Version of Record: https://www.sciencedirect.

com/science/article/pii/S002980182100473X
Manuscript_4b89747ff615cb50b59a0b5012dcba31

Multi-objective optimization of the hull form for the

semi-submersible medical platform

Xiaojie Tian1, 2, Xiaoyuan Sun1, Guijie Liu1, 2∗, Yingchun Xie1, 2, Yu Chen3,
Honghui Wang1, 2
1
Department of mechanical and electrical engineering, Ocean University of
China, Qingdao, 266100, China
2
Key Laboratory of Ocean Engineering of Shangdong Province, Ocean
University of China, Qingdao, 266100, China
3
CIMC Offshore Engineering Institute Company Limited, Yantai, 264670, China

Abstract:
This paper proposes a study on the hull structure optimization of a semi-submersible
medical platform. The hull structure sizes have great important effect on the cost,
hydrodynamics, global, and manufacture of the whole semi-submersible platform. In
this paper, the economy, lightweight and higher stability should be ensured for the
medical platform during the optimization design process. The hull sizing optimization
process is modeled as a multivariable minimization problem, which is minimizing the
hull structure weight, the heave response, and the roll response. The surrogate model
method is introduced to obtain the relationship between the design variables and output
variables, which reduced the time-consuming induced by the numerical simulation and
improved the optimization efficiency. A multi-objective optimization for the hull
structure is developed by using the gray correlation analysis to evaluate the weight of
three optimization objects. At last, the optimization solutions are achieved in the form
of Pareto set. According to the optimization results, the changing relations between the
sizes of the deck, column, pontoon and draft with the total weight, and the heave and
roll response can be determined.

Keywords: Multi-objective optimization, semi-submersible medical platform,

surrogate model, gray correlation analysis

∗
Corresponding author at: Department of mechanical and electrical engineering, Ocean
University of China, Qingdao, 266100, China. Tel.: +86-0532-66781131; fax: +86-0532-66781131.
E-mail address: liuguijie@ouc.edu.cn (G.J. Liu).

© 2021 published by Elsevier. This manuscript is made available under the Elsevier user license
https://www.elsevier.com/open-access/userlicense/1.0/
1. Introduction
Semi-submersible (SEMI) platform is one of the most preferred floating type for
oil/gas exploration and offshore wind energy in the deep water in the past few decades.
SEMI shows more merits on the aspect of good seakeeping capability, large riser-
holding space, easy offshore installation and large topside space . Furthermore, SEMI
has no restriction on fabrication location as it can be built by a number of shipyards
worldwide. And it has the large deck and adapts to a wide range of water depth.
Therefore, more and more SEMI platforms are fabricated not only for production, but
also for accommodation, service, tourism and medical.
One of the major challenges for designing a semi-submersible is the relatively
larger vertical motion in waves, which makes it difficult to design robust and reliable
mooring and riser systems. Optimization of the hull form to reach better global motion
performance is critical to the development of the SEMI. A lot of efforts have been made
on the determination of the optimal hull form since the amplitude of wave-induced
motion is closely related to the hull form and the mass distribution.
Clauss and Birk (1996) introduced a fully automated numerical procedure for
optimization. Venzon et al. (2013) presented a procedure for hull-form optimization of
semi-rig using an artificial neural network model as a quick estimate of the heave
motion, avoiding the extensive use of numerical methods and mesh generation. Park et
al. (2015) proposed an automated procedure for the hull-form optimization of semi-
submersible floating production unit. The 3-h heave most probable extreme value and
the structural weight are the objectives, and each objective is weighted. And four
optimal solutions are obtained. Zhang et al. (2018) used the evolutionary algorithm to
optimize the tension leg platform based on the surrogate model. The total weight and
tendon tension are the optimization objects. Qiu et al. (2019) proposed a semi-
submersible platform optimization program using particle swam optimization
algorithm. The heave motion and total weight are considered as the optimization objects
for three types of SEMIs. Sugita and Suzuki (2016) performed the hull sizing of tension
leg platforms using an optimization model. The hull and the tendon weight are the
objectives and the global performance, strength, and initial screening criteria are the
constraint conditions. Du Kim and Jang (2016) performed multi-objective optimization
for TLP considering the hull form and tendon system. The maximum heave response
and the total weight are formulated as objective functions. And Pareto set with eight
different optimum solutions were obtained. Xie and Falzarano (2020) developed an
optimization framework using genetic algorithm to realize automatic parameter
optimization for semi-submersible design of eight pontoons. Emami and Mostafa
Gharabaghi (2020) introduced a grid search algorithm in the form of a three-objective
function to minimize the weight of a semi-submersible hull and to reduce the heave and
pitch motion responses. Xu (2011) proposed a new semi-submersible platform concept
by extending the width and height of the float box at the bottom of the column to form
a float, which not only increases the bottom area and inhibits the oscillating motion, but
also interrupts the consistent continuity of the column, decreases the effective draft,
inhibits the generation of eddy motion, and makes the semi-submersible platform
optimized in terms of motion performance.
Thus, the economy, safety and reliability of semi-submersible platform structure will
become a trend (Zhang et al., 2017) and (Tian et al.,2019). Therefore, how to optimize
the hull shape to achieve better overall motion performance is very important for the
development of the semi-submersible platform. In the present study, a semi-
submersible platform is designed mainly for medical. At the engineering phase of
offshore platform projects, various design criteria such as hydrodynamic response,
global performance, stability, and structural strength are considered to determine the
initial configuration and sizes. And then the initial design is optimized for economy,
safety, or easy of construction. The weight of the semi-submersible platform is mainly
based on the amount of steel used, which is related to the cost. Among the six degrees
of freedom responses of the platform, heave and roll have the most obvious effects on
the platform's hydrodynamic performance (Song et al., 2019) and (Xie et al., 2019).
Considering the stability requirements of the medical platform, its motion response
have to be limited so as not to produce large instability under the wave load. Therefore,
the weight, heave motion and roll motion should be considered as the optimization
goals to obtain a more cost, safety and stability design, while the safety and installation
of a platform are considered as constraints.
The whole paper is organized as follows. The mathematical model of the medical
platform is proposed in Section 2. Section 3 establishes the surrogate model and multi
objective function of the medical platform. The Pareto solution set results are obtained
in Section 4. Last, the conclusions are given in Section 5.

