Papandreouch Swath
Papandreouch Swath
Papandreouch Swath
DIPLOMA THESIS
OF
PAPANDREOU
CHRISTOS
1
Contents……………………………………………………………………………2
Acknowledgments………………………………………………………………..4
Introduction………………………………………………………………………. 4
2. Optimization ………………………………………………………………….. 16
2.1 Introduction-The generic ship design optimization problem…….. 16
2.2 Single Objective & Multi-Objective optimization…….…..……...… 17
2.3 Generic optimization problem……………………………………..... 18
2.4 Solving a multi-objective optimization problem…………...………..19
2.5 Design of Experiment………………………………………….…….. 20
2.6 Genetic Algorithms (GA)……………………………………….……. 21
2
4. The calculation of ship’s resistance of multi-hull vessels……...42
4.1 Components of ship‟s resistance……….……..…………………42
4.2 Thin ship theory……………………………………..………………43
4.3 The code MICHLET…………………………………………………44
4.4 Basic considerations…...…………………………..………………45
4.5 Calculation of Resistance………………………...…………...…..46
4.6 Input files………..……………………………………...……………46
4.7 General input variables…..………………………………...………47
6. Conclusions……………………………………………………….…….97
7. References……………………………………………………………….99
Appendices………………………………………………………..………101
Appendix A - TriSwath…………………………………………….…….101
Appendix B - DiamontSwath………………………………..………….105
3
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
My sincere thanks also go to Dr. E. Boulougouris for his assistance during the
completion of this Diploma thesis, to Mr. D. Mourkogiannis for his great
support with CFD-configurations and of course to my colleagues G.
Koutroukis and T. Plessas for their help to any query turned up.
I am also thankful to Mr. Konrad Lorentz , Mr. Jörg Palluch , Mr. Arne
Bergmann , Mr. Karsten Wenzke , Stefan Wunderlich , Mr. Ben Zeitz , for
giving me valuable help and guidance while working with FRIENDSHIP-
FRAMEWORK.
In addition I like to deeply thank Dr. Leo Lazauskas for providing me the code
Michlet free of charge for the conduct of my thesis. Also, I like to express my
appreciation to the work of late Professor E. O. Tuck on "thin ship theory",
with whom Dr. Lazauskas closely worked for many years.
Last but not least, I would like to thank my family and friends for their great
support in all this period.
INTRODUCTION
Shipping has been one of the earliest activities of the human race, as a result
of the continuous struggle to survive, thrive, expand and explore. Throughout,
the known history kingdoms, empires and economies have heavily depended
on the sea and maritime transportation not only in the mean of conflict but
more important in the means of communication, cooperation in the forms of
trade and commerce. In the meantime, during the evolution of the scientific
thinking and technology, shipping has been affected with several
technological breakthroughs such as the introduction of sail, steam, iron and
steel, welding procedures, diesel engines and many more.
While the ship technology advanced so did the operations and the support
from a vast regulatory FRAMEWORK which initially depended solely on
experience and mutual agreements but then was rationalized with the
introduction of engineering and Naval Architectural principles.
4
functions, global conflicts and economy as well as ever increasing and
sensitive oil prices. The ship designer, shipwright, owner, operator and
charterer of today are challenged more than ever to survive not only due to
the globalization and the increased level of competence but also due to the
ever increasing order of volatility and uncertainty in global economic markets.
For this particular reason, when looking from a technical point of view, the
Naval Architect of today is responsible not only for designing , delivering and
operating a superior product but for making that product optimum in terms of
efficiency, safety and more recently in terms of environmental friendliness.
This term characterizes the 21st century, as it is a result of an excessive
pressure from the society towards the policy makers to make steps towards a
more sustainable and green profile in all levels of human activities including
shipping.
When responsible for such a complex and difficult procedure the Naval
Architect must be analytical and follow the principles of holism which is
reflected in Holistic Ship design and Operation. Holistic Ship Design uses
principles of Multi-Objective Optimization in order to solve conflicting
arguments towards the best solution which satisfies the user requirements
while it complies with the constraints set by society in form of Rules and
Regulations.
This present thesis aims at giving a solution and a tool to the Naval Architect
of today, and in particular those interested in Swath Design. Swaths are ideal
for optimization since as ship systems usually they include a lot of
contradicting requirements while the consequences of a potential accident
can be catastrophic(referring to passenger ships).
5
Chapter 4 contains the case study of the Swath design and optimization(AQ3)
and it is obvious the core of the thesis. It is widely acknowledged that at
present times an economic option is very attractive to the public, especially if
we talk about passenger and car ships. So regarding to this, the optimization
was made in order to minimize every aspect of resistance. As a result some
designs were found for every need. Either the best model for a high speed
that serves the public at summers or the best model at a relatively low speed
that that serves at a non commercial period, or a optimized model for a
combination of the above. All these accompanied with the strict regulations
and safety rules.
All of these developments create a new (almost chaotic) patch that both the
existing and new built ships have to respond to. It is generally admitted that
these requirements change entirely the way we think about shipping in
general and the challenge is big and often a handicap and burden for the
operability and profitability of the owning and managing company. This
creates a new need for innovative, safer and more efficient designs that will
not mitigate the economic performance, sustainability and competitiveness of
each concept. Initially though these designs are not easily acceptable by
shipyards and need additional capital expenditure.
They key in making them a sustainable option is reduce the Operating
Expenditures (OPEX) and maintenance costs, as well increase the availability
and reliability of the product in order to achieve a balance. This balance will
subsequently trigger new orders and investments towards this direction and in
a long run a two Tier market, of upscale innovative ships and more
conventional ones, with the last struggling to face the competition both in
commercial and operating terms. It is the technology leap that will illustrate
the potential of the new designs and establish them as actual and realistic
solutions.
The present diploma thesis concludes with chapter 5 that describes a brief
summary and outline of the work undertaken, providing some design
directives for future, tender concepts as well as an outline of the Swath
optimization (global and less detailed one). The contribution of the Thesis in
Swath design is outlined and some perspectives for future work are
underlined.
Finally appendix A and appendix B contains two small case studies. The first
one is about an optimization of tri-hull with the same displacement of AQ3.
The main matter is to minimize the waves produced by the hulls behind the
main hull. The second one is an optimization of a tetra-hull with a diamond
shape again trying to minimize the waves of the hulls behind the main hull,
and hence the total resistance.
6
1. CAD/CAE SYSTEMS FOR SHIP DESIGN
1.1Introduction
The tools and techniques used to design ship structures have evolved over
the last forty years, from producing blueprints on the drafting board to the
digital design of today. As computer technology became more powerful and
less expensive, computer-aided-design (CAD) systems evolved to support the
design of complex products. CAD and other related tools empower designers
and engineers to create innovative products more quickly and efficiently.
The ultimate objective of every tool used for economic human activity is to
obtain greater efficiency, effectiveness and a better quality. A greater
efficiency means that less time, material and labour are necessary to obtain
the desired results. Greater efficiency leads to:
7
On the other hand, CAD and CAE systems bring also some disadvantages
with:
The use of improper CAD/CAE systems, which force the designer into
a corner.
The usual need for very powerful hardware system to support it;
A tendency to use always the latest CAD/CAE products, which may be
unstable and error prone.
A tendency to „over-calculate‟, just because the computer gives the
ability to, resulting in time-consuming procedures.
In ship design there are many domain-specific models of the design process,
but Evans‟ design spiral (below) is probably the most well known. This model
emphasizes that many design issues interact and must be considered in
sequence, in increased detail in each pass around the spiral, until a single
design that satisfies all constraints and balances all considerations is reached.
