our F3 Minimum 0.565 0.000 0.435 0.565 0.000
precursory work, Tahara et al., 2012,2013), the
* New design is defined by a 1B.1+a2B.2
present optimization will demonstrate a case dealing
Table 8: Design variables for selected Pareto optimal
designs (SBD-A stochastic optimization).

1.05
Design variables Blending parameters* Initial Trim
Model x 1 (α) x 2 (β) a1 a2 (deg.) Original Design
B.1 [Original] 0.000 0.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 B1

1
B.2 [2nd Baseline] 1.000 0.000 0.000 1.000 0.000
ID.034 0.781 0.165 0.182 0.781 -0.331

F*2
ID.077 0.839 0.178 0.132 0.839 -0.357
* New design is defined by a 1B.1+a2B.2

0.95
Table 9: Objective functions for baseline and selected B2

0.9
Pareto optimal designs (SBD-A stochastic optimization). 0.9 0.95 1 1.05 1.1 1.15 1.2 1.25 1.3
Mean ΔFr=-0.03 F * Average F*1

Initial Trim
Model (deg.)
F1 * F2 * (a)
B.1 [Original] 0.00 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

1.1
B.2 [2nd Baseline] 0.00 93.2% 144.9% 119.1%
ID.034 -0.33 92.8% 85.5% 89.2%
ID.077 -0.36 92.8% 91.4% 92.1%

1.05
Model Δ F1 * Δ F2 * Δ F * Average

F*3
Original Design
B1
B.1 [Original] 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

1
B.2 [2nd Baseline] -6.8% 44.9% 19.1%
ID.034 -7.2% -14.5% -10.8%
B2

0.95
ID.077 -7.2% -8.6% -7.9%

* %Original
0.9 0.95 1 1.05 1.1 1.15 1.2 1.25 1.3
Mean ΔFr=-0.06 F * Average F*1

Initial Trim
Model (deg.)
F1 * F2 *
(b)
B.1 [Original] 0.00 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 1.15
B.2 [2nd Baseline] 0.00 94.7% 186.8% 140.7%
ID.034 -0.33 94.3% 87.9% 91.1%
ID.077 -0.36 94.2% 92.1% 93.2%
1.1

Model Δ F1 * Δ F2 * Δ F * Average
1.05

0.0%
F*3

B.1 [Original] 0.0% 0.0%

B.2 [2nd Baseline] -5.3% 86.8% 40.7% Original Design
B1
ID.034 -5.7% -12.1% -8.9%
1

ID.077 -5.8% -7.9% -6.8%

* %Original B2
0.95

Mean ΔFr=-0.09 F * Average 0.9 0.95 1 1.05

F*2
Initial Trim
F1 * F2 *
Model (deg.)
(c)
B.1 [Original] 0.00 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
Figure 9: Solutions from SBD-A deterministic
B.2 [2nd Baseline] 0.00 96.7% 202.8% 149.8%
ID.034 -0.33 96.3% 96.1% 96.2%
optimization. F1, F2, and F3 are total resistance (RT) for
ID.077 -0.36 96.4% 92.1% 94.2% Fr=0.3, 0.5, and 0.7, respectively. F* in the figures is
normalized F by that of the original design.
Model Δ F1 * Δ F2 * Δ F * Average

B.1 [Original] 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
In addition, design variables x = (α , β ) are also
B.2 [2nd Baseline] -3.3% 102.8% 49.8%
ID.034 -3.7% -3.9% -3.8% bounded, i.e., , α = [0,2] and β = [0,1], where β = 0
ID.077 -3.6% -7.9% -5.8% and 1 correspond to initial trim angle 0 deg. and -2
* %Original deg., respectively. For the present test case,
optimizations were performed up to 30 generations,
Table 10: CFD results for a selected Pareto optimal designs. and 300 new designs are automatically generated.
(SBD-A stochastic optimization) Figure 9 shows distribution of the designs, where a set
Model ID-77 Initial Trim * Final Trim
Sinkage CT
Fr (deg.)
RT
(deg.) of Pareto optimal designs are indicated by red squares.
Fr=0.3 -0.36 104.4%O 101.2%O -0.44 106.5%O
Note that F* in the figures is normalized F by that of
Fr=0.5 -0.36 90.4%O 96.4%O 1.33 90.5%O the original design. Apparently, RT trend in Fr=0.3 vs.
Fr=0.7 -0.36 94.0%O 130.0%O 1.32 93.9%O 0.5 and that in Fr=0.3 vs. 0.7 are conflicting; and the
* CT S_Dynamic present approach successfully yields Pareto optimal
set. Another key aspect is diversity of Pareto optimal
designs on the set: the normalized standard deviations
are 25.5, 20.7, and 22.1; i.e., the diversity is relatively
small. This time no scheme to enhance the aspect is
implemented, but a fitness function control method,
e.g., one proposed in thermodynamic GA will be of
interest in future investigation (Deb, 2001).
For further evaluation of the results, sharing point
designs are considered. Note that those are part of
Pareto optimal designs and indicate minimum values
for respective objective functions. As summarized in
Table 7, the minimum F1 design appears to be B1, i.e.,
the original design. The minimum F2 design shows
slight improvement over B2 design due to combined
impact from RT characteristics from lower Fr appears,
which results in smaller gain of F1 for B2 design. This
design indicates larger F2 than the original design for
all cases, and the worsening tends to be larger as ΔFr
decreases. Contrary, quite a few Pareto optimal
designs are successfully created for all three cases, so
that designers will be able to make meaningful final
selection.

