See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: [Link]

net/publication/255610915

Applications of Optimization in Early Stage Ship Design

Article · January 2009

CITATIONS READS
9 2,112

2 authors, including:

Michael G. Parsons
University of Michigan
63 PUBLICATIONS 1,012 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Michael G. Parsons on 05 February 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Applications of Optimization in Early Stage Ship Design
Michael G. Parsons, Arthur F. Thurnau Professor Emeritus
Department of Naval Architecture and Marine Engineering, University of Michigan
2600 Draper Road
Ann Arbor, MI
United States of America
Telephone 1-734-945-2886
FAX 1-734-936-8820
e-mail parsons@[Link]

ABSTRACT

Recent research at the University Michigan developing and applying modern optimization methods to early
ship design decision making is reviewed. These examples illustrate the use of fuzzy logic, genetic and
evolutionary algorithms, and agent methods to solve complex multicriterion ship design problems. The
first application optimizes an early stage hull form for both smooth water powering and seakeeping
performance using an advanced evolutionary algorithm taking into consideration the change of vessel
weight with the hull form variation. The second application supports the optimization of naval ship general
arrangements using a new hybrid agent-genetic algorithm method and stochastic generation algorithm.
The final example uses an evolutionary algorithm to establish the optimal commonality to use in two ship
classes that are to share components and features in order to save overall fleet costs. These show how these
advanced ship design methods can be used to aid early ship design decisions.

Key words. ship design, multicriterion optimization, genetic algorithms, evolutionary algorithms, agent
methods, fuzzy optimization
______________________________________________________________________________________

1. INTRODUCTION

Ship design involves the careful balancing and optimization of many complex, interacting issues. Formal numerical
optimization methods were long unable to deliver on their promise, however, because of their limited capability to
handle problems complex enough to really address the important design issues in naval ship design. This situation
has changed in recent years with the evolution of computer power, the development of increasingly complex
analysis and synthesis capabilities, and the development of new methods to treat complex, multicriterion
optimization problems. Many of these methods evolved in the broad area of artificial intelligence and soft
computing over the past three decades. The author has worked in this area for more than 20 years and taught this
material in the graduate-level design class NA570 Advanced Marine Design at the University of Michigan from its
introduction in 1997 until his retirement from the University in May 2008. Three areas of research using these
methods are described here to illustrate some the capabilities and potential of these methods to address important
ship design issues.

1.1 Multicriterion Design Optimization

Most ship design problems involve multiple conflicting criteria for selecting the best design, such as the inevitable
tradeoff between performance and cost. Marine design requires the careful consideration of these competing criteria
and experienced marine designers must make difficult design tradeoff decisions. Traditional numerical optimization
methods were first developed for use with a single optimization criterion, objective function, measures of merit, or
cost function. These early numerical optimization methods had some success in detailed design decisions, but they
were significantly less effective in solving higher-level conceptual and preliminary design problems involving
multiple conflicting criteria. And this is precisely the area were the greatest gains can be achieved by formal
optimization.

The multicriterion optimization problem involves K ≥ 1 criteria and can be formulated in the form:

1
 min F(x) = [f1(x), f2(x), f3(x), … , fK(x)] , x = [x1, x2, …, xN]T (1)
x

subject to the equality and inequality constraints

hi(x) = 0, i = 1, …, I (2)
gj(x) ≥ 0, j = 1, …, J (3)

where the K multiple optimization criteria f1(x) through fK(x) are each dependent upon the N unknown design
parameters in the vector x. In general, this problem has no single solution due to the conflicts that typically exist
among the K optimization criteria.

The traditional approach to solving this type of problem with early numerical methods that could handle only one
criterion was to use a weighted-sum cost function to convert the vector F into a related scalar cost function F. There
are also a number of scalar compromise solution definitions, such as the min-max and nearest to the utopian
solutions, which can be used if a particular definition reasonably reflects a design team’s intent. These methods
were reviewed and compared in Parsons and Scott (2004).

When conflicting multiple criteria are present, the most common definition of an optimum is Pareto optimality,
which was first articulated by the Italian-French economist V. Pareto (Pareto 1906). This is also referred to today as
Edgeworth-Pareto optimality (Statnikov 1999) and can be expressed as,

A design is Pareto optimal if it satisfies the constraints and is such that no criterion can be further
improved without causing at least one of the other criteria to decline.

Note that this recognizes the conflicting or competitive interaction among the criteria. If there are conflicting
criteria, Pareto optimality results in a set of solutions that are all considered equally good under this definition.
Some additional consideration must be used to select the resulting single design to use. Compromise solutions, e.g.
the min-max solution noted above, might be used to help in the selection of one particular design solution to use.
The Pareto set or Pareto front that results from the minimization of two criteria f1(x) and f2(x) is illustrated
schematically in Fig. 1. This shows the two criteria normalized by the best or minimum value achieved for that
criterion. The Pareto front extends between the solution that yields the best for criterion one, f1o, to the solution that
yields the best for criterion 2, f2o. It may contain gaps if the feasible region is not convex. The min-max
compromise solution is one on the 45o line in this normalized presentation. Designers often focus on the “knees” of
the front where there is a sharp change of slope. These solutions are considered more efficient since the loss of one
criterion begins to increase more rapidly with each improvement in the other.

Fig. 1. Pareto Front Extending between Solutions f1o and f2o

2
1.2 Genetic and Evolutionary Algorithms

Most recent applications of multicriterion design optimization have utilized genetic algorithms (GA's) to find the
scalar solution or generate the Pareto front. GA’s have evolved out of John Holland's pioneering work (Holland,
1975) and Goldberg’s engineering dissertation at the University of Michigan (Goldberg, 1983). These optimization
algorithms typically include operations modeled after the natural biological processes of natural selection or survival,
reproduction, and mutation. They are probabilistic and have the major advantage that they can have a very high
probability of locating the global optimum and not just one of the local optima if they are present in a particular
problem.

GA’s can readily treat a mixture of integer, discrete, and real variables in x. The unknown vector x is typically
coded as a binary string called a chromosome. These algorithms are also called evolutionary algorithms when the
unknowns are coded as real rather than binary variables. GA's operate on a population of potential solutions at each
iteration or generation rather than evolve a single solution, as do most conventional optimization methods.
Constraints can be handled through a penalty function or applied directly within the genetic operations. These
genetic algorithms require significant computation, but this is much less important today with the dramatic advances
in computing power. Accessible general references on GA’s are by Goldberg (1989), Coley (1999), and Gen and
Chang (2000). Independent variable coding is well treated by Michalewicz (1996).

In GA’s, an initial population of solutions or individuals (chromosomes) is randomly generated in accordance with
the underlying constraints and then each individual is evaluated for its fitness for survival. The definition of the
fitness function is for maximization, but can achieve either minimization or maximization through the formulation.
The genetic operators work on the chromosomes within a generation to create the next, usually improved generation
with a higher average fitness. Individuals with higher fitness for survival in one generation are more likely to
survive and breed with each other to produce offspring with even better characteristics, whereas less fit individuals
will eventually die out. After a large number of generations, a globally optimal (or near-optimal) solution or the
Pareto front can generally be reached.

Three genetic operators are utilized in a simplest genetic algorithm. These are selection, crossover, and mutation
operators (Goldberg, 1989, Li and Parsons, 2001). The selection operator selects individuals from one generation to
form the core of the next generation according to a set random selection scheme. Although random, the selection is
biased toward better-fitted individuals so that they are more likely to be copied into the next generation. The
crossover operator combines two randomly selected parent chromosomes to create two new offspring by
interchanging or combining gene segments from the parents. The mutation operator provides a means to alter a
randomly selected gene(s) of a randomly selected single chromosome to introduce new variability into the
population. Crossover and mutation provide the random search capability to locate the region of the global solution.
Many algorithms include an elitism mechanism to ensure that the current best solution(s) is not lost through the
genetic manipulations.