2. Mathematical model
2.1 Model of the semi-submersible platform
The semi-submersible platform is designed aimed for medical. The upper part of the
platform is arranged for medical area, living area, and so on. The lower part is arranged
for the mechanical area, ballast tanks, fresh water tanks, fuel tanks, pump tanks, and so
on. The whole layout of the platform is shown in Fig. 1. The hull form is determined
according to the existing hull types. And in the conceptual design phase, the dimensions
of the hull need to be determined firstly considering the environmental conditions and
functional requirements. The initial hull shape and sizes are estimated by past project
data or by applying the engineers’ experience. The conceptual selection results are taken
as an initial design for further optimization in the present study.

Fig.1 General layout of the medical semi-submersible platform

In order to find a better, technically and economically feasible design, the shape and
sizes of the hull are need to be optimized considering the weight control, hydrostatic
stability, hydrodynamic, and global performance. Therefore, the hull sizing
optimization process is modeled as a multivariable minimization problem with multiple
constraint conditions. The optimization process is shown in Fig. 2. Firstly, an
assessment of the objectives and confirmation of the set of constraints of each design
candidate is necessary. And the surrogate model is used to obtain the function
relationship between input and output by continuous approximation to replace the
numerical simulations for each varied hull form. And the multi-objective model is
established by using the gray correlation analysis method. Finally, the optimization
results are obtained by NSGA-II algorithm.

Fig.2 Flowchart of overall optimization process

2.2 Design variables

For the design of the medical semi-submersible platform, the sizes of the deck,
column, pontoon and hull draft are all needed to be determined. And nine design
variables including deck height, deck width, deck length, column height, column width,
column length, pontoon length, pontoon height, hull draft, as shown in Fig. 3. For the
whole semi-submersible platform, economy and lightweight is the first considered for
the platform optimization design. In addition, this platform needs higher stability, as the
heave and rolling of platform have a great impact on the stability performance.
Therefore, the weight, heave performance and rolling performance are firstly
considered during the optimization design process.
 Fig.3 The sketch of medical semi-submersible platform hull

A total of nine independent variables are list in Table 1, which are introduced to
express the hull and the deck initial form. These variables are directly related to the
dimensions of each part of the hull and deck, respectively. Other dimensions can be
calculated from these nine variables. According to the design requirements, the hull
draft must be larger than the pontoon height. The pontoon width is the same with the
column width. And the deck length is the sum of the column width and transverse brace
length.
The initial value, lower bound and upper bound of design variables (deck height,
deck width, deck length, column height, column width, column length, pontoon length,
pontoon height, hull draft) are list in Table 1.
Table 1 Design variables
Design variables Definition Initial value Upper bound Lower bound
X1 Deck length 70 77 63
X2 Deck width 80 88 72
X3 Deck height 8 8.5 7.5
X4 Column length 14 16 12
X5 Column width 13.8 15.8 11.8
X6 Column height 21.5 24.5 18.5
X7 Pontoon length 97 107 87
X8 Pontoon height 9.45 10.45 8.45
X9 Hull draft 17 15.5 18.5

In the initial design stage, the main performance of the platform should be evaluated
to meet the safety and economy of the platform. The pitch performance, stability
performance and heave acceleration are mainly considered here. Among the motions,
only heave motion is selected as the objective, because, relative to pitch and roll, it is
the dominant to the operability of topside process.
2.3 Weight estimation
The weight of the hull structural is an important indicator, which directly determines
the cost of the whole platform. As the design parameters are changed during the
optimization process, the hull form is changed continuously and the center of mass is
also changed. Therefore, the weight and the center of mass should be estimated.
The weight of the hull mainly contains four sections, pontoon weight, column weight,
transverse brace weight and deck weight. Each section is estimated based on the surface
area, volume and height of the hull structure. For simple calculation, the hull shape is
simplified rectangular, as shown in Fig. 3. For the pontoon, it must provide adequate
sufficient displacement. The internal structural design, such as the size and arrangement
of ribs, must enable the floating body to withstand hydrostatic pressure. Therefore, the
steel weight of the pontoon is taken as a function of the surface area of the pontoon and
draft depth of the platform(Gosain et al., 2017).
W1=9.4×10-3×(SP×TOP)1.05 (1)

S P = 2 × X 7 × ( X 4 + X 8 ) , TOP = X 9 (2)

Where, W1 is the steel weight of a single pontoon, S p is the surface area of the lower

floating body, Top is the draft depth of the platform, X 7 , X 4 and X 8 is the length, width

and height of the pontoon, respectively.

For the column weight, it can be calculated by the geometry directly, as follows.
1.612
W2 = X6 × 0.286 × X5 (3)

Where, W2 is the steel weight of a single column, X 6 and X 5 are the height and width

of the column, respectively.

The transverse brace is generally cylindrical shell with stiffeners inside. The load
acting on the transverse brace is mainly the dynamic alternating tension and
compression force, which is usually designed according to the buckling criterion. The
steel weight of a transverse brace is estimated according to the following Equ.(4):
 W3 = L × 0.405 × D1.608 , D = 3.3 (4)

Where, L is the length of the transverse brace, L = X1 − 2 × X 4 , D is the diameter of

the transverse brace.