2
effects of blending and consideration of initial trim;

1.8
i.e., reductions of (F1, F2, F3) as much as (+20.3%O, -

1.6
B2

8.2%O, -2.1%O) (%O: with respect to the original

1.4
F*2
value), respectively. Those for the minimum F3 design

1.2
Original Design B1
are (+5.1%O, -5.8%O, -3.4%O), i.e., gain of F2 is

1
smaller than that for the minimum F2 design, but

0.8
ID 077
ID 034
worsening of F1 is also smaller. The blending weights

0.6
(a1, a2, where new design before having initial trim is 0.8 1 1.2
F*1
1.4 1.6

defined by a1B1+a2B2) for the minimum F2 and F3

designs are (16%, 84%) and (44%, 56%); i.e., for the ΔFr =-0.03
latter more influences are from B1 design.

Multiobjective Stochastic Optimization

2
1.8

B2

Next case for NMRI-SBD is multiobjective stochastic

1.6

optimization. The previously obtained NDD is

1.4
F*2

analysed for stochastic parameters and Pareto optimal

1.2

designs for given problem are obtained, where Original Design B1

1

simultaneous minimization of Equation 4 is

0.8

ID 077

considered. The present approach is to consider ship ID 034

0.6

operation speed in real sea environment, which 0.8 1 1.2

F*1
1.4 1.6

usually varies stochastically around a target operation

speed. As mentioned earlier, those are given by PDF ΔFr =-0.06
in a form of stochastic speed loss. Three cases are
assumed for ΔFr = -0.03, -0.06, and -0.09, where
2

corresponding PDF is described earlier. The same B2

1.8

design constraints as those for the previous case are

1.6

imposed; hence, the problem is written by:

1.4
F*2

⎧− 0.03
1.2

⎧ F1 = EV RT
ID 034

⎪
Original Design B1

for ΔFr = ⎨− 0.06

1

Min. ⎨ (7)
F
⎩ 2 = EV ⎪− 0.09
0.8

RAW ID 077

⎩
0.6

0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6

F*1

Figure 10 shows distribution of the results, where

Pareto optimal sets are successfully obtained and
indicated by red squares. Apparently, the results
indicate different aspects for differently assumed PDF.
Table 8 and Table 9 show comparison of design
variables and F: where, as ΔFr decreases, more
ΔFr =-0.09
Figure 10: Solutions from SBD-B stochastic optimization.
F1 and F2, are total resistance (RT) expected value (EVRT)
and added resistance stochastic expected value (EVRAW). F*
in the figures is normalized F by that of the original design.
 0.003 A(X) A(X)-A(X)_Original

0.0004
A(X) Original

0.0002
0.002

A(X) Optimal

0.0000
A(X)-A(X)_Original = 0
0.001

A(X)-A(X)_Original

-0.0002
-0.0004
LCB
Optimal Original (a)
0

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1

X

0.04

0.02
(B.1 Design)

0
Z

-0.02
Fore Body
-0.04
After Body
-0.06
-0.15 -0.1 -0.05 0 0.05 0.1 0.15
Y

0.04

0.02
(ID-077 Design)

0
Z

-0.02
Fore Body
-0.04
After Body
-0.06
-0.15 -0.1 -0.05 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 (b)
Y

0.15 ID-077
0.1

0.05

0 Original (B.1) URANS-Based Optimization

Y

-0.05

-0.1

-0.15
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
X

Figure 11: Comparison of geometry between the original

design and the Pareto optimal design (ID-077).

Two optimal designs are selected from the Pareto

set and discussed in the following: namely ID-034 and
ID-077 designs. As shown in Table 10 and Table 11,
both the two indicate significant reduction of (F1, F2), (c)
i.e., those for ID-034 are (-7.2%, -14.5%), (-5.7%,- Figure 12: Comparison of wave field between the original
12.1%), and (-3.7%,-3.9%) for ΔFr =-0.03, -0.06, and design and the Pareto optimal design (ID-077). (a) Fr=0.3,
-0.09, respectively; and those for ID-077 are (-7.2%, - (b) Fr=0.5, and (c) Fr=0.7, respectively.
8.6%), (-5.7%,-7.9%), and (-3.6%,-7.9%), respectively.
For both designs, the reductions of (F1, F2) tend to be Other common trends are such that more weights
smaller as ΔFr decreases, which is the similar trend are on B2 design, and that about 0.3 degree Bow-
as that for B2 design. downward initial trim is considered. The two appear
to be good examples for trade-off designs from the
present multiobjective optimization: i.e., if ship
operation performance is focused on ΔFr =-0.03 or -
0.06 and equal weights are given to reduction of the
two objective functions, ID-034 will be selected as the
better design. On the other hand, if the focus is more
on ΔFr =-0.09 and same considerations is done for
the reduction of objective functions, ID-077 will be
selected as the better design. Likewise, selection
weights can be arbitrary given, and final selection of
the best design is possible through detailed
consideration of other design aspects.
Focus here is on ID-077. RT for the three speeds
are (+4.4%O, -10.2%O, -6.0%O), respectively; and
main trend of geometry modification is similar to B2,
i.e., forward shift of LCB (Figure 11). Comparison of
wave field (Figure 12) between the original and ID-
077 designs shows that the differences of wave field
agree with the trends of RT.; i.e., for Fr=0.5 and 0.7,
wave trough near the stern is significantly reduced for
the optimal design and that leads to reduced area of
low pressure region on the hull near the stern. Since
no significant differences in boundary layer flows
between the original and optimal designs, resultant
frictional resistance is in fact nearly equal and
reduction of RT is achieved by reduction of
wavemaking resistance. Of course, ID-077 is not
only an optimal design from the present optimization.
All Pareto optimal designs are candidate and to be
selected according to criteria determined by the
designers.
In summary, NMRI-SBD is shown very promising
regarding results demonstrated in the present test
cases. Advantage of EA based framework is again
indicated, i.e., a scalarization approach, which is used
in classical single objective optimization scheme and
combines the several objective functions with given
weights may be misleading in consideration of, e.g.,
EVRT and EVRAW, for which magnitude of functional
gain are considerably different. If unsuitable weights
are used, more effort of the scheme will be directed to
reduce only particular function(s), which is apparently
not a goal of multiobjective optimization. A way to
consider stochastic design conditions is also shown
promising this time, where a stochastic variation of
ship operation speed is given in a form of PDF
represented by Johnson SU function. This PDF can be
modified according to desired operation conditions
such as course and season. RAW is used in the present
study as a seakeeping merit function, which is a
straight forward and applicable to practical design of
all type of ships. Two-step approach, i.e., first
deterministic multiple speed and then stochastic
multiobjective stochastic optimization approach also
appears promising, and further investigation and
application are motivated.
IIHR-INSEAN SBD OPTIMIZATION (SBD-B)
Formulation of Deterministic and Stochastic
Optimization Problems
The background for IIHR-INSEAN deterministic SBD
optimization of Delft catamaran is given by Chen et
al. (2014) and Chen et al. (2013), where barehull and
waterjet ducting system were respectively optimized,
for calm water performance at Fr=0.5. Diez et al.
(2013) give the background for extension to stochastic
optimization. Specifically, a reliability-based robust
design optimization (RBRDO) for the Delft catamaran
barehull was presented for the reduction of the
expected value of the total resistance in head wave
and variable speed at sea state 5, and increase of
operability for operations in head wave, for the North
Pacific Ocean environment.
The current optimization problems extend earlier
work, using a wider design space and more accurate
URANS analysis by a finer grid and a smaller time
step. Deterministic and stochastic problems in wave
are formulated and solved, assuming a conventional
full-scale length of 100 meters with a design speed of
35kt (Table 2). The North Pacific Ocean is assumed as
the operations environment, and the annual probability
of occurrence of sea states is used as in Diez et al.
(2013).
The deterministic optimization problem reads:
Minimize f (x,y), given y = ŷ
subject to l ! x ! u
(8)
and to g k (x) ! 0, k = 1,..., N g
and to hk (x,y) ! 0, k = 1,..., N h
where x is the design variable vector; y collects the
operational/environmental parameters; l and u are
respectively the design variables lower and upper
bound vectors; f is the total resistance; gk and hk are
geometrical and functional constraints, respectively.
Considering stochastic operations and
environment, the deterministic problem of Equation 8
is rewritten in the stochastic form:
Minimize !1 = EV[ f (x)]y
subject to l " x " u
and to g k (x) " 0, k = 1,..., N g (9)
*( *,
Ng
and to # !2 = Pr )! $% hk (x) " 0 &' - / 00
*+ k=1 *.y
where –ϕ2 is the reliability of the design with respect
to the set of constraints gk, within the stochastic Ng