GA’s and evolutionary algorithms have been adapted to multicriterion optimization where they are particularly
attractive because they can generate the whole Pareto front in one optimization run. The algorithms are especially
adapted to generate a population of solutions along the Pareto front by dominance sorting of the population at each
generation to retain those that satisfy the Pareto optimum definition. Evolutionary algorithms for solving
multicriterion optimization are well treated by Deb (2001), Osyczka (2002), and Zitzler et al. (2003).

1.3 Fuzzy Sets, Fuzzy Logic, and Fuzzy Systems

Many important engineering design problems involve issues that are subjective, vague, or ambiguous. Fuzzy set
theory provides a way to deal with these issues. Fuzzy set theory, started by Zadeh (1965), introduced the concept
that rather than requiring that something had to be a member of a set (1) or not (0), the traditional crisp sets, it could
have a varying degree of membership (x) between zero and one. This allows subjective, vague and ambiguous
things to be modeled rigorously for treatment in control systems, optimization, etc. By using fuzzy sets
computations can be performed in linguistic terms (using set names) that mimic complex human reasoning. Good
introductions to fuzzy sets and systems are provided in Zimmerman (1991), Kosko (1992), and Mendel (2001). Li
and Parsons (1998) used fuzzy decision models to model the aggregate behavior of the world shipping community in
buying, selling secondhand, and scrapping tankers (1998).

3
A helpful example is the concept of a person being tall. This is a subjective thing that depends upon the context – is
it a basketball or horse racing jockey locker room? In traditional (crisp) set theory, a person would have to be either
a “tall person” or a “not tall person.” A person of normal height under normal situations might make this transition
at 5’10” (1.78 m). The crisp set membership functions or truth value (height) for this are shown as the solid lines
in Fig. 2. The membership must be either zero or one. Using fuzzy sets, one could more realistically say that a
person is definitely a “not tall person” if they are 5’6” (1.68 m) or less and that they are definitely a “tall person” if
they are 6’2” (1.88 m) or taller. Between these two heights there is a gradual, fuzzy transition from being not tall to
being tall. The fuzzy set membership functions  for this are shown as the dashed lines in Fig. 2.

Fig. 2. Crisp and Fuzzy Set Membership Functions for the Height of a Person

In fuzzy optimization, fuzzy membership functions or fuzzy utilities 0 ≤ U(x) ≤ 1 are defined for each criterion or
constraint. They represent the degree to which some requirement is satisfied. The independent variable x is selected
to appropriately reflect each issue. A typical fuzzy utility, as might be used to express a requirement for ship speed
to accomplish a particular mission, is shown in Fig. 3. The region with U(x) = 0 is clearly unacceptable to the
designer and region with U(x) = 1 is fully acceptable. The fuzzy region between the minimum acceptable threshold
x and the design goal or target xu is a subjective, fuzzy quantity between 0 and 1. This is similar to the approach
used by Brown and Salcedo (2003) to define naval design Measures of Performance (MOPs) for their use in
performance and cost multicriterion optimization for a DDG. The fuzzy transition could be developed by design
judgment or from expert opinion by using the Analytical Hierarchy Process (Saaty, 1996).

Fig. 3. A Typical Fuzzy Utility U(x)

1
fully acceptable
U(x)

0
unacceptable x
x xu
threshold goal

If each design goal and constraint is expressed by an appropriate utility function Ui(x) that depends on the design
choices x, a fuzzy optimum using minimum correlation inference (Kosko, 1992), for example, is given by the
maximization of the optimization criterion (cost function) or total utility U(Ui(x)),

U* = max U(Ui(x)) = max [min (Ui(x))] (4)

x x i

This seeks the design x that maximizes the worst (minimum) satisfaction of any of the applicable goals and
constraints i. This approach yields a multicriterion compromise among all of the conflicting goals and constraints
and treats them all in a similar manner. It has the search advantage that there can always be a “feasible” solution
that can be improved.

4
2. OPTIMAL HULL FORMS FOR POWERING AND SEAKEEPING

2.1 The Design Problem

The naval combatant hull form that minimizes smooth water powering will generally not provide the best
seakeeping performance. This design tradeoff was a major focus of the U.S. Navy DDG51 design process (Keane
and Sandberg, 1984). The goal of the first research to be reviewed here (Zalek et al., 2006a; Zalek et al., 2006b;
Zalek, 2007; Zalek et al., 2009) was to develop a multicriterion design optimization scheme that would take the ship
design description and hull offsets produced by the U.S. Navy’s Advanced Surface Ship Evaluation Tool synthesis
model (ASSET, 2005) and optimize the hull form for smooth water powering and seakeeping performance. To
maintain the validity of the parent ship analysis performed by ASSET, the search for the hull form parameters and
variables was allowed to vary roughly ±15% from the parent design. This limitation was imposed to provide
assurance that the final hull would still meet the mission effectiveness provided by ASSET, which considers much
more detail about the overall design.

The example shown here will be the optimization of a frigate parent produced by ASSET. The parent hull
parameters and the range of variation of the parameters permitted in the optimization are shown in Table 1. The
depth D is fixed by the accumulation of deck heights and the blade number Npdld is fixed by typical practice.

Table 1. Parent Frigate and Solution Variable Search Space (Zalek, 2007)

2.2 The Design Modeling

The performance criteria were the minimization of required power for smooth water operations and the
minimization of the probability of the vessel’s failure to complete its missions due to overall seakeeping
performance. The power minimization criterion was as follows:

FPWR(x) = w1PB Ereq(x)/PB Ereq(xo) + w2PB Sreq(x)/PB Sreq(xo) + w3Vmax(xo)/Vmax(x) (5)

where the weights wi sum to one. This combines the brake power required for the endurance speed PB Ereq, the brake
power required for sustained sea speed PB Sreq, and the maximum vessel speed Vmax. Each is normalized by its value
for the parent hull, xo. The inversion of the final term changes maxVmax to the equivalent min(1/Vmax).

The seakeeping criterion was expressed as an inoperability index to be minimized,

FSK(x) = 1 – OISK(x) (6)

where OISK, between 0 and 1, is the U.S. Navy’s seakeeping operability index as presented by Keane and Sandberg
(1984):

5
 OISK(x) = f{jk(x) ≤ limit}m  P[j, Vk, S(), {(X, Y, Z), limit}m] (7)
jkm

This operability index calculates the Expected Value (probability) of the vessel being able to complete its missions
m as determined by the associated seakeeping limits limit at locations (X, Y, Z) on the ship for the various headings
j, speeds Vk, Sea States S() that will be encountered. The summation  is a discrete integration overall all
missions m, headings j, speeds k, and Sea States . The function f is either 0 or 1 for each jkm depending upon
whether on not the ship can satisfy all the limits limit in mission m at their associated location (X, Y, Z) in the
seakeeping analysis for condition jk. P is the probability of occurrence of the given heading, speed, Sea State, and
mission in jkm.

For the example below, the speed profile Vk was adapted from data for DDG51 as shown in Table 2. The
probability of occurrence of the Sea States S() were for year-round conditions in the North Atlantic as shown in
Table 3. The three missions (activities) m and their associated seakeeping limits and locations were as shown in
Table 4. All heading angles relative to the waves j were considered equally likely.

Table 2. Speed Profile adapted from DDG51 (Zalek, 2007)

Table 3. Sea State Parameters and Profile (Zalek, 2007)

The power required was calculated using an adaptation of the model of Holtrop and Mennen (1982) and Holtrop
(1984) using the wetted surface calculated from the vessel offsets. The propeller design was optimized in an inner
loop calculation using an adaptation of the Wageningen B-Screw Series Propeller Optimization Program (POP)
presented in Parsons et al. (1998). The seakeeping performance was calculated using an adaptation of the linear,
frequency-domain, slender-body strip theory code [Link] developed by Beck and Troesch (1989). Viscous
roll damping based upon Himeno (1981) is added within [Link].