The semi-submersible platforms are often built with a box deck, mainly consisting
of a lower deck structure with double bottoms, one or more intermediate decks and a
main deck. The inherent rigidity and strength of the box deck also reduces the need for
diagonal bracing, and the horizontal cross bracing is sufficient to meet the structural
requirements. Therefore, the weight of the whole deck structure is mainly composed of

the main deck, the remaining decks and the bulkheads, which are denoted by W4 , W5

and W6 respectively:

Main deck weight：

−4 2
W4 = 0.242 ∗ AMDK − 0.121∗10 ( AMDK ) (5)

Remaining deck weight：

−4 2
W5 = 0.051∗ ARDK + 0.162 ∗10 ( ARDK ) (6)

Bulkhead Weight：
W6=0.026*h*AMDK-2.13 (7)

Where, AMDK is the main deck area and equals to X1 multiplying X2, ARDK is the area of

the remaining decks, ARDK=2×X1×X2 and h is the height of the box deck.
Generally, the total weight of the hull structure is expressed as follows:

W = 2∗W1 + 4 ∗W2 + 2 ∗W3 +W4 +W5 +W6 (8)

Additionally, the hull outfit weight should be considered, including power device
weight, fixed equipment weight, ballast water weight, consumable weight, movable
equipment weight, etc. For the center of gravity estimation, it can be estimated by the
weight of each part and the total weight. Based on the waterline of the platform, the
gravity center can be calculated as follows:
∑ Wi Z i (9)
Z =
Wsum

Where, Wi is the weight of each part, Zi is the gravity center of each part and, Wsum is
the whole weight of the platform.
2.4 Hydrodynamic performance
In the marine environment, semi-submersible platform is sensitive to the ocean
environment loads, such as wind, wave, current, and so on. For the motion of offshore
floating platform, the most common and lasting influence is wind and wave. It seriously
affects the structural safety, the adaptability and the cost. In this paper, wave load is the
main considered load.
According to Newton's second law, the dynamic equation of an arbitrary floating
body under the action of fluid is as follows (Fei et al., 2017):

F = M &&
x + C x& + Kx (10)

Where, F is the fluid force matrix, including wave force and hydrostatic recovery force,
M is the mass matrix, including its hull mass and additional mass, x is the displacement
matrix, which is divided into surge, sway, heave, roll, pitch and yaw according to the
direction of the spatial coordinate system, C is the radiation damping matrix and viscous
matrix, and K is the stiffness matrix. And K is the hydrostatic stiffness matrix when
positioning without mooring. Furthermore, F, M, and C are all related to the wave
frequency.

Fig.4 Hydrodynamic analysis system

As shown in Fig.4, based on the three-dimensional potential flow theory and Morison
equation, the hydrodynamic characteristics and the motion responses can be achieved
numerically. The panel element model was established by using the three-dimensional
potential flow theory in the frequency domain, and the influence of viscosity is
considered by the Morison equation to form a complete numerical calculation model.
For the wave load of the semi-platform, it is mainly caused by the pressure field
generated by the wave motion. Wave loads are generally classified into three types:
inertial force, dragging force and diffraction force. For the large-scale floating body,
the wave passing through it changes significantly, so the diffraction effect of the floating
body on the fluid must be considered. The basic assumptions of diffraction theory are
as follows: (a) The fluid is an ideal fluid with uniform density, incompressible and
viscosity is ignored, (b) The waves in the flow field are all linear waves; (c) The fluid
is in a non-rotating motion, which is the potential flow, (d) The floating body is a rigid
body, (e) All the motions in the direction of six degrees of freedom are micro amplitude
motions. Therefore, the panel method can be adopted to compute the wave loads of
large-scale floating body. It is assumed that the amplitudes of wave and motion of body
are small compared with the cross section of body.
For the slender rod (the ratio of cross-section size to wavelength is less than 0.2),
which has no interference on the wave motion direction. In this case, the viscous effect
and additional mass effect of fluid play a decisive role on the load of the slender rod,
that is, the wave force on the rod is composed of the inertial force generated by the local
flow acceleration and the viscous force proportional to the square of the instantaneous
velocity. The wave load of the slender rod is calculated according to the Morison
equation, which is a semi-empirical formula for wave action in flow field (Tian et al.,
2019). And The general form of Morison equation is as follows:
1
Fwave = C m ρ V u& + C ⋅ ρ A u u (11)
d 2

Where, Fwave is the wave force acting on the slender rod, Cm is the coefficient of inertial

force, dimensionless value, ρ is the density of sea water, V is the drainage volume of

the floating body, u is the local flow velocity, u& is the local flow acceleration, Cd is the

coefficient of viscous force, dimensionless value, A is the characteristic area, that is, the
projected area of the bar perpendicular to the wave direction under unit height.
Through the potential flow theory and Morison equation, added mass, damping
coefficient and the wave loads can be obtained. By assuming the platform is rigid body,
the equations of motion can be solved in frequency domain. Motion response is
conducted using the commercial program. The Response Amplitude Operators (RAO)
is a transfer function, which can indicate the motion response characteristics of the
floating body. It represents the amplitude of platform sway motion caused by regular
wave per amplitude. For the translational direction degree of freedom, its unit is m/m.
and for the rotational direction degree of freedom, its unit is deg/m. Compared with
other parameters, the motion response RAO is the most intuitive frequency domain
index to evaluate the hydrodynamic performance of the scheme.
Considering the water depth in the South China Sea, it is assumed that all platforms
are operating with a depth of 1500m. Since the platform is symmetrical, the numerical
model is shown in Fig. 5. And the wave direction angle range is 0~90° and the step
length is 30° with a total of 4 angles.

Fig.5 Mesh generation of wet surface model

The RAOs at different wave directions are shown in Fig. 6. The data in the figure
shows that heave and roll have the greatest movement under unit amplitude, that is,
they are the factors that have the greatest influence on the platform hydrodynamics.
Therefore, steel quantity, heave response and roll response are used as the three
optimization objectives. It can be seen from Fig.6(c) and Fig.6(d) that the changing
trend of heave and roll is almost the same. Their motion amplitudes are large at low
frequency, and first increase and then decrease to the minimum value with the
frequency increasing. Last, the response is keeping low. Moreover, RAO of heave and
roll are maximum when wave incident angle is 90°. As can be seen from Fig.6 (e), the
pitch RAO is maximum when wave incident angle is 0°. Therefore, the heave and roll
response values of the wave incident angle of 90° and the pitch response value of the
wave incident angle of 0° are important.