operation/environment y. The above formulation !"2 (x) = ))) ! %& h (x,S,U , # ) $ 0 '(
k
(13)
represents a RBRDO problem, since both objective S ,U ,# k=1

and constraints are treated in a stochastic form. p(S,U , # ) d # dUdS

Herein, the constraints are based on subsystem’s
seakeeping performance criteria (Table 11) and
Ideally, mean resistance in wave RT and motion-
address mobility (MOB), anti-submarine warfare
(ASW), surface warfare (SUW) and anti-air warfare related constraints hk are evaluated by irregular wave
(AAW), as per the standardization agreement NATO simulations at each sea state, speed and heading.
STANAG 4154. Constraints pertain to the significant Considering numerical integration including 5 sea
single amplitude (SSA=2RMS) of motion-related states (from 1 to 7) and 10 different speeds, each
variables. In this particular case of design heading would require >400k CPU hours per
optimization, the design reliability coincides with the geometry, which would increase to >2M if variable
ship operability. heading is considered. Herein, the following
assumptions and approximation are used to reduce the
Table 11: Subsystem seakeeping performance criteria computational cost and the overall wall clock time,
(Kennell et al., 1985) and results at Fr = 0.425, sea state 5. making the overall SBD optimization feasible:
Criterion Unit Max* Irr. UQ E%
Pitch motion (CG) deg 3 3.40 3.36 -1.19
Vert. acceleration bridge (B) g 0.4 0.55 0.55 0.94
(1) In order to compute Equation 12, the expected
Ver. velocity flight deck (D) m/s 1.98 1.93 1.99 3.03 value of the mean resistance in wave is evaluated
(*) Values refer to significant single amplitude (SSA = 2 RMS). considering only sea state 5, as this is the expected sea
state for operations in the North Pacific Ocean. A
Finally, the single-objective RBRDO problem of regular wave model is used for optimization, coupled
Equation 9 is formulated and solved as a multi- with metamodel-based 1D UQ (Diez et al., 2013). A
objective problem as uniform distribution for speed and heading is assumed
following Kennell et al., 1985. This provides
minimize !1 (x), !2 (x)
subject to l " x " u (10) !1 (x, Ŝ) = ## R (x, Ŝ,U, " ) p(U, " ) d" dU
T (14)
and to gk (x) " 0, k = 1,..., N g U ,"