Modern CAD/CAE systems allow a holistic design approach which aims at
investigating many if not all important aspects at the same time. Such a
synthesis model of CAE (below) allows exploring the design space to a
greater extent and provides an efficient method of handling complex systems
with many relationships and dependencies at once.
8
Figure 1.1 : Traditional design spiral[5]
9
1.4 An insight in fully-parametric ship design
In figure below the different modeling concepts are presented and compared
on the basis of flexibility, required knowledge, effectiveness and cost in
relevance to efficiency.
10
What can be derived by the figure above is that the fully parametric modeling
technique yields excellent efficiency since only a few modifications are
required in order to achieve a new fair hull form. This approach requires
though a good knowledge of the basic elements of parametric modeling and
the most time is consumed in order to set up the whole structure. Once the
model is established, a wide variety of new designs is available, in contrast to
conventional modeling where, setting up a hull form and browsing through
new designs are equally time consuming and demands experience of the
designer. Partially-parametric models build on existing shapes and prove to
be an easy-handled approach for numerous tasks but it is not recommended
for global and multi-objective investigations since the allowed modifications of
the model are restricted. According to (Harries, 1998) , the great advantage of
parametric modeling is the ability to find the optimal balance between
variability and simplicity, more precisely the balance between the freedom to
be able to do everything and the restriction to do only what you really
need.
11
1.5 FRIENDSHIP-FRAMEWORK
12
1.5.2 Basic elements
1.5.2.1 MetaSurfaces
Features are the way scripts can be implemented into a design. They work
the same way than libraries for a programming language.On one hand can be
produced with a little more than a click of the mouse instead of modeling them
from the scratch every time which would take quite a while but on the other
hand, the user has to be quite familiar with script writing, especially when
difficult geometries and concepts are required.
Some are already provided by the editor but for advanced object definitions
the user can create his own. They can for instance be used for interfacing the
FF with an hydrostatics software like Hydromax. The feature then requires a
meshed surface and a few data such as design waterline, displacement, LCG,
VCG, LCB and then calls Hydromax to perform the calculations. The features
then returns the results in the form of various objects, such as a righting lever
curve for instance that can be used in the design.
They can be created either as "persistent", in the case their result will be an
object incorporated to the current design, or transient if they are just needed
to perform a task on the design (a geometric transformation for instance).
13
elements like points, lines and "normal" curves and surfaces and represent
specific work processes which can be stored externally and reused.
Features work on the base of an editor where the necessary input parameters
and types are specified as arguments and then a process is described via
commands. Thins script is finally evaluated and returns the produced output
that makes up the feature‟s attribute. Features are flexible and can be
combined with each other providing sophisticated objects.
One of the useful objects for defining hull shapes in the FRIENDSHIP
FRAMEWORK is called the Curve Engine. It allows for a type of curve to be
defined at any position by a parameterization function of its position. In
opposition to a classic hull design software where a few sections are defined
at specific points along the hull length, the use of the curve engine allows to
have a continuous section envelope running along the whole hull:
Basically, the curve engine combines a "template" curve definition with a
continuous description of this definition. The template is formulated as
Feature definition and describes a curve by means of its configurable
parameters. Then, the curve engine takes this definition and connects the
parameters with a functional description of them, i.e. distribution. This means
that for each (abscissa) value in the interval of the functions, a curve can be
generated where the information stems from the input functions (i.e. the
ordinate value of them). (FRIENDSHIP Systems GmbH 2010)
Figure below shows a plot of a few sections generated by a curve engine. At
the bottom in yellow, the curve used to parameter the lowest position of the
section, that physically corresponds to the baseline. In black in the X-Z plane,
the curve used to parameter the beam of the sections along the hull. The
parameterization of a section is actually more complicated, and just two
template curves are shown for clarity purpose.
14
Figure 1.4 : A plot of a few sections generated by a curve engine
15
2. Optimization
2.1 Introduction-The generic ship design optimization problem
In more details, decision making of all kinds involves the choice of one or
more alternatives from a list of options. The list of options would normally all
be more or less acceptable solutions for the problem at hand and
consequences, both good and bad, flow from the exercise of choice. The aim
of rational decision making therefore, is to maximize the positive
consequences and minimize the negative ones. As these consequences are
directly related to the decision made or opinion set, it is not unreasonable to
treat the consequences as aspects of performance. The decision problem
then becomes a matter of considering these aspects of performance of all
the options available simultaneously so that the decision maker (DM) can
exercise his choice. In other words, rational decision making involves choice
within the context of multiple measures of performance or multiple criteria .
Solving the requirements of the sub-systems alone will often not produce an
ideal result; the interactions amongst the sub-systems must be analyzed,
leading to a ship design that truly is a multi-criteria decision problem. These
MCDM methods can vary in complexity depending on not only the amount of
parameters analyzed, but also how many of their interactions are thought out.
In addition, subjectively becomes a factor into determining which criteria stand
out above the others. How these criteria are weighted is up to the individual
method itself . Thus, the difficulty lies in formulating the objective and all the
constraints. For this reason, the main requirement when dealing with the
generic ship optimization problem is that the designer has a picture of his
objective, what he really wants to achieve .
16
2.2 Single Objective & Multi-Objective Optimization
In the classical optimization where there is only a single criterion and a set of
satisfiable constraints, decision making approaches lead naturally to the
solution. Once the criterion of interest is agreed upon -cost, for example- the
choice of the most attractive action is not a matter of opinion. There can be
some argument as to how the objective –cost, for example- may be computed
but in any meaningful problem the method of computation is obviously a part
of the definition of the criterion itself. In other words, the choice of criterion
leads directly to the solution in the mono-criterion example and it is a solution
that all parties can agree with.
However, sometimes a system must perform more than one mission or must
meet multiple objectives simultaneously or consecutively, which without
special assumptions may not be easy to accommodate in a single measure of
merit. Therefore, in the case of multiple criteria formulation, decision makers
can and will, in general, have different value systems leading to different
priority orderings of the multiple, potentially conflicting performance criteria .
Ten or fifteen years ago, standard available optimization tools would focus on
a single and limited aspect (e.g. shape, scantlings, propeller, ultimate
strength, etc.) and a single objective would be targeted (weight, resistance,
cavitation, etc.). Nowadays optimization tools tend to adopt a more generic
approach and coupled with the fact that they have also become much more
reliable this has made them more likely to be part of the standard design tool
set that each designer uses on a day to day basis.
17
2.3 Generic optimization problem
-Input EI: prescribed data, for example, requirements of the owner (DWT
capacity, service speed etc).
-Output EO: result of the evaluation of the system performance for given input
(techno-economical characteristics of the ship,- optimal solution based on
criterion/-a.
- Design variables D: free variables of the optimization problem (under the
designer‟s control), for example, ship‟s main dimensions.
- Design parameters P: restriction parameters, constraints (extraneous
influences, scenarios, side conditions, not under the designer‟s control).
- Merit functions M: measure of merit, expression of evaluation criterion/-a,
objective function (M(D,P)).
- Constraints G: boundary conditions of equality and/or inequality type,
function of design variables and parameters (G(D,P)).
18
2.4 Solving a multi-objective optimization problem
19
In a priori methods, preference information is first asked from the decision
maker and then a solution best satisfying these preferences is found. In a
posteriori methods, a representative set of Pareto optimal solutions is first
found and then the decision maker must choose one of them. In interactive
methods, the decision maker is allowed to iteratively search for the most
preferred solution. In each iteration of the interactive method, the decision
maker is shown Pareto optimal solution(s) and (s)he can tell how the
solution(s) could be improved. The information given by the decision maker is
then taken into account while generating new Pareto optimal solution(s) for
the decision maker to study in the next iteration. In this way, the decision
maker learns about the feasibility of his/her wishes and can concentrate on
solutions that are interesting to him/her. The decision maker may stop the
search whenever he/she wants to.