The ship design modeling included constraints to keep the independent variables within a reasonable distance of the
parent hull initial values xo as shown in Table 1 to ensure that the more complete analyses of ASSET would still be
reasonably valid for the resulting optimized hull design. In practice, ASSET would also be rerun for the optimized
hull design to ensure that the overall design was viable. One unique aspect of this work was the use of the full 346
three-digit weight group models from ASSET within the optimization so that the vessel would always have realistic
weight estimates as the hull form changes and satisfies weight-equals-displacement. Prior hull form optimization
has typically assumed constant displacement so that this major complexity could be avoided. Zalek shows that this
is a poor assumption that will yield results far from the Pareto front (Zalek, 2007). The weight was made equal to
displacement within 0.05% by establishing either draft T or midship coefficient Cx internally as a dependent variable.

6
The longitudinal center of gravity LCG and longitudinal center of buoyancy LCB were assumed to have enough
later design flexibility to provide the desired even keel trim.

Table 4. Missions and Associated Seakeeping Performance Limits (Zalek, 2007)

Inequality constraints, some mandatory and others optional, were included to ensure the minimum required GMT,
minimum required deck area, minimum required machinery space length and depth, minimum deck height, propeller
characteristic and cavitation limits, maximum required sustained speed power, and maximum required throttle
setting.

The hull form changes required to yield the design parameters were made systematically to ensure that the resulting
hull was always a fair and reasonable hull. The method developed by Zalek modifies the offsets in four phases to
(1) match the length on the waterline, beam, and draft; (2) match the hull prismatic coefficient and longitudinal
center of buoyancy; (3) match the waterplane coefficient and longitudinal center of flotation; and then (4) modify
each station’s offsets to match the area and constraints derived from the first three phases (Zalek et al., 2008).

2.3 The Optimization Methodology

Zalek (2007) used a nontraditional multicriterion formulation that contains five criteria,

min F(x) = min {FPWR(x), FSK(x), D(x), H(x), G(x)} (8)

x x

where D(x) is a diversity operator that attempts for force the solutions to spread out along the Pareto front for good
definition, H(x) is a penalty term to force weight to equal displacement, and G(x) is a penalty term to force
satisfaction of the inequality constraints (Zalek, 2007; Zalek et al., 2009). The diversity operator forces each group
of three nearest neighbor solutions along the Pareto front to be as far apart as possible.

The solution was obtained using a multicriterion evolutionary algorithm developed by Zalek (Zalek, 2007; Zalek et
al., 2009). At each generation, the initial population of solutions and those developed by the genetic operators were
subject to a non-dominance sorting in accordance with the Pareto optimality definition. The initial population was
generated at random. The highest ranked solutions were placed in an archive that serves as the elitism mechanism.
These were then subjected to tournament selection to produce parents for arithmetic crossover. These offspring
were then added to the archive with others produced by mutation and the process was repeated to select the new
non-dominated solutions that approximate the Pareto front.

Figure 4 shows the results from a typical optimization run starting with the triangle solutions in the first generation
and proceeding to the diamond solutions after 120 generations, which provide a good numerical approximation to
the Pareto front. The results are shown in the primary criterion space FPWR and FSK. The solution at the upper left
provides the lowest power requirement and the solution at the lower right provides the best seakeeping performance.

7
 Fig. 4. Progression of Evolutionary Solution toward the Pareto Front (Zalek, 2007)

2.4 Sample Results

The resulting Pareto Front designs for the optimized ASSET produced frigate hull form are shown in the normalized
optimization criterion space in Figure 5. The power weights (w1, w2, w3) were (0.4, 0.4, 0.2), the endurance speed
was 20 knots, and the sustained speed was 28 knots. The best powering design and the best seakeeping design are
shown. The min-max compromise design is also shown. In this case, this also happens to be the nearest design to
the utopian point (FPWR min, FSK min), which cannot be achieved due to the inequality constraints. Note that the
diversity operator has produced a good definition to the entire Pareto front by ensuring that all non-dominated
designs are spread out along the front.

The characteristics of the parent design produced by ASSET and the best smooth water powering, best seakeeping,
and min-max compromise optimized designs are shown in Table 5. The best powering design is relatively short,
narrow, and deep in the water. The best seakeeping design is almost 23 m longer, wider, and almost 1 m shallower.
Both designs use the same GE LM2500-21 engine. As expected the min-max compromise design is intermediate
between these two designs. Note that it achieves excellent FPWR powering and FSK seakeeping performance, each
within about 3.4% of the best possible. The body plans of the resulting hull forms for these designs are shown in
Zalek et al. (2009).

8
 Fig. 5. Pareto Front in Normalize Criterion Space (Zalek 2007)

Table 5. Comparison of Parent and Noteworthy Designs (Zalek, 2007)

9
3. OPTIMAL GENERAL ARRANGEMENTS

3.1 The Design Problem

The creation of effective general arrangements in naval vessels is a difficult design task requiring considerable time
and the consideration of many potentially conflicting design goals, requirements, and constraints. The overall goal
of the second research to be reviewed here (Daniels and Parsons, 2006; Nick et al., 2006; Nick and Parsons, 2007;
Daniels and Parsons, 2007; Nick, 2008; Daniels and Parsons, 2008; Parsons et al., 2009) was to provide an
optimization technology and design tool to assist the arrangements designer to create effective naval surface ship
arrangements with the maximum amount of intelligent decision making support. The software system will assist the
designer in developing rationally-based arrangements that satisfy design specific needs as well as general Navy
requirements and standard practices to the maximum extent practicable. This system will be used following or as a
latter part of U.S. Navy’s ASSET (2005) synthesis process. It is compatible with the U.S. Navy’s product modeling
and database system LEAPS (2006).

3.2 The Design Modeling

The arrangement process is approached as two essentially two-dimensional tasks as shown schematically in Fig. 6.
First, the spaces are allocated to Zone-decks, one deck in one vertical zone, on the ship’s inboard profile using fuzzy
optimization. Then the assigned spaces are arranged in detail on the deck plan of each Zone-deck in succession.
The arrangement phase is divided into two coupled parts: the fuzzy optimization of the topology (relative location)
of the spaces within the Zone-deck where each topology uses the best of multiple detailed geometries generated by a
stochastic generation algorithm. Consideration is given to the desired overall location, adjacency, separation, access,
area requirements, area utilization, and effective compartment shape. The modeling can produce rectangular, C, T,
L, and Z-shaped spaces as needed to fit around each other, stair towers, vent trunks, weapons modules, etc.

Fig. 6. Structure of General Arrangement Optimization (Parsons et al., 2009)

Part 1 Part 2: Arrangement

Allocation Topology Geometry

U*(x)
Solution

The allocation modeling used a real integer independent variable vector, chromosome, that indicates the Zone-deck
k to which each space i is allocated,

x = [x1, x2, …, xI]T, 1 ≤ xi ≤ K (9)

This ensures that each space is assigned to one and only one Zone-deck without additional constraints. The search
space is very large. A corvette-sized vessel with I = 89 assignable spaces and K = 29 Zone-decks will have a
theoretical search space (possible x solutions) of KI = 1.4 x 10130. At this strategic design stage, the efficient
utilization of available arrangeable space in the Zone-decks and the desired global location, adjacency and
separation of the spaces are considered. The fuzzy optimization criterion used was follows:

max U(x) = min(Uk)  Uk/K  wi/wi )min(Ui1, Ui2, …, UiNi)] ≤ 1 (10)

x k k i i

The first term uses minimum correlation inference and seeks to raise the worst of the area utilization fuzzy utilities
for the Zone-decks as shown in Fig. 7 where the design seeks a utilization UUk = allocated area/available area of
95% of the available area. This model uses the formula for the Normal distribution for the each half of the
continuous utility and the designer can control and u. The second term seeks to raise the average area utilization
utility for all Zone-decks. The third term seeks to raise the weighted average of the least satisfied of the Ni global