Using a training set of 6 speeds, 5k CPU hours is

required for each heading and geometry. This extends
For all the problems considered, l and u are taken to 25k per geometry, if one considers 5 different
from Chen et al. (2014); geometric constraints are four headings.
and defined as
(2) At each sea state, speed and heading, motions-
g1 (x) = LOA (x) / L*OA ! 1 related constraints are evaluated by a metamodel-
g2 (x) = B(x) / B* ! 1 based 1D UQ procedure for stochastic wave
(11) frequency, based on RMS transfer functions. For each
g3 (x) = T (x) / T * ! 1 heading, these are assessed at Fr=0.425 (speed near to
g4 (x) = "(x) / " * ! 1 ! 10 !2 constraints violation) and sea state 5 (expected sea
state) and translated over the whole range of speed
and sea states using a correction model (Diez et al.,
where LOA and B are the overall length and beam
2013). Using a training set of 9 regular wave
respectively, T is the draught and Δ is the
simulations, each heading and geometry requires 8k
displacement. Superscript “*” indicates parent hull
CPU hours. Considering 5 different heading, this
values.
extends to 40k, per geometry.
Considering stochastic sea state (S), speed (U), and
heading (β) the objectives in the problem of Equation
Four optimization problems are solved, ranging
10 are expressed by
from deterministic to complete stochastic. Specific
optimization objectives and conditions are defined for
!1 (x) = ### R (x,S,U, " ) p(S,U, " ) d" dUdS
S,U ,"
T (12) each of the design optimization problems as follows.
 !
Figure 13: IIHR-INSEAN deterministic and stochastic SBD optimization toolbox (SBD-B).
IIHR-INSEAN problem #1 gives the deterministic
baseline solution for calm water, has been given in
Chen et al. (2014), and is included here for reference.
IIHR-INSEAN problem #2 gives the deterministic
baseline solution for reduced total resistance in wave
and improved seakeeping performance, considering a
single deterministic regular head wave. Accordingly,
ϕ1 and ϕ2 are defined respectively as the mean total
resistance in wave and a seakeeping merit factor
(SMF) given by
" SSAk %
!2 (x) = SMF = max $ (15)
# SSAkl '& k=1,3
evaluated at Fr=0.425 in regular head wave,
representative of sea state 5.
IIHR-INSEAN problem #3 is used for validation
versus EFD and addresses stochastic wave frequency,
within a given sea state, considering fixed speed and
head wave. Accordingly, ϕ1 is the mean total
resistance at Fr=0.425 (evaluated by a regular head
wave model); ϕ2 is the SMF evaluated at Fr=0.425 in
stochastic regular head waves, using 1D UQ; head
waves are representative of sea state 5.
IIHR-INSEAN problem #4 extends the previous
problem to a more realistic case, considering variable
speed and sea state: ϕ1 and ϕ2 are respectively the
expected value of the mean total resistance in wave as
per Equation 14, with fixed heading, and the ship
operability (sign changed) as per Equation 13.
Similarly to Kennell et al. (1985), the operational
speed is assumed to range from 20% to 100% of the
maximum design speed (0.115 ≤ Fr ≤ 0.575). A
uniform distribution is assumed for the speed; the
stochastic sea state ranges from 1 to 7 and follows the
probability of occurrence in the North Pacific Ocean.
Further extension by including variable heading (with
uniform distribution from head to following waves) is
under investigation.
Deterministic and Stochastic SBD Optimization
Toolbox
The SBD optimization toolbox is presented in Figure
13. Its three essential parts are shown: the geometry
modification tool, the deterministic and stochastic
analysis tools, and the optimization algorithm.
Before optimization, the assessment of the design
space is performed by KLE with geometry
manipulation tools. The reduced-dimensionality
design space is selected to retain the 95% of the
original design variability. Design conditions are
defined in the deterministic or stochastic form and
verification and validation of computer simulations
are conducted for the conditions of interest.
The analysis tool used herein is a high-fidelity
URANS solver. If stochastic conditions are
considered, UQ methods are used, including Monte
Carlo simulation, importance sampling, and regular
wave/correction models. Particle swarm optimization
(PSO) is used as optimization algorithm, including
synchronous/asynchronous formulations for single-
and multi-objective problems. Static/dynamic
metamodels are used to increase the efficiency of both
the optimization and the UQ procedure.
SBD Toolbox Setup for Current Problems
Design modification
The barehull geometry modification is performed
using the morphing approach used in Chen et al.
(2014) and Diez et al. (2013). This is based on
modified designs, used as a basis for the geometry
modification space, and given by the KLE of a free-
form deformation (FFD) space with 20 degrees of
freedom. Four basis functions (modified designs) are
required to retain the 95% of the geometric variance
spanned by the original space and are used herein.
One-dimensional uncertainty quantification method
for significant single amplitude
For each sea state, speed and heading, SSA of relevant
quantities is computed using Latin-hypercube
sampling and importance sampling over stochastic
wave frequency, using the moment transport theorem
(Diez et al., 2013). A training set from regular wave
simulations is used to build a metamodel and UQ is
performed over the associated predictions.
Specifically, regular head wave simulations with
encounter frequency within 0.08 and 0.4Hz are used.
The average wave height H = H = ! / 8H 1/3 is used
as representative of the sea state. During optimization,
RMS transfer functions evaluated for Fr=0.425 and
sea state 5 are used over the Fr and sea state range, by
applying a correction model (Diez et al., 2013).
CFD method and simulation domain
The code CFDShip-Iowa V4.5 is used. The simulation
domain is defined by: −0.5 ≤ x ≤ 3.5, 0 ≤ y ≤ 1.3, and
−0.7 ≤ z ≤ 0.5.
Multi-objective optimization algorithms
The multi-objective deterministic PSO (MODPSO)
algorithm is used (Pellegrini et al., 2014). Multiple
sets of deterministic coefficients are applied to
increase the variety of the swarm dynamics. The
swarm dimension is set to 80. The initial swarm
position is defined using Hammersley sequence
sampling (HSS). The particles initial speed follows
Chen et al. (2014). During the swarm optimization,
box and geometrical constraints are applied using a
linear penalty function. MODPSO is applied
sequentially to a metamodel trained by (i) an initial
DoE (M=40) based on Hammersley sequence
sampling, (ii) a DoE refinement (M=5) based on
predicted Pareto solutions.
Metamodelling
For UQ and optimization, a stochastic sample of radial
basis functions network (SRBF) with power law
kernel (Volpi et al., 2014) is used to approximate the
relevant functions over frequency domain and design
space, respectively.
Deterministic V&V
The overall approach in Stern et al. (2006) along with
detailed procedures in Coleman and Stern (1997) and
Xing and Stern (2010) is followed. It is assumed that
all input variables/models are deterministic and
deterministic numerical and modeling errors and
uncertainties are assessed. For solutions in the
asymptotic range, the estimated numerical error and
its estimated error are used to obtain a corrected
solution and its uncertainty. Verification procedures
identify the most important numerical error sources
(such as iterative, grid size, and time step errors) and
provide error and uncertainty estimates. Validation
methodology and procedures use experimental
benchmark data and take into account deterministic
numerical and experimental uncertainties.
Results
V&V in calm water and regular head wave
Three grids (G1, G2, G3) are used for deterministic
grid verification, with refinement ratio equal to 20.5
and size equal to 9.8, 6.9 and 4.9M, respectively.
Three time step (Δt1, Δt2, Δt3) are used for time step
verification with refinement ratio equal to 20.5, ranging
from 1/283 to 1/141 Te (encounter wave period). Grid
and time step verifications are performed using Δt2
and G2, respectively. Grid verification is performed
for calm water variables at Fr=0.425: total resistance
CT=RT/(0.5ρSU2) and static sinkage and trim. Grid
and time step verification is performed for regular
wave simulations at peak condition for Fr=0.425,
corresponding to λ/Lpp=1.24, and A/Lpp=0.01
corresponding to the average amplitude for sea state 5.
Regular wave variables are the zero-th, first and
second harmonics amplitude and first-harmonics
phase of: total resistance coefficient
CX(t)=RT(t)/(0.5ρSU2), non-dimensional heave z(t)/Lpp
and pitch θ(t) motions, and added resistance in the
form CX,0-CT. For all verification studies,
Re=6.07E+06 (model scale) in order to be consistent
with towing tank experiments.
Table 12 shows the results for grid verification in
calm water. Resistance and trim are found monotonic
convergent, whereas the sinkage in oscillatory
convergent. P is found < 1. UI is significantly smaller range. Motion RAOs are in good agreement,
than solution changes and UG. The latter is found especially for pitch motion.
reasonable for resistance and sinkage (3.2 and 1.5%
respectively) and large for trim (26%).