20
2.6 Genetic algorithms(GA)
Actually, the genetic algorithm derives its behavior from a metaphor of one of
the mechanisms of evolution in nature which is called hard selection. Under
this scheme, only the best available individuals are retained for generating
descendants. This contrast with soft selection, which offers a probabilistic
mechanism for maintaining individuals to be parents of future progeny despite
possessing relatively poorer objective values.
A genetic algorithm for a particular problem must have the following five
components:
21
Some of the basic terminology referred to GA is the following:
The fitness of an individual is a value that reflects its performance (i.e. how
well solves a certain task). A fitness function is a mapping of the
chromosomes (data structure that holds a “string” of task parameters or
genes, analogous to the base-4 chromosomes present in our DNA) in a
population to their corresponding fitness values. A fitness landscape is the
hyper-surface obtained by applying the fitness function to every point in the
search space.
Elitism is a mechanism which ensures that the chromosomes of the highly fit
member(s) of the population are passed on to the next generation without
being altered.
22
representing all possible solutions to the problem, is randomly generated.
Then a fitness function is applied to each one of these chromosomes in order
to measure the quality of the solution encoded. Knowing each chromosome‟s
fitness, a selection process takes place to choose the individuals that will be
parents of the following generation.
Some brief explanations are now follow for the algorithms that were utilized at
the present diploma thesis:
Exhaustive Search:
Sobol:
23
NSGA-II:
MOSA:
24
3. MULTI HULL SHIPS AND SWATH
3.1 Multi hull ships
The growing demand for more space on the decks has led to the development
and improvement of double hull vessels, which are used both as speedboats
and as sailboats. The most common type of double hull vessels is the
catamaran, which consists of two hulls that meet the requirements for
buoyancy and stability and are linked by a superstructure, which gives the
total usable volume of the catamaran. Each of the two hulls called demihull
and may be symmetrical, asymmetrical or even fully asymmetrical to the
centerline.
The main advantage of the catamaran is the large surface area of the deck,
which makes it suitable for the carriage of passengers and vehicles. Note that
a catamaran vessel with respect to a monogastric vessel shows the same
displacement on average about 30% more surface deck. Additional
advantage of the catamaran is a fact that the total width is much larger than
that of a single-hull vessel, which is a particularly important factor for
economic exploitation. Noteworthy also feature of catamaran is not only good
behavior to the roll but also sufficient stability, partly due to the appropriate
choice of the distance between the two hulls and the large moments of inertia
of the two hulls, which contribute to the stability of the vessel and to reduce
the accelerations which lead to roll. Finally, as an advantage of the catamaran
can be mentioned the relatively lower draft in relation with a single hull boat of
the same displacement. As a result can float in shallower seas and harbors as
well as more freedom in selecting main dimensions that can lead to slender
hulls with little resistance, which is not always possible in the design of single-
hull vessels because stability requirements must be met.
The catamaran used since the early 1970s.By early 1990s started to
manufactured longer catamarans from 70 to 100 meters, with modern
tendencies to push catamaran more than 110 meters long and displacement
of 2000 tons. In general, the construction of catamaran ships is more
complicated than the construction of single-hull ships but simpler to
manufacture other speedboats. As construction material steel is prevented
and aluminum is preferred to the greatest possible reduction of the
displacement which is necessary to achieve high speed. Finally, for
propulsion water jets are commonly used and Diesel for main engines.
25
3.2 General aspects of SWATH
The name Swath is an acronym that origins from the words: Small Waterplane
Area Twin Hull .
The main feature that is understood by its name is the small waterplane area
that is accomplished from the immersion of the most of the displacement
below the sea level. Swath vessels has a waterplane area diminished about
50% in relation to a catamaran. The specifity of the hull offers extremely good
behavior to the sea waves. This is their great advantage in relation to the
other techonogicaly advanced ships which are forced to decrease their speed
26
in rough seas. Swath keep both their speed and the convenience of the
passengers.
The slender hulls have little interaction with the sea. Not only they stimulate
relatively small waves ,but also stimulation from the sea waves is reduced.
That is why they have reduced wave resistance and excellent handling in
rough seas.
The small wave resistance is small price relative to the increased friction
resistance due to the large wetted surface of the submerged lower hulls. So
for the low speed region where the frictional resistance is dominating the
efficiency of the hull is moderate. Contrary at high speeds where the wave
resistance is generally the major component of resistance, the Swath stands
excellent from hydrodynamic side.
Moreover, the small production of waves enables you to pass close to shore
without creating security problems in humans and boats.
A big problem although is the pitch instability espacially at high speeds. The
pressure field induced to the surface of the vessel movement generates a
tendency for increased trim (monk moment-nose diving).The solution used
today and has eliminated the problem is the placement of stabilizing fins
which are clearly shown in Figure 1.
27
the commonly accepted limits for the comfort of passengers and crew. The
excessive decrease the water area plane has a number of unpleasant side
effects and problems such as lack of stability and high sensitivity changes in
weight and center of gravity.
The ship movement are caused by forces that the waves create on the struts.
These forces diminish with decreasing waterplane area of strut. With careful
selection of the waterplane area of strut is feasible to reset the vertical forces
due to wave to a narrow range of frequencies.
A decrease to the size of the strut (especially to the beam) has a result of
space deficiency for the placement of the engine room and a lack of adequate
opening for maintenance. Moreover the construction is more complex. .
Examination of above parameters puts the problem in perspective and
highlights the need for deep understanding of how the Swath hull reacts,
before the optimization process.
Another aspect that deserves particular study is the gap between the sea
level and the bottom of the cross structure connecting the hulls together.
Reducing the gap essentially eliminates the big advantage of SWATH to
maintain service speed even in rough seas. From the other side the existence
of a large gap translates to a great height car deck making it difficult to
disembark and embark passengers and vehicles.
28
3.4 Comparison of SWATH with conventional ships
Advantages of SWATH ships over conventional ships with the same payload
and relatively lower speed are as follows:
-The sensitivity to changes in the weight and the center of gravity and finally
All these suggests that the ship is not suitable for large loads transfer.
Moreover, a Swath construction is expected to be more expensive than a
conventional ship.
Swath ships are not a new invention, although are considered by most
modern ship types and incorporate many new technologies. Below is a brief
history of the invention and evolution of this type of ship:
29
1880 - 0 C.G. Lyidborg claims the patent for the first one-hull semi submerged
ship.
1938 - Appears for the first time the idea of a small-waterplane area twin huII
ship. The idea belongs to the Canadian Frederick G. Creed. Creed suggested
this type of ship as the most suitable aircraft carrier for the British navy. After
several years remade his proposal to the U.S. Navy but neither there was
echoed. In 1946 Creed enshrines his patent in Britain.
1959 - The U.S. Navy orients research on high-speed semi submerged ships.
In these investigations H. Boericke propose a one-hull ship called `shark
form'. In 1962 enshrines that invention.
30
1965 – Alan McClure from Houston suggests the ship “MOHOLE” for drilling
platform.
1967- Dr Reuven Leopold from Litton Industries suggests to the US Navy ths
craft “TRISEC”
1968 - The first low speed Swath “DUPLUS” from the shipyard Boele in
Holland. The ship has a length of 40m and 1200t displacement. This is a
research boat for finding oil. The designer J. J. Stenger was based on the
observation that the submarines operating in small depth are influenced very
little by the surface wave.
31
1968 - "A student of MIT suggests an optimized version of “MOHOLE” 'within
a course. Then some experiments are made in the university tank with the
model ship. He calls his vessel semi-submerged catamaran.
1968 - Dr. Tom Lang from Naval Underseas Center (NUC) of San Diego
evolves a design for “high speed with semi-submerged hulls”. Significant
development of the project is the addition of moving fins to stabilize the ship at
high speed. He puts the fins aft of thecenter of gravity of the vessel to control
trim and pitching.