Fig.6 RAOs at different wave directions (a) Surge RAO; (b)Sway RAO; (c) Heave RAO; (d)
Roll RAO; (e) Pitch RAO; (f)Yaw RAO
Generally, based on the previous hydrodynamic model, the motion responses under
different sea conditions can be obtained. The medical platform is calculated by selecting
the sea condition of the first 10-year return period in the South China Sea. The
parameters of the ten-year return period sea condition are shown in Table 2. And the
heave and roll response under 90° wave, and the pitch response under 0° wave are all
calculated.
Table 2 Sea state parameters with 10-year return period
Return Significant wave Peak Peak Starting frequency Terminal frequency
period height (m) period(s) parameter(γ) （rad/s） （rad/s）
10Y 12.1 13.9 3.17 0.2 1.17
2.5 Stability performance
The stability refers to the ability of the floating platform to automatically return to
its original position by relying on buoyancy and gravity when the floating body is tilted
under external forces other than buoyancy and gravity. As shown in Fig. 7, when the
semi-submersible platform is tilted due to external force, the waterline changes from
W0L0 to W1L1, and the center of buoyancy moves from B0 to B1. At this time, the
displacement and the position of gravity center remain unchanged, and gravity and
buoyancy no longer act on the same plumb line, resulting in a moment called restoring
moment. When the external force disappears, the restoring moment will make the
platform return to its original equilibrium position, which is called stability.

Fig.7 High initial stability analysis

The stability is an important performance for the semi-submersible platform. When
the platform inclines slightly, the restoring moment can be expressed by Equ. (12).
MS=△●GM●sin ϕ (12)
Where, Ms is the restoring moment, △ is the displacement of the platform, G is the
center of gravity, M is the transverse stability center, GM is the stability height of
platform, ϕ is the transverse inclination angle of the platform.
When M point is higher than G point, GM > 0, and the restoring moment is positive,
which resists the platform's heeling. When M point is lower than G point, GM < 0, and
the restoring moment is negative, which makes the ship keep heeling. The M point is
called the transverse metacentric of the platform.
In the conceptual design stage of the platform, the height of the horizontal stability
and the height of the longitudinal stability can be used as the preliminary means to
measure the stability performance of the platform. Due to the structural characteristics
of semi-submersible platform, the height of horizontal stability is the main factor
determining the safety of the platform. Therefore, the height of horizontal stability is
taken as an index to judge whether the stability performance meets the requirements or
not, and is used as the constraint conditions in design optimization.
DNV requires that GM should be bigger than 0m (DNV, 2011). But in actual, the
initial stability value is often higher than the standard value. Usually, GM of the existing
platform is generally greater than 2m. Considering for the application of medical for
this platform, higher requirements are needed. Therefore, in this study, GM should be
bigger than 3m in this paper, which can ensure the whole stability of the platform.

3. Multi objective optimization model

For the semi-submersible medical platform optimization problem, the safety and
economy should be satisfied. Therefore, the hull steel weight, heave response, and roll
response are selected as the optimized objects. For the three optimization objects, they
are usually incongruous or contradictory. The final optimization method should make
tradeoffs and compromises among them. During the optimization process, the model of
medical platform is crucial. If the actual model is used for iterative optimization, the
calculation is usually large and the optimization efficiency is poor. The corresponding
approximate model can be established for analysis on the premise of ensuring the
accuracy of the model. The surrogate model is an appropriate method and it can
establish empirical formula, obtain the relationship between input variables and output
variables, reduce the time-consuming call of simulation program, and improve the
optimization efficiency (Alexandrov et al., 2001).
3.1 Surrogate model
Surrogate model is efficient for rapid optimization analyses. It can establish the
nonlinear relationship between design variables and their corresponding responses in
complex engineering problem by mathematical model. Some representative sample
points are required for building the surrogate model, which are selected according to
the Design of experiment (DOE). Therefore, DOE, related with the strategy of assigning
sample points, is one of the important tasks which should be considered during the
construction process of surrogate model. There are number of forms of surrogate model,
including Response surface model, Kriging model, Support Vector Machine (SVM) and
Radial Basis Function (RBF). And RBF is introduced in this study.
3.1.1 Experimental design method
Design of experiment (DOE) is a technology based on probability theory and
mathematical statistics to study how to make scientific and reasonable test scheme,
improve test efficiency and reduce the influence of random error (Wang et al., 2020).
The common experimental design methods contains Orthogonal experimental design
(OED), Center composite design (CCD), Uniform Design (UD), Ladin hypercube
design(LHD）and Optimal Ladin hypercube design(OLHD).
Latin hypercube sampling (LHD) is a stratified sampling technique. It is a method to
randomly select sample points from multivariate distribution. However, the spatial
distribution uniformity of LHD would be poor for more design variables. In order to
improve the shortcomings of LHD, Chen proposed an Optimal Latin Hypercube Design
(OLHD) (Jin et al., 2003), which has the characteristics of strong filling capacity, good
balance and even distribution of sampling points in the tests with high repeatability.
Therefore, this method can better reflect the design space characteristics.
 Fig.8. Optimization process of OLHD
Fig.8 shows the flow chart of OLHD. The process contains inner loop and the outer
loop. The inner loop constantly updates the matrix and a better design is selected to
replace. The outer loop controls the optimization process by updating the threshold Th,
to prevent the local optimum. Firstly, the randomly generated matrix is selected as the
initial matrix X0. Then, a new design is constructed by exchanging columns of the initial
matrix. At last, according to the judgment criteria, it is decided whether to replace the
existing design with the new design.
OLHD is used to generate the required sample points. As 9 design variables are
selected for the medical platform, and the 9-dimensional image cannot be obtained, the
quality of the results cannot be observed. Therefore, two-dimensional plane images
with 2 arbitrary design variables are used to illustrate. With LHD and OLHD in the
same sample space, the observed results are shown in Fig. 9.
 (a) LHD (b) OLHD
Fig.9. Comparison of LHD and OLHD
It can be seen that the uniformity of sample points selected by OLHD is significantly
improved than that of LHD. According to the evaluation criteria, maximum minimum

distance criterion (dmin) and φ p criterion (Kenny et al., 2000), the two experimental

design methods are evaluated, as shown in Table 3. It can be concluded that, the

minimum distance of OLHD is larger than that of LHD, and φ p is smaller than that of