Table 12: Grid verification for Fr = 0.425, Re=6.07E+06,

calm water (r=20.5).
Var. S1 R P UI%S1 UI / |ε21| UI%UG UG%S1
CT 6.506E-03 0.510 0.972 0.001 0.001 0.034 3.246
σ/L -4.153E-03 -0.416 OC 0.001 0.001 0.074 1.507
τ 0.794 0.506 0.982 0.001 0.000 0.004 26.57

Table 13 presents the results for grid verification (a) (b)

in regular head wave. All variables are monotonic Figure 14: Heave and pitch RAOs, CFD vs. CFD, Fr =
convergent, except force and heave first harmonics 0.425, A/Lpp = 0.01 (SBD-B).
phases, and pitch second harmonics amplitude. P
ranges from 0.6 to 6. UI is generally small compared Irregular head wave
to solution changes and UG. UG values are reasonable,
ranging from 5 to 36%. Irregular wave simulations are conducted at Fr=0.425,
Re=6.07E+06 (model scale) and sea state 5 using the
Table 13: Grid verification for Fr = 0.425, Re=6.07E+06, Bretschneider spectrum for inlet boundary conditions.
λ/Lpp = 1.24, A/Lpp = 0.01 (r=20.5). A number of 30 modal periods is used and the
Var. S1 R P UI%S1 UI / |ε21| UI%UG UG%S1 convergence of running mean and RMS of deviation
CX,0 9.330E-03 0.645 0.633 0.004 0.003 0.064 6.745
CX,1 2.378E-03 0.122 3.033 0.006 0.050 0.127 4.932 from mean is depicted in Figure 15 for force, heave
CX,2 2.203E-03 0.246 2.022 0.007 0.014 0.058 12.841 and pitch motions, respectively. SSAs of motion-
ϕCX 1.311 -1.771 OD - - - -
z0/L -2.693E-03 0.016 5.987 0.01 0.162 0.192 9.980
related constraints are shown in Table 11. Pitch and
z1/L 1.957E-02 0.038 4.701 0.002 0.018 0.765 8.959 vertical acceleration of bridge exceed the limit by 13
z2/L 3.970E-05 0.508 0.977 0.987 0.090 2.740 36.01 and 37%. The vertical velocity at the flight deck is at
ϕz -49.15 -0.214 OC 0.021 0.018 0.765 1.207
θ0 1.144 0.501 0.998 0.021 0.007 0.210 9.982 its limit.
θ1 3 274 0.725 0.464 0.012 0.067 0.903 1 333
θ2 0.05 -0.524 OC 0 414 0.079 8.307 4.98
ϕθ -201.80 0.383 1.383 0.047 0.149 1.168 4.024
One-dimensional uncertainty quantification and
CX,0 - CT
2.830E-03 0.631 0.665 0.004 0.003 0.043 9.507
operability assessment for original hull
(ARw)