1970 - Mitsui Engineering & Shipbuilding Co. from Tokuo initiates a research
to “semi submerged catamaran (SSC)”.
32
Figure 3.8 SSP KAIMALINO [3]
1979 - Shipyards Mitsui Engineering & Shipbuilding complete the world's first
Swath intended for commercial use. It is the passenger ships “SEAGULL” with
capacity of 446 passengers,at 26.5 knots speed.
33
Figure 3.9 LONG VICTORIUS [3]
1992 - Shipyards Finyards deliver the first Swath cruise ship, the “Radisson
Diamond” of “Diamond Cruise Ltd” company. The ship has a length of 131 m.
34
1993 - The existence of the world's first stealth ship is revealed. This is the
sea shadow A-frame Swath with 50m length. The ship belongs to the USA
and is manufactured by Lockheed Missiles and Aerospace Co.
It is estimated that currently around 50 Swath ships are traveling in the seas
around the world. Their sizes range from very small vessels with a
displacement of less than 100 t, to the largest Swath ever built, the cruise ship
Radisson Diamond built in Finland in 1992, with 11,500 t displacement and
131 m length. Most of Swath ships are built in the U.S. and serve research or
military purposes. The material most preferred in the manufacture of Swath is
aluminum. The diagram below shows the distribution of ships in number
compared to their displacement.
35
Figure 3.12 Size distribution of existing SWATH ships [3]
Occasionally extensive research has been done on these ships and have
recorded some very innovative designs that exploit the features and
advantages of this type of hull. These are some of them:
36
already. Moreover, the large deck space is necessary for scientific equipment
and research needs. The ship was launched in October 2003 .
37
AIiSWATH: Another revolutionary design effort of Swath ship is developed by
the famous Italian shipyard Rodriquez. Shipyards Rodriquez specialize in
designing high-speed passenger crafts and have a large and experienced
design department. In their effort to renew their proposals have turned to
Swath technology and have already come up with a design they call '
AIiSWATH '. 'AIiSWATH‟ designed to satisfy modern requirements such as
high service speed with low fuel consumption, little environmental pollution
and making reduced waves during the trip.
'AIiSWATH' with length of 70 m, will has less power than conventional vessels
in order to achieve the same speed. Reduced consumption is large
commercial advantage of this vessel especially in these times that fuel prices
vary in particularly high levels.
Moreover, the design focuses on reducing its output waves. This is a large
problem of high-speed ships and often become dangerous to the nearby
coast. There are many examples of speedboats which are required to reduce
speed when passing from the near shore due to the large making waves
which is dangerous for humans and small boats. Speed reduction moderates
the most important advantages of high speed ships, their speed.
38
Damen Royal Schelde yard: Two new passenger Swath manufactured in
Damen Royal Schelde yard. Manufacturer justifies the choice of SWATH
saying they are in his priorities seaworthiness and reliability of ships. Swath
ships renowned for their seaworthiness even in rough weather conditions
where other vessels cannot make it. For reliability purposes was chosen
diesel-electric propulsion that is also characterized by high flexibility. The ship
can travel satisfactory even in case of loss of one of the two diesel engines
that propel the main generators. The two vessels operate between Vlissingen
and Breskens and put into the sea in March 2004 .
39
HSSS 1500 – HSSS 900: These two Hybrid - semi SWATH serve routes
between Europe and England with great success. They offer extremely high
speeds, excellent behavior in waves and are the finest examples of
commercial application of SWATH.
Table 3.1 Characteristics of HSSS 1500- STENA EXPLORER and HSSS 900- STENA [3]
40
Finally we should also mention the highly successful and internationally
recognized Swath designs made in the past from the”ship‟s design” laboratory
of EMP. It is about the passenger „Aegean Queen‟, the research vessel
`SMURV ' and the speedboat containership ‟SMUCC'. Ships have the
following characteristics:
Table 3.2 Characteristics of Aegean Queen, SMUCC FEEDER and SMURV [3]
41
4. MICHLET
When a ship is moving through water there will be forces opposing the
motion. The total resistance, Rt, of a ship is defined as the force needed to
tow the ship at a constant speed and it can be divided into subcomponents in
different ways (Figure below).
One way is to divide it into skin friction resistance RFO, and residuary
resistance RR, which includes all components related to the three dimensional
form of the ship and wave-making resistance. It can also be divided according
to physical phenomena into viscous resistance, RV, and wave resistance, RW .
42
Further on, the viscous resistance consists of the frictional and pressure
component. So the elaborated subdivision looks as follow:
The total resistance of a ship can be divided into three main parts [10]:
wave resistance
frictional resistance
viscous pressure resistance
For each of the parts of the total resistance different effects are primarily
causative. Wave resistance depends on the lost energy due to the wave
production of the ship as a partially submerged body disturbing the free
surface of a fluid, thus waves are created due to water particles being
removed from their equilibrium position. Secondly, sheer stresses between
parts of the fluid with different velocities are the
reason for the frictional resistance. These sheer stresses occur in the area
close to the wall, within the boundary layer. Directly at the surface of the body,
or at a wall, the fluids velocity is equal to zero, but at the outer end of the
boundary layer the velocity is equal 99% of the undisturbed fluid velocity.
Viscous pressure resistance consists of effects like flow separation and
turbulence, which are mainly appearing in areas where the velocity of the fluid
is decreasing and therewith the thickness of the boundary layers is increasing.
Another way of putting this argument is that slender bodies are also thin. To a
certain extent, slender body theory is superfluous. Even where a body looks
more slender than thin, it is unlikely that (to leading order) modeling it by a
centre-line singularity achieves more than modeling it by a centre-plane
singularity.
Indeed, there are examples where one can prove that this is the case, and
wave resistance is one of them. Thus, for surface-piercing ships, Vossers
(1962) and I (Tuck 1963) derived the slender ship wave resistance formula
laboriously from first principles, but Maruo (1962) was able to show very
simply that it could be obtained from Michell's thin-ship formula by letting the
draft go to zero.
43
So why use slender body theory at all. This is a good question to which there
could be several answers. One is to dispute the evidence that thin ship theory
subsumes slender body theory. Since there is no exact formula for wave
resistance, one cannot say from the theoretical point of view which is the
better approximation. So the slender body result (even though it is an
“approximation” to the Michell result) could perhaps be more
accurate as an estimate of the true wave resistance. Many doubt this very
much. There are elements in the Michell theory (such as exponential decay
with depth) that are absent in the slender body theory, and it would be better if
would be present – although some people might assert the opposite. Anyway,
the evidence of comparison with experiment seems to favour Michell.
The thin and slender body theories only agree to leading order in slenderness.
If one expects to improve upon either theory by including second-order
contributions, there is a case for picking the more appropriate model, but
there have been very few attempts at second-order theories, and no
successes as far it is known. This is certainly irrelevant to the present review,
since nothing second order has been proposed for SWATHs, or should be.
MICHLET calculates the total (viscous + wave) resistance and far-field wave
elevations of thin monohulls and multihulls using the ship thin theory.
44
MICHLET is not an easy program for newcomers to hull design. A familiarity
with the first few chapters of an introductory Naval Architecture text would be
useful. There are several good WWW articles that might serve as sufficient
introduction.
There are many opportunities to waste a lot of computer time and human
effort with MICHLET. Incorrect specification of parameters in the input file
could result in completely useless output and it is imperative that users gain
familiarity with the input file and its nuances.
The co-ordinate system and hull parameters are shown in Figure 1.X is
positive astern, y is positive to starboard, and z is positive upwards. The
undisturbed water surface is the plane z = 0. Hull centre-planes are parallel to
the x-axis. The shapes of the hulls can be different from each other, however,
they are assumed to be symmetric with respect to their own centre-planes.