LHD, which indicates that the performance of sample points selected by OLHD is better
than that of LHD.
Table 3 Evaluation LHD and OLHD

Evaluation criteria LHD OLHD

dmin 6.33 7.89
ϕp 0.1725 0.1309

Therefore, the sample points of semi-submersible medical platform are selected by

OLHD experimental design method. And 80 sample points were selected from 9 design
variables to establish the surrogate model.
3.1.2 Radial basis function model
Radial basis function model (RBF) is used for the data fitting, which has a high fitting
effect for the nonlinear function. Radial basis neural networks are usually divided into
three layers, including input layer, hidden layer and output layer, as shown in Fig. 10.
 Fig.10. Sketch of RBF surrogate model
The input layer (x1, x2…xn), consists of the source nodes responsible for passing
signals to the hidden layer and is mainly used to calculate the Euclidean distance
between the sample and prediction points. The hidden layer (h1, h2…hp), consists of
radial basis functions and map the vectors from low to high dimensions. It is equivalent
to finding the surface that best fits the input prediction points in the high-dimensional
space of the hidden layer. The output layer realizes a weighted combination in a new
linear space.
The specific solution of RBF neural network is as follows:

f ( x) = ∑in=1ωi φ (r i ) = wT ϕ (13)

Where, w is the vector of weight coefficient, ri is the Euclidean distance between the
interpolation point and the sample point, φ (r ) is a radial function, ϕ is the vector of
radial function.
Many functions can be used for the RBF functions, such as Gauss, Cubic, Inverse
Multi-Quadric (IMQ) and Multi-Quadric(MQ). Among them, IMQ RBF is selected as
the RBF function and written as:
φ(r)=(r2+c2)-0.5 (14)
Where, c is the shape function.
Commonly used assessment methods to test the reliability of the approximate model
include: root mean square error (RMSE), mean relative error (MRE), and complex
correlation coefficient (R2). And they are expressed as in Equ. (15), (16), and (17),
respectively.

1 n
RMSE = ∑ ( yi − y pi ) 2
n i =1
(15)
 1 n yi − y pi
MRE = ∑ (16)
n i =1 yi + ε
n

∑(y i − y pi ) 2
R = 1-
2 i =1
n
(17)
∑(y
i =1
i − y) 2

Where, yi and ypi is the response values of the selected sample points and the
predictive values of the model, respectively, n is the number of samples, is the
average value of responses, ε is the residual, when yi ≠0, ε=0, when yi=0, ε=0.01.
3.1.3 Surrogate model of the whole medical platform
The surrogate model of the medical platform is established by selecting 80 groups of
sample points. Among them, 70 groups of sample points are used to establish the
approximate model, and the rest 10 groups are used to verify the accuracy. The data
comes from the finite element analysis results, and contains the response values of the
heave, roll, pitch, heave acceleration and transverse metacentric height. By the RBF,
the approximate model of five response parameters are established, and the details are
shown in Table 4. Also, the fitting curve of each approximate model is shown in Fig.11.
Table 4 Evaluation of RBF
Output MRE RMSE R2
Heave 0.04508 0.06039 0.94846
Roll 0.02672 0.04471 0.97541
Pitch 0.02479 0.03725 0.9809
Transverse metacentric height 0.03605 0.04446 0.97758
Heave acceleration 0.01757 0.02152 0.99421

4.1
Actual

6
Actual

3.1
3.1 4.1 6
Predicted (a) Predicted (b)
 8
5.6
7

6
Actual

Actual
4.6 4

1
4.6 5.6 1 3 5 7
Predicted (c) Predicted (d)

0.9
Actual

0.8

0.7

0.7 0.8 0.9 1

Predicted (e)
Fig.11. RBF model fitting curves (a) Heave motion; (b) Roll motion; (c) Pitch motion; (d)
Transverse metacentric height; (e) Heave acceleration
Generally, RMSE, MRE, R2 and maximum error can be used to test the accuracy of
surrogate model. In this paper, RMSE, MRE and R2 were used to test. The closer the
values of MRE and RMSE are to 0, the higher the fitting accuracy of the approximate
model is, and the closer R2 is to 1, the higher the fitting accuracy is. For the engineering
application, it is usually required that the values of MRE and RMSE are less than 0.2
and R2 is greater than 0.9. It can be seen from Table 4 that the fitting accuracy of heave
motion, roll motion, pitch motion, transverse metacentric height and heave acceleration
all meet the requirements. Fig. 11 depicts the fitting accuracy of 10 sample points,
which can reflect the fitting situation of sample points more intuitively. The black line
in the figure represents the fitted functional relationship, while the red dots represent
10 sample points used to test the accuracy. The closer the red dots are to the black line,
the higher the fitting accuracy is. It can be seen that the distance between the red dot
and the black line in Fig. 11 (e) is the closest, indicating that the fitting accuracy of
heave acceleration is the best. The fitting accuracy of other graphs is slightly worse, but
the sample points are still near the function relation line, indicating that the accuracy
meets the requirements and the fitting effect is good.
3.2 Multi Objective function
As mentioned above, the hull steel weight, heave response, and roll response are the
optimized goals for the semi-submersible medical platform. For the multi-objective
optimization problems, the optimal decisions are needed to be taken in the presence of
trade-offs between two or more conflicting objectives. Sometimes, there is no solution
that can satisfy all the constraints and make several objectives reach the global optimum
at the same time. To solve this problem, Deb put forward the method of a quick
computation of pareto-optimal solutions (Deb et al., 2005). Pareto optimization is a
compromise solution to multiple objectives, which is usually used to solve the
contradiction between multiple objectives.
The mathematical model of optimization objective is shown in Equ. (18):

 Hull Steel Weight   Heave 90°   Roll 90° 

Y =W   + Z  Ref . Heave  + RX  Ref . Roll 
 Ref . Steel Weight(33945 ton)     
s.t. GM > 6.0m
RY < 6.0°
ZA < 0.8 m s 2 (18)
min Air gap > 2.0m
Hull draft > Pontoon height
Pontoonwidth= Column width
Deck length= Column width +Transverse brace length