The one-dimensional UQ model is used to get SSAs in

Table 14 presents the results for time-step head wave at Fr=0.425, Re=6.07E+06 (model scale)
verification. All variables are monotonic convergent, and sea state 5. The results are included in Table 11
except force and heave first harmonics phase, force and compared to the irregular wave values. The
first harmonic amplitude, and heave and pitch second agreement is good and the errors range from 1 to 3%.
harmonics amplitude. P ranges from 1.2 to 1.8. UI is SSA responses at different Fr and sea states using
generally small compared to solution changes and UT. the correction model for RMS transfer functions are
UT values are range from 1 to 26%. used to compute the overall operability for head
waves, which equals 58%.
Table 14: Time-step verification for Fr = 0.425,
Re=6.07E+06, λ/Lpp = 1.24, A/Lpp = 0.01 (r=20.5).
Variable R P UI%S1 UI / |ε21| UI%UT UT%S1 Sensitivity analysis and design optimization results
CX,0 0.281 1.832 0.008 0.021 0.098 8.416
CX,1 -0.693 0.000 0.020 0.014 1.953 1.041
CX,2 0.422 1.244 0.039 0.070 0.722 5.469
Sensitivity analysis for design variables and
ϕCX -1.218 OD - - - - optimization are conducted for the full-scale ship.
z0 0.515 0.958 0.126 0.077 2.274 5.563
Figure 15 presents the sensitivity analysis for
z1 0.680 0.557 0.011 0.010 0.160 6.662
z2 -0.514 OC 3.949 0.147 15.136 26.09 problems #2 to #4. Resistance related- and motion-
ϕz -0.721 OC 0.105 0.003 0.496 11.338 related objectives are shown. Specifically, Figure 18
θ0 0.450 1.153 0.057 0.094 1.266 4.490
θ1 0.386 1.374 0.010 0.028 0.222 4.535
(a) and (c) show a sensitivity analysis along KLE
θ2 2.055 MD - - - - basis for deterministic optimization objectives in
ϕθ -0.879 OC 0.113 0.004 0.651 17.35
problem #2. All design variables are significant. A
potential 13% reduction for mean resistance is found
Finally, Figure 14 shows a comparison between along first and second basis, whereas a 32%
CFD (using G2 and Δt2) and EFD over a wavelength improvement of deterministic seakeeping performance
 (a) (b) (c)
Figure 15: Convergence of force, heave and pitch mean and RMS of deviation from mean vs. simulation time, Fr = 0.425,
sea state 5 (irregular wave) (SBD-B).

(a) (b) (c) (d) (e)

Figure 16: Sensitivity analysis of design variables for deterministic and stochastic objectives (SBD-B).

(a) (b) (c)

Figure 17: Solution of problems #2 (a), #3 (b) and #4 (c) in the objective functions space (SBD-B).

is found along third and fourth basis. Figure 19 (d)
shows the same sensitivity analysis for the second
objective of the problem #3. A reduction of 10% is
found along the fourth basis for the stochastic SMF
(through 1D UQ). Finally, Figure 19 (b) and (e)
present the sensitivity analysis for the stochastic
objectives in problem #4. A 10% reduction is found
along the first basis for the expected value of the mean
resistance in wave, whereas a 7% increase in
operability is found along the fourth basis.
Figure 17 shows the solution for problems #2, #3
and #4. Optimization evolution is shown, by
sequential DoEs and metamodel-based MODPSO.
Selected designs are shown in Figures 18 and 19,
including comparison with the original hull and the
calm-water optimized design (Opt. #1) from Chen et
al. (2014). The associated performances in regular
head wave representative of sea state 5 at Fr=0.425 are
shown in Figure 20, in terms of force, heave and pitch
motions. Opt. #3 is selected as a candidate for model
tests, providing 24% reduction for expected mean
resistance and 84% for the SMF, for stochastic regular
head waves representative of sea state 5, at Fr=0.425.
Table 15 provides an overall summary of current SBD
formulations and solutions, comparing SBD-A and
SBD-B. Opt. #3 design performances are also
included, for SBD-B problems #2 and #4.
CONCLUSIONS
The high-fidelity hull optimization of a waterjet
propelled ship is successfully demonstrated by two
SBD approaches, i.e., NMRI-SBD and IIHR-
INSEAN-SBD, referred to as SBD-A and SBD-B. The
two SBD methods were used in a complementary
manner, providing applications to classical design
problems for commercial ships (SBD-A), and
advanced applications for high-speed sea lift military
vessels (SBD-B).
For SBD-A, advantage of EA based framework is
again indicated, i.e., a scalarization approach, which is
used in classical single objective optimization scheme
 (a) Original (b) Opt. #1

(c) Opt. #2 (d) Opt. #3 (e) Opt. #4

Figure 18: Comparison of original (a) with optimized designs for calm-water (b), deterministic (c) and stochastic (d) wave
at fixed speed and variable sea state and speed (d) (SBD-B).

Figure 19: Comparison of section lines for original and optimized designs (SBD-B).

(a) (b) (c)

Figure 20: Comparison of force (a), heave (b) and pitch (c) motions versus time for original and optimized designs in
regular head wave representative of sea state 5 at Fr = 0.425 (SBD-B).