The overall vessel need not to be laterally symmetric.
45
Each hull has a nominal centre point (x = si, y = wi, z = 0). The centre of the
main hull, hull 1, is always located at the origin. The centre of all other hulls
are then measured relative to the main hull, i.e. to hull 1 s i is the longitudinal
separation distance of the ith hull measured relative to the first hull and is
defined as positive astern. Hence by definition, s1 = 0. Wi is the lateral
separation distance of the ith hull relative to the first hull (positive to starboard).
Hence by definition, w1 = 0. For example, in the arrangement shown in
Figure1, s2 has a negative value, and w2 is positive.For hull 3, s3 is negative
and w3 is positive.
46
editors. Please note that you cannot use word-processors (for example,
Word) to edit MICHLET input files, unless you force them to save files in
ASCII format.
There are many shareware graphics programs that can be used to view pcx
files and to convert them to other graphic formats if necessary.
When MICHLET is run, it reads in a file named in.mlt and clears all output files
in the directory where the MICHLET executable files reside. If you do not save
previous output, old results will be overwritten and lost.
in.mlt
Initial input to MICHLET is via the plain text file called in.mlt.
At this stage, it is probably a good idea to have an example in.mlt file loaded
into your text editor, or to have a printout of one handy.
Comments can be placed in the file by preceding them with the # symbol,
which should appear in the first column of the line. Comments should be no
longer than 79 characters, and should not be placed within a column of
numbers.
.
If errors are encountered while the in.mlt file is being read, a message will be
displayed on-screen and also written to the out.mlt file before the program
terminates. Tracking down errors in the in.mlt file can be a little tricky.
Sometimes an error in one input line will cause an error to be reported for a
line further on in the in.mlt file. If an error is encountered, and no immediate
reason for the error can be discerned, check a few lines back in the file to see
if something was improperly specified.
At this point it is necessary to make clear that this section was taken again
verbatim from the Michlet manual.
The Input File Type and Input File Subtype are used to control the types of
input file that can be used. Similarly, Output File Type and Output File
Subtype are used to control the types of output files that are generated.
Course Particulars
The Course Particulars parameter is reserved for future enhancements.
Number of Vessels
The number of hulls for the vessel or ensemble must be an integer equal to 1,
2, 3, 4 or 5.
47
Fluid Properties
The gravitational acceleration (in ms-2) should be entered as a decimal. Most
MICHLET examples use a value of g = 9.80665 ms-2.
Water density (in kgm-3) must be entered as a decimal. Most example files
use a value of 1025.9 kgm-3, the density of sea water at 15o, or 999.0 kgm-3,
the density of fresh water at 15o. Water kinematic viscosity (in m2s-1 x 10-6)
must be entered as a decimal. Most example files use a value of 1.18831 (sea
water at 15o), or 1.13902 (fresh water at 15o ). Note the units that are used.
The (non-dimensional) base eddy kinematic viscosity, vB, must be entered as
a decimal. Most example files use a value of 10.0. This quantity, which is not
a property of water alone, depends on the nature of a particular flow.
The main effect of eddy viscosity is to damp high frequency waves. However,
if a wave pattern seems to be corrupted by spurious, very high frequency
waves, it could be because the value for Nθ is too small. First try increasing
the value of Nθ then, if that doesn't fix the problem (and if it is actually
a problem) increase the size of the base eddy viscosity.
The eddy kinematic viscosity, vT , is calculated according to the formula:
vT = v + LUvB (1)
where L is the length of the vessel, U is the ship speed, and v is the kinematic
viscosity of water.
Water depth (in metres) must be entered as a decimal. To simulate infinite
depth use a large value (e.g. 10000.0m). You must ensure that hulls (in their
squatted attitudes) do not run aground.The next four parameters are not used
in any calculations in this version, however the program expects appropriate
values to be present.
Air density (in kgm-3) must be entered as a decimal. Most example files use a
value of 1.26 kgm-3. Air kinematic viscosity (in m2s-1 x 10-6) must be entered
as a decimal. Most example files use a value of 14.4.
Wind speed (in ms-1) must be entered as a decimal.
Wind direction (degrees) must be entered as a decimal. The convention is
that 0o corresponds to a head wind; 180o signifies a tail wind.
Leeway
The Leeway parameter is reserved for future enhancements.
48
waterlines, Nz, must be an odd integer greater than or equal to 5 and less
than or equal to 81. The actual bow and stern ends are counted as stations.
Where TOA is the maximum draft, and LOA is the overall length of the ship.
For monohulls TOA and LOA are just the draft and length of the hull,
respectively. If you are unsure of where the centre of gravity is located for
your vessel, a reasonable rough estimate is the maximum draft. In this case,
use the following line in the input file : 1.0,0.0,0.0
Remember to take into account the fact that you have used a rough estimate
when interpreting your results.
49
-160 is input, this will cause MICHLET to use 160 intervals of θ in all wave
calculations and the boundary layer displacement thickness will not be added
to the hull offsets.
Viscous Resistance
Skin-friction
Form factors
Form factors can be applied separately to the viscous drag component and to
the wave drag component.
Choices for the viscous form factor method are:
0 : None
3 : Dual
The viscous drag form factor can be useful for analyzing (and designing for)
the effects of hull fouling. For example, if we assume (by rule of thumb) that
there is a 0.1% increase in friction resistance per day, then after 6 months we
should make an allowance of approximately 18% beyond the usual ITTC
friction. In this case, use a value of 1.18 for the viscous form factor.
It is important to note that the ITTC line is not a skin friction line. The ITTC line
is considered to be a correlation line and as such it contains some allowance
for three dimensional (i.e. form) effects. If further form effects are
included, there is a danger of double-counting. In some cases, (e.g.
correlating experiments and computer estimates) this will not necessarily be a
problem. The dual viscous drag form factor can be used when you want to
apply a form factor to the wave resistance as well as to the skin-friction.
50
In Figure 2, the co-ordinate origin is at the centre of Hull 1 (refer back to
Figure 1). The sectorial patch on the left of Figure 9 requires five parameters.
R0 and R1 (both decimals greater than 0.0) determine the (radial) extent of
the wave elevation patch. The value of β determines the angular
extent of the patch either side of the track of hull 1. The number of radial
nodes, NR and the number of beta nodes, Nβ, (both integers between 2 and
200, inclusive) determine the fineness of the grid for the calculation of wave
elevations. A value of 100 for both parameters gives reasonable results for
reasonable running times.
It does not matter whether the offsets describing each hull are in dimensional
or non-dimensional form. MICHLET will automatically scale the offsets to the
individual hull displacements. It is very important to note that all hull offsets
input to MICHLET, or output by MICHLET, are for the underwater portion of
the hull only. You can, however, specify a value for the sinkage to raise or
lower
the hull with respect to the undisturbed free surface.
All offsets at the bow (the first row) must be equal to zero (decimal). Stern
offsets (the last row) may all be zero (no transom) or some non-zero if there is
a transom stern of a shape determined by the non-zero offsets. The number
of rows (cross-sections) and columns (waterlines) in the offset data must be
the same as the number of stations and waterlines specified earlier. Offsets
are separated by commas, and there is no comma at the end of each row.
Hull offsets in comma-separated format can also be read from file. For
example, if the input line for the first hull contains only the value -1, then
MICHLET will read offsets from the file useroff1.csv. If the offset input line for
51
the second hull was specified in the same way, MICHLET would read offsets
from the file useroff2.csv. Similarly for hulls 3, 4 and 5.