10
location goals and adjacency and separation constraints for each space i. Weights are used so that a Combat
Information Center (CIC), for example, can have greater priority than a storeroom. Since this optimization involves
assignment to discrete Zone-decks, the UiNi fuzzy utilities are discrete values, between 0 and 1, that depend upon
the current Zone-deck of space i and the Zone-deck of the space j to which adjacency and separation constraints are
given.
Fig. 7. Fuzzy Zone-deck Area Utilization Utility (Parsons et al., 2009)

The geometry modeling involves the use of the three-box model in which each space has a centroid rectangle and
can then grow up to two appendage rectangles to create L, T, C, or Z shapes as needed. The initial development was
on a 1 m x 1 m grid system. An example topology chromosome for a Damage Control Deck Zone-deck to which
spaces 1 through 14 have been allocated could appear as follows:

xt = [1, 3, 2, PP, 8, 9, 4, CP, 7, 10, 5, 6, SP, 13, 14 12 11] (11)

where PP and SP indicate the prearranged location of the main fore and aft port and starboard passageways,
respectively, and CP indicates the location of an arrangeable cross passage. This topology indicates that spaces 1, 3,
2 are arranged from fore to aft in the area outboard of the port passageway to which they were allocated. The best
geometry generated by the stochastic growth algorithm for this topology chromosome is shown in Fig. 8 where the
ST indicate stair towers and there is a fixed object trunk on the port side. Space 7 can be seen to use all three of its
possible rectangles in order to fit around the stair tower and space 10.

Fig. 8. Best Geometry (U* = 0.8165) for Chromosome Equation (11) (Nick, 2008)

11
The topology fuzzy optimization used the criterion,

U(xt) =  min (Uicj)/I, 1 ≤ j ≤ Ni (12)

i j

where the Uicj are the Ni constraint utilities for space i. The fuzzy utilities Uicj are for the required area, minimum
overall dimension, minimum segment width, aspect ratio, perimeter, adjacencies and separations, and if two
accesses are required to the space, the access separation. One or two accesses can be specified to either main
passage or left free.

The stochastic growth algorithm (Nick, 2008) starts with the space “centroid” locations indicated by the
chromosome and then generates the spaces by a random process of expanding and shrinking the spaces until the
total space is filled. The space, direction of change, and amount of growth (±) are determined randomly with
controlled probabilities. Moves are accepted if there is room for the change. Spaces can push a stair tower if there
is room. Above and below the Damage Control Deck, the stair towers become fixed objects. Multiple geometries
are generated for each topology chromosome and then the one giving the best utility, equation (12), is used in the
optimization.

3.3 The Optimization Methodology

Daniels (Daniels and Parsons, 2008) developed a new hybrid agent-Genetic Algorithm optimization method for the
allocation optimization. Agents are computer objects that are given a predefined behavior and are then allowed to
operate to evolve a solution to complex problems. The allocation criterion, equation (10) has portions related to
good design from the viewpoint of each Zone-decks, Uk, and portions related to good design from the viewpoint of
each space, min(Ui1, Ui2, …, UiNi). This is amenable to an agent approach if there is an agent representing the in
interests of each Zone-deck k and an agent representing the interests of each space i. The overall schematic is
shown in Fig. 9.

Fig. 9. Overall Schematic for Hybrid Agent-Genetic Algorithm Optimization (Daniels et al., 2006)

Simulation Master

Domain Agent Review Panel

Domain Agent 1 Domain Agent 2 Domain Agent K
Genetic Design
Algorithm Judge
Agent Agent
Design Agent Collection
Design Agent 1 Design Agent 2 Design Agent M

Ship Population: 1…Npop ships

The agent approach uses K Zone-deck Design Agents that sequentially propose a prioritized list of changes to a
randomly selected candidate design that will improve its own area utilization utility Uk. The Zone-deck agents can
propose to add a space, divest itself of a space, or swap spaces with another Zone-deck. These proposals are
evaluated by a Design Review agent and the first, if any, that improves the overall arrangement design as expressed
in equation (10) is accepted. The Design Agents work on a small population of candidate designs.

The agent approach also uses I space Design Agents that simultaneously and sequentially propose changes to
randomly selected candidate designs that will improve their own part of the cost function; i.e., min(Ui1, Ui2, … UiNi).
The space agents can propose to move to a new Zone-deck or swap places with a space in another Zone-deck.
These proposals are evaluated by the Design Review agent and the first, if any, that improves the overall
arrangement design as expressed in equation (10) is accepted.

12
In the agent-based approach, the agents can only improve what is already present in the current small population of
candidate designs, which is initialized using a random assignment algorithm. Some form of global or divergent
search is also needed for maximum performance. Combining the agents with a Genetic Algorithm Agent using
mutation, crossover, and two space swap elements for a divergent search capability yielded solutions with superior
overall utility (Daniels and Parsons, 2006; Daniels and Parsons, 2007). A population of 10 candidate designs was
used. The hybrid agent-GA solutions were superior to those obtained by either a pure GA or pure agent solution and
were also significantly faster than obtained with a complex GA.

The topology optimization was performed with a conventional Genetic Algorithm using roulette selection,
crossover, and two space swapping (Nick and Parsons, 2007). Using a population of four topology chromosomes
and generating four stochastically-generated geometries for each topology, the GA operating for 25 generations
produced an 8% improvement (Figure 8) over the best of the initial random topologies.

3.4 Sample Allocation Results

The example vessel presented here is an artificial demonstration design designated the Habitability Ship. It has its
origins in a non-U.S. Navy 3150 tonne, 109 m Notional Corvette design. This was a two-gender design using an
Officer, PO, and Specialist (enlisted) nomenclature. Because there is publication sensitivity associated with this
design and with the default constraints associated with the combat related spaces, the ship was reduced for
demonstration purposes to just contain the propulsion and habitability aspects of the original design. All combat
spaces, one superstructure deck, and six vertical WT zones were eliminated from the vessel and the hull form was
scaled to enclose this reduced size. One engine room was eliminated. The net result is a vessel with an abnormally
large fraction devoted to habitability spaces.

The Habitability Ship is shown schematically in Fig. 10. There are Port (P), Center (C), and Starboard (S) Sub-
Zone-decks created by the main passageways on the after part of the Damage Control Deck. The design consists of
103 spaces, 14 of which were fixed including the bridge, bridge-related electrical equipment rooms (2), steering gear
(2), anchoring and mooring, mooring area and gear storerooms (3), enclosed Rigid Inflatable Boat (RIB) stowage
area, boat gear locker, main machinery room (2 levels) and auxiliary machinery room. This leaves 89 spaces to be
allocated to 29 Zone-decks and Sub-Zone-decks. There were a total of 1307 goals and constraints.

Fig. 10. Habitability Ship Schematic Inboard Profile (Parsons et al., 2009)

P C S

The allocation for the Habitability Ship was optimized using a population of 10 candidate allocations for 1500
generations. A generation here is one round of GA operations and one cycle of space and Zone-deck agent
proposals that can produce up to 5 changes each. The best solution was reached in 181 generations. This required
about 20 minutes on a 2 GHz Intel Pentium Mobile PC with 1 GB RAM. No further improvement was found out to
1500 generations. In general, the arrangement is very good with a total Utility of U = 0.778. This is composed of
the three component terms in equation (10) with a minimum Zone-deck area utilization utility U1 = 0.987, average
Zone-deck area utilization utility U2 = 0.999, and weighted average minimum space utility U3 = 0.790. The U3
value characterizes the amount of compromise necessary for a solution. The resulting allocation of spaces is shown
schematically in Figure 11 (Parsons et al., 2009).