Where, W is weight of the hull structural, Z is heave response and RX is rolling response,
GM is transverse metacentric height, RY is pitch response and ZA is heave acceleration
response.
Since the order of magnitude of the amount of steel used differs greatly from the
order of magnitude of the heave and roll performance, each sub-objective has to be
treated without magnitude, and thus a proportionality factor is introduced. The optimal
values obtained from the single-objective optimization of heave performance, roll
performance, and economic performance as objectives are the proportionality factors
for each sub-objective.
In the present study, three constraints contain the transverse metacentric height, pitch
motion and heave acceleration motion are considered. The criterion of each constraint
is deduced from the reference model and the recommended practice suggested by the
API (Digre and Zwerneman, 2012).
In this study, gray correlation analysis method is introduced to determine the
weighting factors of each optimization objective. The specific method is shown in
Fig.12. Firstly, it is needed to find the optimal value of each objective function in single-
objective optimization. And two sequences are formed. One is formed by the values of
all objective functions, which is taken as the reference sequence. And the other is
produced by each sub-objective optimization results obtained in single-objective
optimization, which is as the target sequence. And then, the reference sequence and the
target sequence should be normalized respectively. Last, the weighting coefficient of
each objective function are calculated by the gray correlation theory.

Fig.12. The process of grey relational analysis

The target sequence X i and the reference sequence X j are shown in Equ. (19) and

(20).

X i = ( xi (1), xi (2), L xi ( n ))
(19)
 X j = ( x j (1), x j (2),L x j (n))
(20)

First, calculate the absolute degree of correlation. According to X i and X j calculate

0
the sequence of the beginning of the zero like xi0 (k ) , x j (k ) , and then calculate | |、

| | 、| − |, respectively, to get the absolute degree of correlation, the calculation

process is shown in Equ. (21) ~ (26).

xi0 ( k ) = X i ( k ) − X i (1) (21)

x0j (k ) = X j (k ) − X j (1) (22)

Si = ∑ nk−=12 xi0 (k ) + 0.5xi0 (n) (23)

S j = ∑ nk −=12 x 0j (k ) + 0.5x 0j (n) (24)

Si − S j = ∑ nk −=12 ( xi0 (k ) − x 0j (k )) + 0.5( xi0 (n) − x 0j (n)) (25)

1 + Si + S j
ε ij = (26)
1 + Si + S j + Si − S j

Similarly, calculate the relative degree of correlation. The relative correlation

0
analysis of the sequence starting point zeroing like xi0 ( k ) , x j ( k ) . As shown in Equ.

(27) and (28), S i 、S j 、Si − S j and the relative degree of correlation rij , calculated

in the same way as the absolute correlation analysis in Equ. (23), (24) and (25).

xi (k )
xi0 (k ) = −1 (27)
xi (1)

x j (k )
x 0j (k ) = −1 (28)
x j (1)

Finally, the introduction of the adjustment coefficient θ, the absolute degree of

correlation εij and the relative degree of correlation rij add up to get a comprehensive
correlation ρij, as shown in Equ. (29), generally take θ∈[0, 1], generally take 0.5.

ρ ij = θε ij + (1 − θ ) rij (29)

The weighting coefficients of each objective function are calculated as shown in

Table 5.
 Table 5 The weighting coefficient of each object

Output W（t） Z(m) RX(°)

Optimize W 8165.2 3.4343 4.9667
Objective
Optimize Z 9587.9 2.9188 4.5781
sequence
Optimize RX 9585.2 3.1504 4.1342
Reference sequence 8165.2 2.9188 4.1342
Weighting coefficient 0.32126 0.33683 0.34191
NSGA-II is a more popular multi-objective genetic algorithm, which is a modified
version of NSGA (Non-Dominated Sorting Genetic Algorithm) (Deb et al., 2000).
NSGA-II has three merits to ensure the multi-objective solutions. First, it proposed the
fast non-dominant sorting algorithm to reduce the computational complex. Second, the
elitist strategy is introduced to improve the accuracy of optimization results. Last,
crowding degree and crowding comparison operators are adopted to ensure the
population diversity. Therefore, NSGA-II algorithm is selected to solve the multi-
objective problems to generate the optimal set of Pareto-solutions and the detail process
is shown in Fig. 13.

Fig.13. Description of the principle for NSGA-II

4. Results and Discussions
4.1 Multi-Objective Optimization Results
The optimization process is performed based on the initial model shown in Fig.3.
The values of each object is estimated from that model. The hull weight of the initial
model is 8, 786.5tons, and the maximum heave motion response is 3.62m, the
maximum roll motion response is 5.845º. The population size is set to 48, and number
of generation is set to 40. Finally, non-dominated 30 Pareto-optimal solutions are
obtained, and the optimization results are shown in Fig.14. In Fig. 14, the red dots
represent the inferior solutions, which indicates the poor optimization effects and can
be eliminated. The black dots are the feasible solutions, which meet the constraint
conditions. The blue and green dots constitute the non-inferior solutions of Pareto,
which indicates the satisfactory optimization effects.

Fig.14. Optimization solutions forming Pareto solution set

The Pareto solution set is also represented by a two-dimensional graph, as shown in

Fig.15. It can be clearly seen that the hull steel weight is inversely related to heave
motion and roll motion. And the heave motion is positively related to roll motion. When
the weight is reducing, the heave motion and roll motion responses are increasing.
Therefore, the hull steel weight is contradictory with other two optimized objects.
Fig.15 Relationship of any tow objects (a) Heave roll; (b) Hull steel weight versus roll; (c) Hull