Hull Geometry
Loading type
The Loading Type determines the formula to be used in the calculation of the
distance from the baseline to the centre of gravity. The method to be used is
identical to that used for the Ship Loading Type. Here though, the loading
applies to the hulls individually. For a multihull, the individual hulls can be
loaded using one formula, and the KG of the ensemble as a whole can be
calculated using another formula. This can lead to interesting results during
the optimization of multi-hulls.
Appendages
The Number of Appendages should be left as 0 in the present version of
MICHLET.
Other Particulars
The Other Particulars field is reserved for special applications and should be
left as 0 in this version of MICHLET.
Multihull Geometry
If the number of hulls was set as 1 earlier in the in.mlt file, any further lines in
the input file will not be read. If the number of hulls is 2 or more, then the
details of the second hull, and the displacement volume, hull length, and hull
draft, etc of the second hull are also required. Similarly, for the third, fourth
and fifth hulls.
52
5. CASE STUDY – DESIGN AND OPTIMIZATION OF AQ3
5.1 DESIGN OF AQ3
5.1.1 Parametric model design
GONDOLA
The first part was the gondola. Gondola is the lower hull of the ship that holds
most of the displacement and it is fully submerged under the free surface of
the sea. It is assumed that the vessel has a standard form with the following
characteristics:
-Lower hulls are of circular cross section.
-Lower hulls consist of ellipsoidal nose, parallel midbody and parabolic tail
whose lengths can be varied.
-Lower hull axis are horizontal parallel and symmetric to the centerplane.
53
Figure 5.1 Gondola
STRUT
The second part is the strut. This connects gondola with the deck. Struts must
be hydrodynamic optimized so that the wave resistance must be as less as
possible. Again some assumptions must be made and they are as follows:
-Struts lie in vertical planes , single strut per hull concept.
-Strut profiles parabolic nose ,parallel midbody and parabolic tail. Their
lengths can be varied but in a standard rate of gondolas lengths.
54
BOX
The third part is the box. It is the deck of the vessel where passengers are
accommodated. It was not studied in depth because it does not offer to the
hydrodynamic resistance of the ship, therefore it was not optimized and
design only for aesthetic purposes.
55
So this was the initial (conventional as referred above) model. With that model
we could make a global optimization. But it was missing a serious parameter
that was not included so that we could not address a local form optimization.
A parameter that could express the displacement distribution. That was the
reason that the previous model was not sufficient. So a new model had to be
created that could include this parameter. In order to include the
aforementioned parameter feature programming was a must. FRIENDSHIP
FRAMEWORK has a kind of surface that called metasurface. This is created
by a section and a guide curve. Firstly the section is created then the curve
and finally the metasurface is created as the section is guided by the guide
curve. With this way we do not have a parallel midbody as we mentioned
before and we have a curve that when we change it, the displacement
distribution can be varied. The name of the last parameter is radmid and we
include it at optimization.
56
Figure 5.4 Model without a parallel midbody
In this point we have to mention that from the above parameters we have to
remove Rad from independent and to make it dependent. This is because
when of one or more parameters varies, the displacement changes. But we
need a constant displacement of 1000t. So we have to express the volume
analytically and find the Rad that leads to the desired displacement. This
procedure must be done automatically when any of the parameters changes ,
so a algorithm is created within the FRIENDSHIP FRAMEWORK to do this
job.
As for the Draft parameter in order to validate the results of Aegean Queen
we had to keep it constant too at 5m. The only constrain was the following:
At the operation of the vessel displacement changes are expected to be
made. To be at the safe side an extreme case was considered so that if we do
not face problems at it we will be confident that no problems should be turn
up. So a 10 percent change to the initial displacement was considered and
the draft was checked. With the Awl existed there was no problem at the draft
that lied above 4m.
57
5.1.3 FINAL PARAMETERS
After all the above again on the basis of these geometrical characteristics the
wetted part of the swath part can be described in the terms of the following
parameters:
In the case of this diploma thesis, the definition “optimization model” implies a
whole system that is built up by several subsystems in order to approach the
design of a novel Swath in a holistic way. The target of this holistic approach
is to create a fully parametric model able to vary in a wide range of
dimensions and form parameters and to return a large number of valuable
information predicting numerous features and properties of the subject.
Further on an optimization process takes place in several steps based on the
collected data, obtained from a large number of design variants.
58
5.3 HYDROSTATICS
One of the main steps is the hydrostatics calculation. The calculation of the
hydrostatic quantities of every design is realized within the
FRIENDSHIP-FRAMEWORK based on an embedded computation for a given
configuration. The configuration receives as input the hull in form of offset
groups through a mechanism of automated adaption. Usually 3-4 offset-
groups are included regarding the complexity of the design. In our case only
one offset group was enough since the geometry is not so complex. But the
density of the offsets was changed regarding the complexity of its parts along
the vessel . Additionally, the sinkage and heel of the vessel are required input
as well. In this case no heel is considered.
59
Figure 5.5 Sections of single hull
60
Figure 5.7 SAC
After the parametric model was created and the hydrostatics configuration
and computation were embedded, a resistance code had to be inserted in
order retrieve evaluations. So MICHLET coupling had to be accomplished.
61
Figure 5.8 Connector
62
After the integration was achieved the input files were connected to the
parameters and the output files with the evaluations in order to automate the
procedure. The last step after all these was to give the geometry to MICHLET.
Back again to feature programming an algorithm was needed to be created
and to extract the geometry from FRIENDSHIP, whenever a little change is
made, to the MICHLET input files.
At the very beginning, the design engine called, Exhaustive search is used.
This is an algorithm used in designs of experiments, where objectives are only
evaluated. This method of identification of the problem is used only at the
early stage.
Later, in order to gain a better insight into the design space and obtain a
reasonable subsequent optimization, a design of experiment is set with a
SOBOL Design Engine, embedded in FRIENDSHIP FRAMEWORK.
63
The main objectives that are monitored and optimized during the optimization
procedure reflect clearly the scope of this project. The holistic design
approach is implemented to this design problem with the following objectives:
For practical reasons Bstr should be less than 1.6 m (and for easier
success of the constrain above)
Draft=5 m (constant)
64
5.5.1 DESIGN OF EXPERIMENT (DOE)
As referred and above the optimization initiated with a design engine called
“exhaustive search”. This engine just asks two things. The first one is the
range of the parameters and the second the subdivisions. The subdivision is a
number that defines how many equal spacings the range of the parameter will
have. So this is the number of models that are created.
After that the “Sobol” design engine was called. Firstly with “Sobol” a
verification of the results of “exhaustive search” was performed. After that a
deeper investigation of the design space was made. So the tendency of every
single parameter was understood in detail.
65
Here is presented the trend of every parameter for the low and the high
speed:
R15,5Kn-Radmid
200
190
180
170
160
Rt(KN)
150
140
130
120
110
100
0,5 0,6 0,7 0,8 0,9 1 1,1 1,2 1,3 1,4
Radmid value(non dimentional)
Graph 1 Rt-Radmid
R31Kn-Radmid
660
655
650
645
Rt(KN)
640
635
630
625
620
0,5 0,6 0,7 0,8 0,9 1 1,1 1,2 1,3 1,4
Radmid value(non dimentional)
Graph 2 Rt-Radmid
It is obvious that for the low speed an increase at radmid decreases the total
resistance. For the high speed the converse it is happening.
66
Bstrut= Strut beam
Bstr-R15,5Kn
155
150
145
Rt(KN)
140
135
130
125
1 1,2 1,4 1,6 1,8 2 2,2 2,4 2,6
Bstr Value(m)
Graph 3 Rt-Bstr
Bstr-R31Kn
680
670
660
650
Rt(KN)
640
630
620
610
1 1,2 1,4 1,6 1,8 2 2,2 2,4 2,6
Bstr Value(m)
Graph 4 Rt-Bstr
Here it is clear for both speeds that an increase to Bstr increases the total
resistance.