13
 Fig. 11. Optimal Allocation of Spaces to Habitability Ship (gray unarrangable Zone-decks; lighter fixed spaces; black outside vessel)

Subdiv 6 STERN Subdiv 5 Subdiv 4 Subdiv 3 Subdiv 2 Subdiv 1 BOW

ZONEDECK 29: ZONEDECK 21:
RESIDENT SPACES: RESIDENT SPACES:
SPACE 29: Engineer Officer Cabin SPACE 12: Bridge
SPACE 36: Fan Room (Deckhouse) SPACE 19: Electrical Equipment Room
SPACE 48: Officer Cabin (Male)(2) & SPACE 20: Electrical Equipment Room 1
Bath GrpA SPACE 52: Officer Cabin (Male)(2) &
SPACE 49: Officer Cabin (Male)(2) & Bath GrpB
Bath GrpA 1
SPACE 50: Officer Cabin (Male)(2) &
Bath GrpA 2
SPACE 51: Officer Cabin (Male)(2) &
Bath GrpA 3
Level 01 SPACE 97: XO Cabin & Bath

ZONEDECK 36: ZONEDECK 28: ZONEDECK 20:

RESIDENT SPACES: RESIDENT SPACES: RESIDENT SPACES:
SPACE 7: Boat Gear Locker SPACE 6: BC Medical Facility SPACE 10: Bosun Storeroom (MainDeck)
SPACE 11: Bosun Storeroom (MainDeck) 1 SPACE 25: Electrical Equipment Room 6 SPACE 16: CO Cabin & Bath
SPACE 22: Electrical Equipment Room 3 SPACE 43: Medical Consultation Room SPACE 17: CO Storeroom
SPACE 30: Enclosed RIB Stowage SPACE 44: Medical Storeroom SPACE 28: Electrical Equipment Room 9
SPACE 37: Fan Room (Deckhouse) 1 SPACE 56: Officer Cabin (Female)(2) & SPACE 53: Officer Cabin (Male)(2) &
SPACE 57: Officer Cabin (Female)(2) & Bath Bath GrpB 1
Bath 1 SPACE 58: Officer Cabin (Female)(2) & SPACE 54: Officer Cabin (Male)(2) &
SPACE 68: PO Cabin (Female)(4) & Bath Bath 2 Bath GrpB 2
SPACE 77: Sick Bay SPACE 55: Officer Cabin (Male)(2) &
Main Deck Bath GrpB 3

ZONEDECK 40: Port ZONEDECK 34: Port ZONEDECK 26: Port ZONEDECK 18: Port ZONEDECK 12: Port ZONEDECK 7:
RESIDENT SPACES: RESIDENT SPACES: RESIDENT SPACES: RESIDENT SPACES: RESIDENT SPACES: RESIDENT SPACES:
SPACE 35: Fan Room (Hull) 4 SPACE 34: Fan Room (Hull) 3 SPACE 15: Cleaning Gear Storeroom SPACE 76: Ships Office SPACE 9: Bosun Storeroom (Fwd Mooring) SPACE 3: Anchoring & Mooring
SPACE 46: Mooring Area & Gear SPACE 71: Daily Provision Room (Below Decks) SPACE 93: Training Room SPACE 24: Electrical Equipment Room 5 SPACE 45: Mooring Area & Gear
DAMAGE Storeroom (Aft) SPACE 62: PO & Specialist Dining Room 2 SPACE 31: Fan Room (Hull) Storeroom (Fwd)
ZONEDECK 17: Center SPACE 38: Foul Weather Gear Locker
CONTROL ZONEDECK 39: Center ZONEDECK 33: Center ZONEDECK 25: Center RESIDENT SPACES:
DECK RESIDENT SPACES: RESIDENT SPACES: RESIDENT SPACES: SPACE 63: PO Cabin (Male)(4) & Bath GrpA ZONEDECK 11: Center
SPACE 8: Bosun Storeroom (Aft Mooring) SPACE 27: Electrical Equipment Room 8 SPACE 33: Fan Room (Hull) 2 SPACE 64: PO Cabin (Male)(4) & Bath RESIDENT SPACES:
SPACE 61: PO & Specialist Dining Room 1 SPACE 40: Galley & Scullery SPACE 72: Recreation Room GrpA 1 SPACE 81: Specialist Cabin (Male)(6) GrpB
SPACE 96: Wardroom SPACE 65: PO Cabin (Male)(4) & Bath
ZONEDECK 41: Starboard GrpA 2
RESIDENT SPACES: ZONEDECK 35: Starboard ZONEDECK 27: Starboard
SPACE 23: Electrical Equipment Room 4 RESIDENT SPACES: RESIDENT SPACES: ZONEDECK 19: Starboard ZONEDECK 13: Starboard
SPACE 47: Mooring Area & Gear SPACE 102: PO & Specialist Dining Room 3 SPACE 21: Electrical Equipment Room 2 RESIDENT SPACES: RESIDENT SPACES:
Storeroom (Aft) 1 SPACE 60: PO & Specialist Dining Room SPACE 26: Electrical Equipment Room 7 SPACE 94: Library
SPACE 32: Fan Room (Hull) 1
2nd Deck SPACE 90: Electrical Switchboard Room 1

ZONEDECK 38: ZONEDECK 32: ZONEDECK 24: ZONEDECK 16: ZONEDECK 10: ZONEDECK 6:
RESIDENT SPACES: RESIDENT SPACES: RESIDENT SPACES: RESIDENT SPACES: RESIDENT SPACES: RESIDENT SPACES:
SPACE 5: Battery Locker and Charging SPACE 18: Cool Cold Dry Provisions SPACE 99: MMR Diesel (1stPlatform) SPACE 66: PO Cabin (Male)(4) & Bath GrpB SPACE 82: Specialist Cabin (Male)(6) SPACE 13: Chain Locker
SPACE 69: POL & Paint Locker (Storage) SPACE 41: General Stowage SPACE 67: PO Cabin (Male)(4) & Bath GrpB 1 SPACE 89: Electrical Switchboard
SPACE 70: POL & Paint Locker (Service) SPACE 42: Linen Locker GrpB 1 SPACE 83: Specialist Cabin (Male)(6) Room
SPACE 75: Sewage Treatment Machinery SPACE 59: Laundry (Officer & PO) SPACE 74: SD Storeroom GrpB 2
Room SPACE 73: Refrigerator Machinery Room SPACE 78: Specialist Cabin (Male)(6) GrpA SPACE 84: Specialist Cabin (Female)(6)
SPACE 87: Steering Gear Room SPACE 86: Laundry (Specialist) SPACE 79: Specialist Cabin (Male)(6)
SPACE 88: Steering Gear Room 1 GrpA 1
SPACE 92: Electrical Switchboard Room 3 SPACE 80: Specialist Cabin (Male)(6)
SPACE 95: Trash Room GrpA 2
1st Platform SPACE 85: Specialist Cabin (Female)(6) 1

ZONEDECK 37: ZONEDECK 31: ZONEDECK 23: ZONEDECK 15: ZONEDECK 9: ZONEDECK 5:
RESIDENT SPACES: RESIDENT SPACES: RESIDENT SPACES: RESIDENT SPACES: RESIDENT SPACES: RESIDENT SPACES:
SPACE 0: Aft Pump Room SPACE 98: MMR Diesel (Hold) SPACE 1: Air Conditioning Room SPACE 2: Air Conditioning Room 1 SPACE 4: Auxiliary Propulsion Room
SPACE 91: Electrical Switchboard Room 2 SPACE 39: Fwd Pump Room SPACE 14: Chain Locker Sump
SPACE 101: Mechanical Workshop SPACE 100: AMR
Hold (General)

ZONEDECK 30: ZONEDECK 22: ZONEDECK 14: ZONEDECK 8: ZONEDECK 4:

Doublebottom RESIDENT SPACES: RESIDENT SPACES: RESIDENT SPACES: RESIDENT SPACES: RESIDENT SPACES:

14
4. OPTIMAL COMMONALITY IN MULTIPLE CLASSES OF SHIPS

4.1 The Design Problem

In the automotive and consumer products industries (powered hand tools, etc.), there is a strong interest in using
common base platforms for various design variants that are offered in order to save development and production
costs. Methods have been in development to optimize these decisions (e.g. Gonzalez-Zugasti et al., 2000; Simpson
et al., 2001; Fujita and Yoshida, 2004; Fellini et al., 2005; Fellini et al., 2006). Simpson (2004) provides an
extensive review of this work. The overall goal of the final research to be reviewed here (Corl, 2007; Corl et al.,
2007a; Corl et al. 2007b) was to apply these ideas to determining the optimum commonality to use in multiple
classes of ships. This involved the extension of these methods to a multicriterion approach using evolutionary
optimization methods. The methodology was tested using the missions of the U. S. Coast Guard Deepwater High
and Medium Endurance fleets (U.S.C.G., 1995). The design criteria were the mission performance/cost for the high
endurance cutter, the mission performance/cost for the medium endurance cutter, and the fleet-wide saving from the
use of commonality. The strategic design question is how much commonality to use to maximize savings without
excessive degradation of the performance/cost of the two design variants.

4.2 The Design Modeling

The test application was to utilize the missions of the U.S. Coast Guard’s Deepwater Cutter fleet that consists of the
Maritime Security Cutter Large (WMSL), formerly the National Security Cutter (NSC), and the Maritime Security
Cutter Medium (WMSM), formerly known as the Offshore Patrol Cutter (OPC). The first NSC was launched in
September 2007 and the OPC was being redesigned at the time of this work. Table 6 shows the actual design
characteristics of these two designs for reference (U.S.C.G. website 2006).

Table 6. Nominal Characteristics of Actual NSC and OPC Fleets (Corl et al., 2007b)

Three criteria were defined for this modeling:

f1(x1, xC) = NSC Mission Vessel Mission Effectiveness/Average Ship Cost for 8 (13)
f2(x2, xC) = OPC Mission Vessel Mission Effectiveness/Average Ship Cost for 25 (14)

15
 f3(x1, x2, xC) = net fleet savings from use of commonality xC (15)

The first two criteria are written as a benefit/cost ratio so that any over-design caused by the use of commonality
will be penalized as wasteful. Independent variable vectors x1 and x2 defined the NSC mission vessel design and the
OPC mission vessel design, respectively. Vector xC defines the common components used in these designs.

The vessel designs were developed using an adaptation of the U.S. Coast Guard’s Performance Based Cost Model
(NSWC, Carderock Division, 1998), which was developed by the U.S. Navy using components of its Advanced
Surface Ship Evaluation Tool (ASSET, 2005) and the Canadian equivalent SHOP5 with Cost Estimating
Relationships (CER’s) in constant 1998 U.S. dollars based upon the U.S. Coast Guard’s WHEC 378, WMEC 270,
WMEC 210, and Great Lakes Icebreaker. The model is capable of synthesizing frigate-sized, deepwater cutters of
over 1500 t including acquisition, operational, and support costs. The engines and ship service generators come
from catalogs of available designs. This model was modified to reduce the number of inputs to the eight as listed in
Table 7 with all needed constraints included internal to the synthesis. For example, the GMT was estimated using
the parametric models from Parsons (2003)

Table 7. Independent Variables and Ranges (Corl et al., 2007b)

The independent variables in Table 7 compose x1 and x2 describing the NSC mission vessel and the OPC mission
vessel, respectively. The ranges considered for these variables were roughly ±10% from the values for the actual
NSC and the OPC designs. The power plants considered were (1) a four (two cruise, two sprint) diesel engine
CODAD plant or (2) a two cruise diesel, one spint gas turbine (CODOG) plant, with both using twin screws,
mechanical gearing, and controllable pitch propellers. The weapon suites were (W1) a 46mm gun, (W2) a 57mm
gun, and (W3) both a 57mm gun and a Phalanx Close in Weapon System (CIWS).

The vessel performance used a modeling similar to Brown and Salcedo (2003) who presented a multicriterion
optimization methodology for mission performance versus cost. Following their model for mission effectiveness,
the mission performance/cost for vessel i was as follows:

[Performance/Cost]i =  MPijmin[Uijk(yk)]/Costi (16)

j k

where the MPij are the mission profile percent time each vessel will spend in mission j. The ability of each ship i to
successfully accomplish each mission j is assumed to depend upon K performance characteristics, yk. The
contribution of each performance characteristic yk of ship i to the success of its mission j is characterized by a fuzzy
membership function or fuzzy utility 0 ≤ Uijk(yk) ≤ 1. The overall mission effectiveness is obtained by minimum
correlation inference (Kosko, 1992). The Costi is the average cost of ship i.

The missions of the types of vessels were taken from U.S. Coast Guard planning (U.S.C.G., 1995). The NSC and
OPC missions both include National Defense, drug interdiction, and living marine resources (LMR) missions. The
NSC also performs general defense operations while the OPC performs alien migration interdiction operations. For
each of the J = 4 missions, four ship attributes were selected to describe each ship’s ability to perform these missions.
The K = 4 attributes were maximum speed (knots), number of helicopter hangers (1 or 2), weapons systems, and

16
endurance range (nm). For each mission, four fuzzy utility functions were developed for methodology testing.
Those for the drug interdiction missions are shown in Fig. 12. This mission places a premium on fast aerial assets
for surveillance with less emphasis on weapon systems as shown. Endurance is relatively less important in the
Caribbean where most of these operations occur.

Fig. 12. Fuzzy Utilities for Drug Interdiction Mission (Corl et al., 2007b)

The net fleet savings function f3(x1, x2, xC) should consider all net fleet-wide savings realized from the use of
commonality through savings in training, logistical support, bulk procurement, detailed design development, and
construction, etc. In this study, only the savings from bulk purchase savings and construction learning curve
savings were included.

4.3 The Optimization Methodology

The commonality decisions are a set of integers in xC that specify which ship components will be common between
both ship classes. If a given component is designated as common, both ships are constrained to use that component.
By varying the number and option choice of the common components, the design space can be populated. The
various combinations of these common components are used to determine which set of common components result
in Pareto optimal designs for Ship A (NSC mission) and Ship B (OPC mission). As the various combinations of
commonality are applied to the designs, the optimization fills out the three criterion Pareto front or Pareto surface.
Figure 13 shows a schematic of the expected discrete Pareto front that will be obtained for this multicriterion
optimization.

Every set of commonality components  will result in a solution for Ship A and Ship B that will be located on a
line of commonality. If a single ship were being considered for both missions, this line would be the two-objective
Pareto Front for Ship A performance/cost and Ship B performance/cost. For specific commonalities, Ships A1 and
B1 might use the same cruise engines; Ships A2 and B2 might share the same cruise engines and weapon system. As
more things become common, the savings can increase and the ship designs will tend toward each other on the
Pareto surface as more effectiveness is sacrificed for commonality. When every item on the ships is common, the
result will be one design for both missions (point C in Fig 13). Once every combination of common components is
used in the optimization, the discrete Pareto front will be fully populated. The Pareto Front will not be continuous
because of the discrete nature of the commonality variable. Rather, the Pareto front will be a collection of pairs of
discrete points as shown in Fig. 13.

17
 Fig. 13. Expected Discrete Pair Pareto Surface (Corl, 2007)

The optimization was performed with an adaptation of the evolutionary algorithm developed by Zalek (2007).
Penalty functions for constraint satisfaction were not needed since all constraints were implemented within the
synthesis model. The non-domination solution sorting was performed first for the primary criteria only and then for
the sum of the primary criteria and a diversity measure D, if neither solution was dominant. This caused the method
to emphasize developing non-dominated solutions early in the generations and then focus more on filling out the
Pareto front through diversity pressure as the generations evolved. For testing, this was applied to the two criterion
optimization of one ship design to satisfy both the NSC mission and the OPC mission. The typical progression of
these solutions through 108 generations is shown in Fig. 14. The dense line through the center of the figure is the
dividing line between designs with one helicopter hanger (below and to the right, the less capable OPC end) and two
helicopter hangers (above and to the left, the more demanding NSC end).