steel weight versus heave

There are 314 solutions making up the Pareto frontier set, which all meet the
constraint conditions. Considering the aims of the medical platform optimization, two
groups of optimal solutions are focused on. The first group focus on the platform cost
with light weight reduction. The second group focus on the stability of the medical
platform with small heave and roll motion responses. And the two groups are shown in
Table 6.
Table 6 Comparison before and after optimization
After After Change Change
Before
Variables optimization optimization ratio ratio
optimization
（Ⅰ） （Ⅱ） （Ⅰ） （Ⅱ）
X1 70 71.755 64.143 2.51% -8.37%
X2 80 76.607 79.054 -4.24% -1.18%
X3 8 7.8337 7.5063 -2.08% -6.17%
X4 14 12.55 12.505 -10.36% -10.68%
Design
X5 13.8 13.044 12.99 -5.48% -5.87%
Variables
X6 21.5 19.547 19.085 -9.08% -11.23%
X7 97 90.856 90.026 -6.33% -7.19%
X8 9.45 8.4509 8.4726 -10.57% -10.34%
X9 17 18.431 18.457 8.42% -8.57%
GM(m) 4.8635 6.1569 6.6572 26.59% 36.88%
Constraints RY(°) 4.8282 3.8055 3.5152 -21.18% -27.19%
ZA(m/s2) 0.80484 0.59841 0.66418 -25.65% -17.48%
W(t) 8786.5 8573.6 7954.2 -2.42% -9.47%
Objectives Z(m) 3.62 3.0264 3.2606 -16.40% -9.93%
RX(°) 5.845 4.6708 4.977 -20.09% -14.85%

According to Table 6, the optimized objects are all reduced. For the first case, the
weight is reduced by 9.47%, and the heave and roll is reduced by 9.93% and 14.85%
respectively. For the second case, the weight is reduced by 2.42%, and the heave and
roll is reduced by 16.40% and 20.09% respectively. It also indicates that the
performance of the three constraints are also improved, with the stability performance
increasing by 36.88% and 26.59%, the pitch response reducing by 27.19% and 21.18%,
and the heave acceleration reducing by 17.48% and 25.65%. The overall performance
of the platform is well improved.
4.2 Discussions and analysis
Meanwhile, the optimization results based on the surrogate model are verified by the
direct numerical model simulations to ensure the accuracy of the surrogate model. The
comparisons of optimization results and numerical values are all list in Table 7. Using
the nine design variables obtained after optimization, the numerical model was
established and the simulation analysis was carried out to obtain the simulation values
of GM, heave response, roll response, pitch response and heave response acceleration.
Table 7 compares the optimization results with the simulation results. The maximum
deviation of GM was 8.382% and 3.49% for two optimization results, respectively. The
heave response deviation after the first optimization is 5.24%. For other response values,
the deviations are all within 5%. The cause of the error may be that there is a small error
which cannot be eliminated in the process of simulation analysis with software. On the
whole, the whole numerical simulation model can provide satisfactory results.
Table 7 Comparison of optimized values and numerical values
Opt-value Sim-value Ratio Opt-value Sim-value Ratio
Output
(Ⅰ) (Ⅰ) (Ⅰ) (Ⅱ) (Ⅱ) (Ⅱ)
GM 6.1569 5.6408 -8.38% 6.6572 6.8898 3.49%
Constraints RY 3.8055 3.7243 -2.13% 3.5152 3.3590 -4.44%
ZA 0.5984 0.5851 -2.22% 0.6642 0.6444 -2.98%
W 8573.6 8573.5 0% 7954.2 7954.3 0%
Objectives Z 3.0264 3.185 5.24% 3.2606 3.3631 3.14%
RX 4.6708 4.503 -3.59% 4.977 4.7619 -4.32%

Moreover, the iterative process of the nine design variables is described in Fig. 16.
The X-axis is the number of iterations and Y-axis is the design variable. It can be shown
that the design variables fluctuate within the design range and gradually converge after
2000 iterations.
 X3
X2
X1

(a) (b) (c)

X4

X6
X5

(e) (f)
(d)
X7

X8

X9

(g) (h) (i)

Fig.16 Iterative process of the design variables (a)X1; (b)X2; (c)X3; (d)X4; (e)X5; (f)X6; (g)X7;

(h)X8; (i)X9

In addition, the correlations of design variables and output variables are calculated
as shown in Fig.17. It can be found that the largest correlation is about W and X1, which
indicates that the weight of the hull structure mainly depends on the deck length.
Moreover, the weight has large correlation with most of the design variables, but has
little correlation with the hull draft. There are negative correlations between the heave
response and deck length, width, height, and hull draft. The largest correlation for roll
is with column width. The largest correlation for pitch is with pontoon length.
 Fig.17 Correlations between the design variables and the output variblaes
From the above analysis in Fig.17, it is obviously found the important design
variables that have greatest impact on the outputs. Thus, the relationship of the output
with the two important design variables are drawn in Fig. 18. The weight is The steel
weight is positively correlated with the length and width of the deck. For the heave response and

roll response, they both have highest correlation with the deck length and the column
width. For the platform stability, it is highly affected by the column width and height.
The pith response is related with the column width and the pontoon length. The heave
acceleration response is related with the deck length and the column length.
RX
Z
W

(a) (b) (c)

X2 X1 X5 X1 X5 X1
GM

ZA
RY

(d) (e) (f)

X6 X5 X7 X5 X4 X1

Fig. 18 The relationship between input variables and the output variables: (a)W-X1 and

X2;(b)Z-X1 and X5; (c)RX-X1 and X5; (d)GM-X5 and X6; (e)RY-X5 and X7; (f)ZA-X1 and X4.

5. Conclusions
In this study, the hull optimization for the semi-submersible medical platform was
performed. Three objects related to the cost and motion response performance were
considered. The total goal was to minimize the whole weight, and minimized the heave
and roll response. Nine hull form parameters, including the deck sizes, column sizes,
pontoon sizes, and the hull draft, were the design variables. The transverse metacentric
height, the pitch response and the heave acceleration response were imposed as the
constraints.
(1) A surrogate model was established for the semi-submersible medical platform to
express the relationship between design variables and output variables, which reduced
the time-consuming induced by the numerical simulation and improved the
optimization efficiency.
(2) The multi objective model was proposed for the semi-submersible medical
platform. The gray correlation analysis was used to evaluate the importance of three
optimization objects for the whole performance.
(3) The optimization process was performed by the NSGA-II algorithm and Pareto
solutions were achieved. Results showed that the whole hull structure weight showed
positive correlation with the sizing of deck, column, and pontoon, but negative relation
with the hull draft. The heave and roll response showed positive correlation with the
sizing of column and pontoon, but negative relation with the sizing of deck and hull
draft.