67
Latsep= half distance between lower hulls
R15,5Kn-latsep
200
190
180
170
160
Rt(KN)
150
140
130
120
110
100
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Latsep value(m)
Graph 5 Rt-Latsep
R31Kn-Latsep
750
700
650
Rt(KN)
600
550
500
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Latsep value(m)
Graph 6 Rt-Latsep
About Latsep we can notice the following:For the low speed and within the
given logical range we see a total minimum that is about at 5m. So the
optimum distance between lower hulls is about 10m .
For the high speed there is no minimum but the total resistance decreases
with an increase at Latsep. The point is that we cannot push this parameter a
lot because structural problems will turn up.
68
Lengthgondola= lower hull length
R15,5Kn-Lgon
220
200
180
Rt(KN)
160
140
120
100
40 42 44 46 48 50 52 54 56
Lgon value (m)
Graph 7 Rt-Lgon
R31Kn-Lgon
740
720
700
Rt(KN)
680
660
640
620
600
40 42 44 46 48 50 52 54 56
Lgon value (m)
Graph 8 Rt-Lgon
Here we observe for the low speed that there are some local minimum and a
total minimum for least total resistance that is about at parameter value 46 m.
Now for the high speed beyond some irregularities at 44 m an increase at
Lengthgondola (essentially at its parallel body) decreases the total resistance.
69
Lgn=lower hull nose length
R15,5Kn-Lgn
160
155
150
145
Rt(KN)
140
135
130
125
3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
Lgn value (m)
Graph 9 Rt-Lgn
R31Kn-Lgn
654
652
650
648
646
Rt(KN)
644
642
640
638
636
634
632
3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
Lgn value (m)
Graph 10 Rt-Lgn
About Lgn we can notice that generally in low speed as we increase the
parameter value total resistance decreases. On the contrary at the high speed
the opposite is happening so an increase at Lgn increases the total
resistance.
70
Lgt= lower hull tail length
R15,5Kn-Lgt
190
180
170
160
Rt(KN)
150
140
130
120
110
100
4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Lgt value (m)
Graph 11 Rt-Lgt
R31Kn-Lgt
644
642
640
638
Rt(KN)
636
634
632
630
628
626
4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Lgt value(m)
Graph 12 Rt-Lgt
Here as for Lgt the results are almost the same with the previous one
(Lgn).Apart from some little irregularities, at low speed an increase to
the Lgt decreases the total resistance. On the contrary at the high
speed the opposite is happening again.
71
Lstr_n=strut nose length
R15,5Kn-Lstr_n
142,5
142
141,5
141
140,5
Rt(KN)
140
139,5
139
138,5
138
137,5
137
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Lstr_n value (m)
Graph 13 Rt-Lstr_n
R31Kn-Lstr_n
644
643
642
Rt(KN)
641
640
639
638
637
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Lstr_n value (m)
Graph 14 Rt-Lstr_n
72
Lstr_t=strut tail length
R15,5Kn-Lstr_t
144
142
140
Rt(KN)
138
136
134
132
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Lstr_t value (m)
Graph 15 Rt-Lstr_t
R31Kn-Lstr_t
644
642
640
Rt(KN)
638
636
634
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Lstr_t value (m)
Graph 16 Rt-Lstr_t
Lastly Lstr_t tends to decrease for least total resistance for low speed.
About the high speed a total maximum seems to be created at from 3 to 5 m
so this area should be avoided. But again as Lstr_n the response to the total
resistance is least . That is the reason which other factors may overpass this
restricted area. As mentioned earlier we need a clean flow at the propeller so
Lstr_t must be a rate of Lgt (about 30-60%)
73
5.5.2 MULTI OBJECTIVE OPTIMIZATION-GENETIC ALGORITHMS
74
Evaluation of the results. (NSGA II).
The range of the parameters and the objectives are listed below:
75
Table 2 Boundaries of parameter and evaluations (NSGA-II)
The following diagram depict the scatter of the objectives.It is shown that the
best compromises have been achieved since the Pareto-Frontier is apparent.
240
220
200
180
R15,5(KN)
160
140
120
100
500 520 540 560 580 600 620 640 660 680 700
R31(KN)
76
It should be mentioned here that the non-feasible designs were excluded from
the above diagram. In every diagram, the reference design is not close to the
Pareto-Frontier in terms of the objectives. That proves the fact that there was
a merit, and that the genetic algorithm has completed its task successfully.
Therefore it can be assumed that the NSGA II found the best compromises for
the two objectives.
The range of the parameters and the objectives are listed below:
77
Table 3 Boundaries of parameter and evaluations (MOSA)
The following diagram depict the scatter of the objectives .It is shown that the
best compromises have been achieved since the Pareto-Frontier is apparent.
240
220
200
R15,5(KN)
180
160
140
120
100
500 520 540 560 580 600 620 640
R31(KN)
78
It should be mentioned here that the non-feasible designs were excluded from
the above diagram. In every diagram, the reference design is not close to the
Pareto-Frontier in terms of the objectives. That proves the fact that there was
a merit, and that the genetic algorithm has completed its task successfully.
Therefore it can be assumed that the MOSA found the best compromises for
the two objectives.
1,05
1
0,95
R15,5(non-dimensional)
0,9
0,85
0,8
0,75
0,7
0,65
0,6
0,55
0,8 0,85 0,9 0,95 1 1,05
R31(non-dimensional)
79
1
R15,5(non-dimensional) 0,9
0,8
0,7
0,6
0,5
0,4
0,8 0,85 0,9 0,95 1
R31(non-dimensional)
240
220
200
R15,5(KN)
180
160
140
120
100
500 550 600 650 700
R31(KN)
80
5.6 Best Designs
Regarding with the objective function we chose three best designs that have
already been shown in the above diagrams (NSGA II).
The first one is based 80% at the low speed and 20% at the high speed.
The second one is based 50% at the low speed and 50% at the high speed.
These two coincides to be the same design and is as follows:
Table 4 Parameter and evaluation values of mostly R155 and best equal (NSGA-II)
81
Figure 5.10 Best design for low (and equal) speed (NSGA-II)
The third one is based 20% at the low speed and 80% at the high speed and
is as follows:
82
Table 5 Parameter and evaluation values of mostly R31 (NSGA-II)
83
Regarding with the objective function we chose three best designs that have
already been shown in the above diagrams (MOSA).
The first one is based again 80% at the low speed and 20% at the high speed
and is as follows:
84
Figure 5.12 Best design for low speed(MOSA)
The second one is based again 20% at the low speed and 80% at the high
speed and is as follows:
85
Figure 5.13 Best design for high speed(MOSA)
The third one is based again 50% at the low speed and 50% at the high
speed and is as follows:
86
Table 8 Parameter and evaluation values of best equal (MOSA)
87
5.7 VALIDATING RESULTS WITH SHIPFLOW
Taking into account that the MICHLET is a very fast code that calculates the
total resistance within seconds for a range of speeds , a validation of the
results was needed to be fulfilled. So SHIPFLOW had to be introduced. There
is no need to run again optimization with SHIPFLOW as this would take a lot
of time and computational power. That was the reason that was decided to
extract the best designs from FRIENDSHIP FRAMEWORK, alternate to a
form that is understood by SHIPFLOW and run them again to check the
results. At this point we should state that this was not an easy job as the best
designs refer to a particular speed. So the CFD code had difficulties in giving
objective results for the range of speed needed. For example the best design
for the low speed had very good results for speed of 15,5Kn but also gave us
poor results for the speed of 31Kn.