and combines the several objective functions with
given weights may be misleading in consideration of,
e.g., EVRT and EVRAW, for which magnitude of
functional gain are considerably different. A way to
consider stochastic design conditions is also shown
promising this time, where a stochastic variation of
ship operation speed is given in a form of PDF, which
can be modified according to desired operation
conditions such as course and season.
For SBD-B, four deterministic/stochastic
optimization problems have been presented for Delft
catamaran in calm water and head wave. The latter
address different level of complexity, from single
deterministic regular wave to fully stochastic ocean
environment with variable speed and sea state.
Stochastic optimization problems are solved using a
multi-objective reformulation for RBRDO. Sensitivity
analysis and design optimization have been shown,
based on KLE-reduced dimensionality space,
stochastic regular wave UQ models, sequential DoEs
and metamodel-based MODPSO. Significant
improvements have been achieved for all problems.
Solutions to SBD problems in head waves fall in the
same region of the design space and are similar
(Figures 18 and 19). Opt. #3 design has been selected
as a candidate for model tests, providing 24 and 84%
reduction for expected mean resistance and SMF, in
stochastic regular head waves representative of sea
state 5, at Fr=0.425. Opt. #3 design also achieves
significant improvements for problems #2 and #4,
with a reduction of 23% for SMF in deterministic
regular wave, and 9% for expected mean resistance in
variable sea state/speed, with an associated increase of
operability of 6% (Table 15). Calm water simulations
are in progress for resistance decomposition studies
and supporting the final decision on the optimized
design for model tests. Verification and validation of
URANS simulations, along with EFD UQ for final
design will be conducted accordingly.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This work has been supported by the US Navy Office
of Naval Research (Grant N00014-09-1-0979,
N62909-11-1-7054, N00014-11-1-0237, N62909-11-
1-7011) under the administration of Dr. Ki-Han Kim
Dr. Woei-Min Lin, and Prof. Kenji Uchino; and
Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research, Japan (Project
Number 21360436 and 24360363); and the Italian
Flagship Project RITMARE, coordinated by the
Italian National Research Council and funded by the
Italian Ministry of Education, within the National
Research Program 2011–2013.
REFERENCES
Campana, E.F., Peri, D., Tahara, Y., Stern, F., “Shape
Optimization in Ship Hydrodynamics using
Computational Fluid Dynamics,” Computer
Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering,
Vol. 196, 2006, pp. 634–651.
Campana, E.F., Peri, D., Tahara, Y., Kandasamy, M.,
Stern, F., “Numerical Optimization Methods for
Ship Hydrodynamic Design,” SNAME
Transactions, Annual Meeting, Providence. Rhode
Island, USA, 2009.
Carrica, P., Wilson, R.V. & Stern, F., “Unsteady
RANS Simulation of the Ship Forward Speed
Diffraction Problem,” Computers and Fluids, Vol.
35, 2006, pp. 545-570.
Chen, Xi, Diez, M., Kandasamy, M., Zhang, Z.,
Campana, E.F., Stern, F., “High-fidelity global
optimization of shape design by dimensionality
reduction, metamodels and deterministic particle
swarm,” Engineering Optimization, DOI:
10.1080/0305215X.2014.895340
Coleman, H. W. and Stern, F., “Uncertainties and
CFD code validation,” ASME J. Fluids Eng., Vol.
119, No. 4, pp. 795–803, 1997.
Deb, K., Multi-Objective Optimization using
Evolutionary Algorithms, John Wiley & Sons,
2001.
Diez M., Peri D., “Robust optimization for ship
conceptual design,” Ocean Engineering, Vol.
37, 2010, pp. 966-977.
Diez, M., Chen, X., Campana, E.F., “Reliability-based
robust design optimization for ships in real ocean
environment,” Proc. 12th International Conference
on Fast Sea Transportation, FAST2013,
Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2013.
Eberhart R., Shi Y., “Comparing inertia weights and
constriction factors in particle swarm
optimization,” Proc. Congress on Evolutionary
Computation, La Jolla, CA, USA, 2000.
Hasselmann, K., Barnett, TP., Bouws, E., Carlson, H.,
Cartwright, DE., Enke, K., Ewing, JA., Gienapp,
H., Hasselmann, DE., Kruseman, P., Meerburg, A.,
Mller, P., Olbers, DJ., Richter, K., Sell, W.,
Walden, H., “Measurements of wind-wave growth
and swell decay during the Joint North Sea Wave
Project (JONSWAP),” Ergnzungsheft zur
Deutschen Hydrographischen Zeitschrift Reihe,
A8, 12, 1973.
He W, Diez M, Zou Z, Campana EF, Stern F,
“URANS study of Delft catamaran total/added
resistance, motions and slamming loads in head
sea including irregular wave and uncertainty
quantification for variable regular wave and
geometry,” Ocean Engineering, Vol. 74, 2013, pp.
189-217.
Huang, J., P. Carrica, and F. Stern, “Semi-coupled
air/water immersed boundary approach for
curvilinear dynamic overset grids with application
to ship hydrodynamics, Int. J. Numer. Meth. Fluids,
Vol. 58, 2008, pp. 591–624.
Johnson, N., “Systems of frequency curves generated
by methods of translation,” Biometrika, Vol. 36,
1949.
Kandasamy, M., Ooi, S.K., Carrica, P. & Stern, F.,
“Integral force/moment waterjet model for CFD
simulations,” ASME J. Fluids Eng., Vol. 132, No.
10, 2010.
Kandasamy, M., He, W., Tahara, Y., Peri, D.,
Campana, E., Wilson, W. & Stern, F.,
“Optimization of waterjet-propelled high speed
ships - JHSS and Delft Catamatran,” Proc. 11th
International Conference Fast Sea Transportation,
FAST 2011, Honolulu, Hawaii, USA, 2011.
Kandasamy, M., Peri, D., Tahara, Y., Wilson, W.,
Miozzi, M., Georgiev, S., Milanov, E., Campana,
EF., Stern, F., “Simulation based design
optimization of waterjet propelled Delft
catamaran,” International Shipbuilding Progress,
Vol. 60, 2013, pp. 277-308.
Kennell C.G., White B.L., Comstock E.N.,
“Innovative Naval Designs for North Atlantic
Opeartions,” SNAME Transactions, Vol. 93, 1985,
pp. 261-281.
Lugni, C., Colagrossi, A., Landrini, M. & Faltinsen,
O.M., “Experimental and numerical study of semi-
 displacement mono-hull and catamaran in calm
water and incident waves,” Proc. 25th Symposium
on Naval Hydrodynamics, St. John's, Canada,
2004.
Maruo, H., “Resistance in waves, research on
seakeeping qualities of ships in Japan,” J. Society
of Naval Architects of Japan, Vol. 8, 1963, pp. 67-
102.
Pellegrini, R., Rinaldi, F., Campana, E.F., Diez, M.,
Fasano, G., Iemma, U., Liuzzi, G., Lucidi, S.,
Serani, A. & Stern, F., “Application of derivative-
free multi- objective algorithms to reliability-based
robust design optimization of a high-speed
catamaran in real ocean environment,” Proc. 4th
International Conference on Engineering
Optimization, EngOpt 2014, 8–11 September 2014,
Lisbon, Portugal.
Peri, D., Kandasamy, M., Tahara, Y., Wilson, W.,
Miozzi, M., Campana, EF., Stern, F., “Simulation
based design with variable physics modeling and
experimental verification of a water-Jet propelled
catamaran,” Proc. 29th Symposium on Naval
Hydrodynamics, Gothenburg, Sweden, 2012.
Stern, F., Wilson, R. V., Coleman, H. W., and
Paterson, E. G., “Comprehensive approach to
verification and validation of CFD simulations—
Part 1: Methodology and Procedures,” ASME J.
Fluids Eng., Vol. 123, No. 4, 2001, pp. 793–802.
Stern, F., Wilson, R., and Shao, J., “Quantitative
approach to V&V of CFD simulations and
certification of CFD codes,” Int. J. Numer. Meth.
Fluids, Vol. 50, 2006, pp. 1335–1355.
Tahara, Y., Takai, T., “High-performance multi-
objective evolutionary algorithms for
computational fluid dynamics-based design
optimization,” Proc. 3rd PAAMES and
AMEC2008, Chiba, Japan, 2008, pp. 313 – 323.
Tahara, Y., Peri, D., Campana, E.F., Stern, F.,
“Computational fluid dynamics-based
multiobjective optimization of a surface
combatant,” J. Marine Science and Technology,
Vol. 13, No. 2, 2008, pp. 95-116.
Tahara, Y., Hino, T., Kandasamy, M., He, W., Stern,
F., “CFD-based multiobjective optimization of
waterjet propelled high speed ships,” Proc. 11th
International Conference Fast Sea Transportation,
FAST 2011, Honolulu, Hawaii, USA, 2011.
Tahara, Y., Peri, D., Campana, EF., Stern, F., “Single
and multiobjective design optimization of a fast
multihull ship: numerical and experimental
results,” J. Marine Science and Technology, Vol.
16, No. 4, 2011, pp. 412-433.
Tahara, Y., Kobayashi, H., Kandasamy, M., He, W.,
Peri, D., Diez, M., Campana, E., Stern, F., “CFD-
based multiobjective stochastic optimization of
waterjet propelled high speed ships,” Proc. 29th
Symposium on Naval Hydrodynamics,
Gothenburg, Sweden, 2012.
Tsujimoto, M., Naito, S., “A New Analytic Method of
Voyage data,” Proc. 2nd New Ship & Marine Tec.
21st Century, 1998.
Tsujimoto, M., Naito, S., “Estimation of Speed
Margin by Probabilistic Methods,” Proc. 3rd
Korea-Japan Joint Workshop on Ship and Marine
Hydrodynamics, 1996.
Tsujimoto, M., Shibata, K., Kuroda, M., Takagi, K.,
“A Practical Correction Method for Added
Resistance in Waves,” J. Japan Society of Naval
Architects and Ocean Engineers, Vol. 8, 2008,
pp.141-146.
Van't Veer R., “Experimental results of motions and
structural loads on the 372 catamaran model in
head and oblique waves,” Technical University of
Delft Report, 1130, 1988.
Xing, T. and Stern, F., Factors of safety for
Richardson extrapolation, ASME J. Fluids Eng.,
Vol. 132, No. 6, 2010.
 Table 15: SBD optimization problems summary.