Acknowledgment
This research is founded by National Natural Science Foundation of China
(51609223), Key Research and Development Project of Shandong Province
(2018JMRH0306), collaboratively funded by the National Key Research and
Development Program of China (No. 2019YFE0105100) and Research Council of
Norway (AutoPRO, No. 309628).

Reference
Alexandrov, N.M., Lewis, R.M., Gumbert, C.R., Green, L.L., Newman, P.A., 2001. Approximation and
Model Management in Aerodynamic Optimization with Variable-Fidelity Models. J Aircraft. 38(6),
1093-1101.
Clauss, G.F., Birk, L., 1996. Hydrodynamic Shape Optimization of Large Offshore Structures. Appl
Ocean Res. 18(4), 157-171.
Deb, K., Agrawal, S., Pratap, A., Meyarivan, T., 2000. A Fast Elitist Non-Dominated Sorting Genetic
Algorithm for Multi-Objective Optimization: NSGA-II. In: Proceeding of the 6th International
Conference on Parallel Problem Solving from Nature-PPSN VI, September 18-20,2000, Paris,
France.
Deb, K., Mohan, M., Mishra, S., 2005. Evaluating the Ε-Domination Based Multi-Objective
Evolutionary Algorithm for a Quick Computation of Pareto-optimal Solutions. Evol Comput. 13(4),
501-525.
Digre, K.A., Zwerneman, F., 2012. Insights Into Using the 22Nd Edition of API RP 2A Recommended
Practice for Planning, Designing and Constructing Fixed Offshore Platforms-Working Stress Design.
In: Proceeding of the Offshore Technology Conference, April 30–May 3, 2012, Houston, Texas,
USA
DNV, 2011. DNVGL-OS-C301: Stability and Watertight Integrity. Det Norske Veritas: Oslo, Norway.
Du Kim, J., Jang, B., 2016. Application of Multi-Objective Optimization for TLP Considering Hull-
Form and Tendon System. Ocean Eng. 116, 142-156.
Emami, A., Mostafa Gharabaghi, A.R., 2020. Introducing a Simple and Reliable Multi-Objective
Optimization Method to Estimate Hull Dimensions of a Semi-Submersible Rig. J Mar Eng. 16, 28-
40.
Fei, W., Zheng, L., 2017. Load Assessment on the Horizontal Braces of Semi-Submersible Drilling
Platform Under Ocean Wave. Arab J Sci Eng. 42(11), 4789-4799.
Gosain, G.D., Sharma, R., Kim, T.W., 2017. An Optimization Model for Preliminary Stability and
Configuration Analyses of Semi-Submersibles. Trans RINA Part A: Int J Marit Eng. 159(3), 249-
270.
Jin, R., Chen, W., Sudjianto, A., 2005. An Efficient Algorithm for Constructing Optimal Design of
Computer Experiments. Journal of Statistical Planning and Inference.134(1),268-287
Kenny, Q.Y., Li, W., Sudjianto, A., 2000. Algorithmic Construction of Optimal Symmetric Latin
Hypercube Designs. J Stat Plan Infer. 90(1), 145-159.
Park, Y., Jang, B., Du Kim, J., 2015. Hull-Form Optimization of Semi-Submersible FPU Considering
Seakeeping Capability and Structural Weight. Ocean Eng. 104, 714-724.
Qiu, W., Song, X., Shi, K., Zhang, X., Yuan, Z., You, Y., 2019. Multi-Objective Optimization of Semi-
Submersible Platforms Using Particle Swam Optimization Algorithm Based On Surrogate Model.
Ocean Eng. 178, 388-409.
Song, X., Wang, S., Li, H., Li, T., 2019. Investigation of the Hydrodynamic Performance of a Novel
Semi-Submersible Platform with Multiple Small Columns. Journal of Ocean University of
China.18,108-122
Sugita, T., Suzuki, H., 2016. A Study On TLP Hull Sizing by Utilizing Optimization Algorithm. J Mar
Sci Tech-Japan. 21(4), 611-623.
Tian, X., Wang, Q., Liu, G., Liu, Y., Xie, Y., Deng, W., 2019. Topology optimization design for offshore
platform jacket structure. Applied Ocean Research. 84, 38-50.
Venzon, R.Z., Tancredi, T.P., deAndrade, B.L.R., 2013. Hull optimization of semisubmersible with
seakeeping criteria evaluated with neural network response surface. In: Proceedings of the 12th
International Symposiumon Practical Design of Ships and Other Floating Structures. PRADS2013,
Changwon, Korea, pp. 944–952
Wang, Q., Nakashima, T., Lai, C., Mutsuda, H., Kanehira, T., Konishi, Y., Okuizumi, H., 2020. Modified
Algorithms for Fast Construction of Optimal Latin-Hypercube Design. IEEE Access. 8, 191644-
 191658.
Xie, Y., Liu, X., Sun, Y., Xiao, Y., Liu, G., Leng, D., Tian, X, 2019. Hydrodynamic Analysis of a Semi-
Submersible Radar Platform., In: Proceedings of the Twenty-ninth (2019) International Ocean and
Polar Engineering Conference, June 16-21, 2019, Honolulu, Hawaii, USA, pp. 4344-4352.
Xie, Z., Falzarano, J., 2020. An Optimization Framework of a Parametric Octabuoy Semi-Submersible
Design. Int J Nav Arch Ocean. 12, 711-722.
Xu, Q., 2011. A New Semisubmersible Design for Improved Heave Motion, Vortex-Induced Motion and
Quayside Stability. In: Proceeding of the 30th International Conference on Ocean, Offshore and
Arctic Engineering, June 19–24, 2011, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Zhang, X., Song, X., Yuan, Z., You, Y., 2017. Global Motion and Airgap Computations for Semi-
Submersible Floating Production Unit in Waves. Ocean Eng. 141, 176-204.
Zhang, X., Song, X., Qiu, W., Yuan, Z., You, Y., Deng, N., 2018. Multi-Objective Optimization of
Tension Leg Platform Using Evolutionary Algorithm Based On Surrogate Model. Ocean Eng. 148,
612-631.