Fig. 14. Progression of Evolutionary Solution toward the Pareto Front (Corl et al., 2007b)

4.4 Sample Results

The two criterion analysis for a single design to do both missions was studied to establish which choices of weapons,
cruise engines, and ship service generators occurred in the Pareto optimal designs. This was used to guide which
options to include in the commonality study. The results showed that only two cruise engines (C7 or C9 from the
synthesis model catalog of engines), three ship service generators (G0, G1, or G3), and two weapon systems (W1 or

18
W3) were ever Pareto optimal as shown in Fig. 15. These cruise engine and ship service generator results were used
to reduce the scope of the commonality study. It was also noticed that when the number of helicopter hangers was
set, there was very little variation in the resulting superstructure volume. It was with either a small superstructure
(one helicopter hanger) or a large superstructure (two helicopter hangers). Also, the number of helicopter hangers
resulted in little variation in the beam and depth of the hull, with either a small beam and depth or a larger beam and
depth. Thus, a common superstructure (small or large) and common midship section hull blocks (small or large)
were included as commonality options.

The modeling for the commonality was then an integer vector of the form xC = [0 2 0 1 3]T where the positions
indicate the commonality decision for weapons, ship service generators, cruise engines, superstructure, and midship
section hull blocks, respectively; the zero indicates no commonality is imposed; and a non-zero entry indicates the
index number of the commonality choice imposed on the designs.

Fig. 15. Natural Commonality within Pareto Front Solutions (Corl et al., 2007b)

The multicriterion evolutionary algorithm was adapted further to obtain two separate, higher-quality solutions near
the end of the f1 and f2 Pareto front, since the end points were all that was needed as shown in Fig. 13. The analysis
was then run for all 288 possible combinations of commonality decisions. These results produced three bands of
similar designs: 128 NSC mission vessels with two helicopter hangers, 160 NSC mission vessels with one helicopter
hanger, and 288 OPC mission vessels with one helicopter hanger. Of these results, 129 of the pairs resulted in
negative net fleet savings when more expensive components were being imposed on the less demanding OPC
mission vessels. This is a common fallacy of most of previous work on platforms where it is usually assumed that
all commonality is good. Because the optimization criterion used here involves performance/cost and no increase
in the performance utilities occurs with more than the goal level, over-design results in a loss in performance/cost.

When the 159 remaining positive net fleet savings commonality pairs were sorted to determine those non-dominated
designs that lie on the Pareto surface, only 20 different commonality combinations remained. Of these there were
only 12 uniquely different design pairs from a naval architectural standpoint. These are as shown in Fig. 16 with
the baseline, no commonality designs that yield no net fleet savings (best NSC, and best OPC). The design pair
NSC15 and OPC15 (using the 46 mm gun, the smaller cruise engines, the smallest ship service generators, the small
superstructure and the small midship section blocks in common) yield the greatest overall fleet savings from their
commonality. Note, however, that the NSC15 design has a significant performance loss compared to the baseline
design, primarily from to its use of only one helicopter hanger. The NSC18 and OPC18 designs (using the smallest
ship service generators and the large superstructure in common) have the largest net fleet savings before the shift
from two helicopter hangers to one. Thus, they are at a “knee” of the surface and are particularly attractive designs.

19
 Fig. 16. Three-Criterion Discrete Pareto Surface (Corl et al., 2007b)

The characteristics of the NSC18/OPC18 pair and the NSC15/OPC15 pair of designs are shown in Table 8. Note that
the NSC15 design has a significant (52.4%) performance loss compared to the baseline design, primarily due to its
use of only one helicopter hanger. Note also that the two 15 designs are probably close enough that it might be
better to produce one design for both missions and save even more by complete commonality. Note that the
NSC18/OPC18 pair provide 97% of the NSC baseline performance, 100% of the OPC baseline performance, and still
provide 60.7% of the maximum net fleet savings observed.

Table 8. Characteristics for Selected Designs on Pareto Front (Corl et al., 2007b)

5. CONCLUSIONS

Three recent advanced ship design research efforts at the University of Michigan were reviewed to illustrate some of
the capability of modern evolutionary and fuzzy optimization to address complex, multicriterion naval ship design

20
problems encountered in early design. The work of Zalek used a multicriterion evolutionary algorithm to optimize
the hull form of a naval combatant for smooth water powering and seakeeping performance. The work of Nick and
Daniels used single criterion fuzzy optimization with either a hybrid agent/GA method or a GA to optimally allocate
spaces to Zone-decks and then arrange these spaces in a naval surface vessel. The work of Corl used a
multicriterion evolutionary algorithm to optimize the commonality to use in vessels for two different missions in
order to maximize the net fleet savings from the commonality. Extensive references are provided to aid those
interested in investigating this work further.

6. ACKNOWLEGEMENTS

The optimal hull form and optimal general arrangement projects described here were sponsored by the U. S. Navy,
Office of Naval Research through Luise Couchman and Kelly Cooper as part of the Naval Engineering Modeling
and Optimization (NEMO) program. The optimal arrangements project was also sponsored by the U.S. Navy,
Naval Surface Warfare Center Carderock Division through Robert Ames. The optimal commonality research was
sponsored by the U. S. Coast Guard and the U.S. Navy, Office of Naval Research through Kelly Cooper. These
efforts could not have been undertaken without this support. Special acknowledgement and thanks go to my four
graduate students Stephen Zalek, Eleanor Nick, Anthony Daniels, and LCDR Michael Corl, U.S.C.G. whose
graduate research is described here. Richard B. Couch Professor of Naval Architecture and Marine Engineering
Robert F. Beck co-chaired Zalek’s dissertation with the author.

7. REFERENCES

Multicriterion Optimization

Parsons, M. G., and Scott, R. L. (2004). “Formulation of Multicriterion Design Optimization Problems for Solution
with Scalar Numerical Optimization Methods.” Journal of Ship Research, 48:1, March.
Pareto, V. (1906). Manuale di Economica Politica. Societa Editrice Libraria, Milano, IT, also in Manual of Political
Economy, The MacMillan Press Ltd. 1971.
Statnikov, R. B. (1999). Multicritria Design: Optimization and Identification. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic
Publishers.

Genetic Algorithms and Evolutionary Algorithms

Coley, D. A. (1999). An Introduction to Genetic Algorithms for Scientist and Engineers. Singapore: World
Scientific.
Deb, K. (2001). Multi-Objective Optimization using Evolutionary Algorithms. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Gen, M. and Chang, R. (2000). Genetic Algorithms and Engineering Optimization. New York: Wiley Interscience.
Goldberg, D. E. (1983). “Computer Aided Gasline Operation using Genetic Algorithms and Rule Learning.” Ph.D.
Dissertation, University of Michigan.
Goldberg, D.E. (1989). Genetic Algorithms for Search, Optimization, and Machine Learning. Reading, MA:
Addison-Wesley.
Holland, J. (1975), Adaptation in Natural and Artificial Systems. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press and
(1992) Cambridge: MIT Press.
Li, J., and Parsons, M. G. (2001). "Complete Design of Fuzzy Systems using a Real-Coded Genetic Algorithm with
Imbedded Constraints." Journal of Intelligent and Fuzzy Systems, 10:1.
Michalewicz, Z. (1996). Genetic Algorithms + Data Structures = Evolutionary Programs. Berlin: Springer-Verlag.
Osyczka, A. (2002). Evolutionary Algorithms for Single and Multicriteria Design Optimization. Berlin: Physica-
Verlag.
Zitzler, E., Laumanns, M. and Bleuler, S. (2003). “A Tutorial on Evolutionary Multi-objective Optimization.”
[Link]

Fuzzy Logic, Fuzzy Sets and Fuzzy Systems

Brown, A. and Salcedo, J. (2003). “Multiple-objective Optimization in Naval Ship Design.” Naval Engineers
Journal, 115:4,49-61.
Kosko, B. (1992). Neural Networks and Fuzzy Systems: A Dynamical Systems Approach to Machine Learning.