Optimized designs Selected final design

Objectives
Stochastic distributions Geometrical performances performances (Opt. #3)
Opt. problem Type --- Design space CFD methods/tools
for design conditions constraints ΔF1 ΔF2 ΔF3 ΔF1 ΔF2 ΔF3
design conditions
[%] [%] [%] [%] [%] [%]
URANS solver
Single- F1 = RT in calm-water
IIHR-INSEAN #1 Max. LOA, B, T 4D morphing CFDShip-Iowa
objective, --- n.a. -9.63 - - - - -
(Chen et al. 2014) Δ fixed (KLE based) V4.5 with body
deterministic Fr = 0.5*
forces WJ model
F1 = mean RT in head wave
F2 = SMF based on SSAs
Multi-
---
IIHR-INSEAN #2 objective, n.a. -26.0 -22.3 - -23.9 -23.4 -
Fr = 0.425**, deterministic
deterministic
wave representative of sea
state 5
F1 = mean RT in head wave
- wave frequency: based
IIHR-INSEAN #3 F2 = SMF based on SSAs
on Bretschneider spectrum URANS solver
(used for EFD --- Max. LOA, B, T 4D morphing -23.9 -83.6 - -23.9 -83.6 -
(assessed by 1D UQ CFDShip-Iowa
validation) Fr = 0.425**, sea state 5 with Δ fixed (KLE based)
model) V4.5
variable wave frequency
Multi-
F1 = EV(RT) in head wave - Fr: uniform
objective,
F2 = O% (operability) - wave frequency: based
stochastic
IIHR-INSEAN #4 --- on Bretschneider spectrum
(extension of Diez variable Fr*** (assessed by 1D UQ -11.8 -5.70 - -9.46 -5.99 -
et al. 2013) (0.115<Fr<0.575) and sea model)
state; for each sea state, the - sea state: as per North
wave frequency is variable Pacific data
F1=RT(Fr=0.3)
Multi- F2=RT(Fr=0.5) URANS solver +5.00 -11.80 -5.40
NMRI #1 objective, F3=RT(Fr=0.7) n.a. CFDShip-Iowa (F2- (F2- (F2- - - -
1D morphing
deterministic --- V4.5 with body min.) min.) min.)
(between
calm water forces WJ model for
original and
F1 = EV(RT) - T: based on Max. LOA, B, T calm water solution
optimal from
F2 = EV(RAW) Bretschneider spectrum Δ fixed
Chen et al.
Multi- --- - H: Rayleigh distribution Frequency domain
2014) + initial -5.53 -10.17
NMRI #2 objective, variable Fr**** - Fr: Johnson SU linear potential flow - - - -
trim (ave.) (ave.)
stochastic (0.15<Fr<0.7), distribution, with mean Fr solver FreDOM for
calm water condition for F1, loss equal to 0.03, 0.06, motions
sea state 3 for F2 0.09
*
Hump speed
**
Close to speed limit at sea state 5
***
From 20 to 100% of maximum design speed (Kennell et al., 1985)
****
Representing speed loss at Fr=0.5

View publication stats