21
 Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Li, J. and Parsons, M. G. (1998). “An Improved Method for Shipbuilding Market Modeling and Forecasting.”
Transactions of the Society of Naval Architects and Marine Engineers, 106:157-183.
Mendel, J. M. (2001). Uncertain Rule-Based Fuzzy Logic Systems: Introduction and New Directions. Upper Saddle
River, NJ: Prentice Hall PTR
Saaty, T. L. (1996). The Analytical Hierarchy Process. Pittsburgh: RWS Publishing.
Zadeh, L. (1965). “Fuzzy Sets.” Information and Control, 8:338-353.
Zimmerman, H.-J. (1991). Fuzzy Set Theory – and Its Applications. 2nd Ed. Boston: Kluwer Academic.

Optimal Hull Forms

ASSET (2005). “Advanced Surface Ship Evaluation Tool.” Version 5.2.0, Naval Surface Warfare Center, Carderock
Division.
Beck, R. F. and Troesch, A. W. (1989). “[Link] User’s Manual.” University of Michigan, Department of
Naval Architecture and Marine Engineering. Report No. 89-2.
Himeno, Y. (1981). “Prediction of Ship Roll Damping – State of the Art.” University of Michigan, Department of
Naval Architecture and Marine Engineering. Report No. 239.
Holtrop, J. (1984). “A Statistical Re-analysis of Resistance and Propulsion Data.” International Shipbuilding
Progress, 31:363, 272-276.
Holtrop, J. and Mennen, G. G. J. (1982). “An Approximated Power Prediction Method.” International Shipbuilding
Progress, 29:335, 166-170.
Parsons, M. G., Li, J. and Singer, D. J. (1998). “Michigan Conceptual Ship Design Software Environment User’s
Manual.” University of Michigan, Department of Naval Architecture and Marine Engineering. Report No. 338.
Keane, R. and Sandberg, W. C. (1984). “Naval Architecture of Combatants: A Technological Survey.” Naval
Engineers Journal. 92.
Zalek, S. F. (2007). “Multicriterion Evolutionary Optimization of Ship Hull Forms for Propulsion and Seakeeping.”
Ph.D. Dissertation. Naval Architecture and Marine Engineering, University of Michigan. January.
Zalek, S. F., Parsons, M. G. and Papalambros, P. Y. (2006a). “Multi-Criteria Design Optimization of Monohull
Vessels for Propulsion and Seakeeping.” Proceedings of the 9th International Marine Design Conference. Ann
Arbor, MI. 2:533-557.
Zalek, S. F., Parsons, M. G. and Beck, R. F. (2006b). “Evolutionary Multicriterion Optimization for Propulsion and
Seakeeping.” Proceedings of the 26th Symposium on Naval Hydrodynamics. Rome, IT. 2:69-85.
Zalek, S. F., Beck, R. F. and Parsons, M. G. (2008). “Nonlinear Hull Form Transformation for Use with Design
Optimization.” Summer Computer Simulation Conference. Edinburgh, UK. June.
Zalek, S. F., Parsons, M. G. and Beck, R. F. (2009). “Naval Hull Form Multicriterion Hydrodynamic Optimization
for the Conceptual Design Phase.” to appear in Journal of Ship Research.

Optimal General Arrangements

Daniels, A. and Parsons, M. G. (2006). “An Agent-based Approach to Space Allocation in General Arrangements.”
Proceedings of the 9th International Marine Design Conference. Ann Arbor, MI. 2:673-695.
Daniels, A. and Parsons, M. G. (2007). “Development of a Hybrid Agent-Genetic Algorithm Approach to General
Arrangements.” Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Computer Applications and Information
Technology in the Marine Industries (COMPIT'2007). Cortona, IT, April.
Daniels, A. and Parsons, M. G. (2008). “Development of a Hybrid Agent-Genetic Algorithm Approach to General
Arrangements.” Ship Technology Research (Schifftechnik), 55.
LEAPS (2006). “Leading Edge Architecture for Prototyping Systems.” Version 3.4. Naval Surface Warfare Center,
Carderock Division.
Nick, E. (2008). “Fuzzy Optimal Allocation and Arrangement of Spaces to Zone-decks in Naval Surface Ship
Design.” Ph.D. Dissertation. Naval Architecture and Marine Engineering, University of Michigan. April.
Nick, E. and Parsons, M. G. (2007) “Fuzzy Optimal Arrangement of Spaces within a Zone-deck Region of a Ship.”
Proceedings of PRADS 2007. Houston, TX.
Nick, E., Parsons, M. G. and Nehrling, B. (2006). “Fuzzy Optimal Allocation of Spaces to Zone-decks in General
Arrangements.” Proceedings of the 9th International Marine Design Conference. Ann Arbor, MI. 2:651-671.
Parsons, M., Chung, H., Nick, E., Daniels, A., Liu, S. and Patel, J. (2009). “Intelligent Ship Arrangements (ISA): a
New Approach to General Arrangement.” to appear in Naval Engineers Journal,

22
 Optimal Commonality in Multiple Classes of Ships

Corl, M. J. (2007). “Methodology for Optimizing Commonality Decisions in Multiple Classes of Ships.” Ph.D.
Dissertation. Naval Architecture and Marine Engineering, University of Michigan. June.
Corl, M. J., Kokkolaras, M. and Parsons, M. G. (2007a). “Platform-Based Design of a Family of Ships Considering
both Performance and Savings.” Proceedings of the International Conference on Engineering Design, ICED'07.
Paris, France. August 28-31.
Corl, M. J., Parsons, M. G., and Kokkolaras, M. (2007b). “Methodology for the Optimization of Commonality in
Multiple Ship Classes.” Transactions of the Society of Naval Architects and Marine Engineers. 115: 68-93.
Fellini, R., Kokkolaras, M., Papalambros, P. Y. and Perez-Duarte, A. (2005). “Platform Selection under
Performance Loss Constraints in Optimal Design of Product Families.” Journal of Mechanical Design, 127:4:
524-535.
Fellini, R., Kokkolaras, M. and Papalambros, P. Y. (2006). “Quantitative Platform Selection in Optimal Design of
Product Families, with Application to Automotive Engine Design.” Journal of Engineering Design, 17:5: 429-446.
Fujita, K. and Yoshida, H. (2004). “Product Variety Optimization: Simultaneously Designing Module Combination
and Module Attributes.” Concurrent Engineering: Research and Applications. 12:2: 105-118
Gonzalez-Zugasti, J.P., Otto, K. N. and Baker, J. D. (2000). “A Method for Architecting Product Platforms.”
Research in Engineering Design, 12: 61-72.
Naval Surface Warfare Center Carderock Division (1998). “User’s Guide USCG Performance Based Cost Model.”
Parsons, M. G. (2003). “Parametric Design.” Ch. 11 in Ship Design and Construction, I, T. Lamb (ed.), New York:
Society of Naval Architects and Marine Engineers.
Simpson, T.W. (2004). “Product Platform Design and Customization: Status and Promise.” Artificial Intelligence for
Engineering Design, Analysis, and Manufacturing. 18: 3-20.
Simpson, T.W., Maier, J. R. A. and Mistree, F. (2001). “Product Platform Design: Method and Application.”
Research in Engineering Design, 13: 2-22.
U.S. Coast Guard Memorandum (1995). “Mission Analysis Report (MAR) N-001-95 Deepwater Missions.”

23

View publication stats