Here are presented the results of the SHIPFLOW for each of the five best
designs from MOSA(the three presented above, the best for the low speed
and the best for the high speed). At each of the best designs some
intermediate speeds were also calculated in order to create a typical
resistance curve (at least for a small range of speeds).
88
Best R155
Rt-V(Kn)Shipflow
Rt-V Michlet-R15,5
MichletR31
700
600
500
400
Rt(KN)
300
200
100
0
14 19 24 29
V(Kn)
For the best design at the speed of 15,5 Kn we can notice that there is a
convergence to the codes at this speed but as it raises divergence is
inevitable. That is why at the high speed SHIPFLOW did not converged to
a Cw it created high waves and the iterations stopped by the program
itself.
89
BestR155(mostly)
Rt-V(Kn)Shipflow
Rt-V Michlet-R15,5
MichletR31
600
500
400
Rt(KN)
300
200
100
0
14 19 24 29
V(Kn)
Here we can see exactly what was mentioned to the previous design but
obviously to a greater scale. Again convergence at the low speed and
divergence at the high one. The reasons still the same.
90
Best equal
Rt-V(Kn)Shipflow
Rt-V Michlet-R15,5
MichletR31
600
500
400
Rt(KN)
300
200
100
0
14 19 24 29
V(Kn)
At the best design for both speeds the above phenomenon is starting to
moderate. For example at the high speed SHIPFLOW ran more iterations for
the previous designs. Again we cannot extract safe results but at least we
have something to base on.
91
BestR31(mostly)
Rt-V(Kn)Shipflow
Rt-V Michlet-R15,5
MichletR31
600
500
400
Rt(KN)
300
200
100
0
14 19 24 29
V(Kn)
Graph 22: Rt –V (Shipflow)
92
Best R31
Rt-V(Kn)Shipflow
Rt –V Michlet-R15,5
MichletR31
600
500
400
Rt(KN)
300
200
100
0
14 19 24 29
V(Kn)
At the best design for the high speed we can observe that SHIPFLOW
diverged at slow speed(stopped by iterations) but converged at the high
speed( the reverse phenomenon for the first two designs)
The last but not least that has to be mentioned is that indeed there is a
deviation regarding to the two programs. Happily this deviation is smaller
where the SHIPFLOW converged and greater where it diverged. Something
that makes perfect sense. Unfortunately as we already said SHIPFLOW
underestimate the total resistance( hence the wave resistance, as the friction
is calculated by ITTC and is the same for both programs). This cannot be
explained at the boundaries of this diploma thesis but the answer may lies at
the code of each program itself or at the nature of the problem proposed
(Swath is a special kind of ship)
93
5.8 SINGLE OBJECTIVE OPTIMIZATION
94
It is obvious that if we guide the parameters at their optimal values the results
we take are far more than satisfying. Here we can see that the total resistance
for the best design for the slow speed can be reduced even more and catch a
value up to 88KN. So if we decide that the we finally run at the speed of
15,5Kn we then have ready our optimized Swath
Now if we change our minds and switch at the high speed the results are
again very promising, as the total resistance can be reduced at 503KN:
95
5.9 Comparison of AQ3 with AQ
Since this diploma thesis started with the data of the Passenger Ferry Aegean
Queen (AQ, [13]), a comparison of the herein obtained resistance results
should be made with those of AQ. So from the resistance curve of AQ the
total resistance was found for two significant speeds. All results are compared
at the following table:
Table 11 compares the total resistance data of AQ( test results and numerical
predictions) with the total resistance data of AQ3 ( the best five designs as
resulted from the optimization and presented at an earlier part of this diploma
thesis) . As explained before:
Best R155 is the best design for the low speed ,
Mostly R155 is the best design for mostly the low speed,
Best equal is the best design for both speeds,
Mostly R31 is the best design for mostly the high speed,
Best R31 is the best design for the high speed.
From table 11 it is obvious that the models proposed here are much more
efficient than AQ.
In this comparison however some important factors should be mentioned:
96
6. Conclusions
The preliminary design phase of Swath has been realized, utilizing parametric
modeling tools in the FRAMEWORK of simulation-driven design.
The core of this method is found in the fully parametric model, which is
applicable to a wide range of global dimensions and local characteristics,
retaining its fairness of shape and feasibility of its properties. It is generated
using the tight coupling of the computer aided engineering tool FRIENDSHIP-
FRAMEWORK, and the computer workbench MICHLET, (and the flow solver
SHIPLFLOW).
Since the designer has developed all the subsystems and has carefully
examined the interaction and dependencies that occur between the different
factors, an extensive parametric variation study was undertaken in order to
explore the feasible boundaries of a multi-dimensional design space. The final
stage of multi-objective optimization, led by two Genetic Algorithms provided
many favourable designs with rather competitive characteristics compared to
existing ships of the same type and range, and other conceptual designs.
Regarding the investigated design concept, it was shown, that a special type
of ship , a Swath, that is fully unconventional and without a parallel midbody
has advantageous characteristics regarding powering demands from all
aspects as shown above.
The greater advantage of all this coupling is time. There are so many design-
optimization packages most of them trying to achieve as much precision as
possible. The concept of this thesis is not precision but time. After the design
process it can give the first results within hours without any special computer
powering.
97
Development and application of a robust and very fast global
optimization method for Swath design.
Adoption of the method within one program (FRIENDSHIP
FRAMEWORK) that is used for the geometrical modeling, simulation
and optimization, using only MICHLET as an external software.
Analysis of design variables sensitivities and use of them as design
directives for a quick dimensioning during the preliminary design.
Initial, global optimization of a Swath using the MOSA and NSGAII
algorithm.
Promising results of Swath design
Still, there are many unexplored regions. In order to achieve a greater degree
of holism and improve the decision making process at the preliminary phase,
more aspects of the ship design problem have to be integrated in the
automated optimization process.
It seems that the multi-discipline task of ship design enters a new era, where
the naval architect and the designer will have to embrace a totally new
perspective. Parametric modeling and simulation-driven design have the
potential to change radically the traditional way of thinking and acting in
marine industry.
Finally some future perspectives are presented below for further work:
Taking into consideration all these more work can be done when
focusing more at the design process including all hydrostatic
characteristics ,stability and damage stability and so on.
Designing and optimizing the structural part of the vessel for least
weight , better moments of inertia etc.
Exploring the seakeeping characteristics especially at high speeds and
rough seas, utilizing stabilizing fins.
Economic and technical study with statistical data and risks
assessments, adjusting the inner space in order to maximize the
capacity of passengers and cars.
Searching for a special type of propeller with better efficiency, studying
simultaneously the wake around it.
Converting the Swath to Slice and comparing the two types.
Getting away from the conventional catamaran- Swath design and
keeping this special hull form for more hulls so that wave resistance
for some of the hulls can be greatly diminish.
98
7. REFERENCES
2. Boulougouris, E., Papanikolaou, A., “Preliminary Design of a SWATH Corvette for Operations in the
Littoral Environment”, Proc. Int. Symposium WARSHIP 2001 on Future Surface Warships, RINA,
London, June 2001.
4. Deb, K.: “A Fast and Elitist Multiobjective Genetic Algorithm: NSGA-II, IEEE transactions on
evolutionary computation”, vol. 6, no.2, April 2002
5. Tuck E. O. and Lazauskas L. “Optimum hull spacing of a family of multihulls.” University of Adelaide ,
1998
6. Tuck E.O. “Wave Resistance of Thin Ships and Catamarans” University of Adelaide , 1997
9. Herbert J.Koelman: “Computer Support for Design, Engineering and Prototyping of the Shape
of Ship Hulls.” 1999
10. http://thesis.library.caltech.edu/1151/1/Wilson_mb_1971.pdf
11. http://www.boatdesign.net/forums
12. http://www.cyberiad.net/leo.htm
13. http://www.friendship-systems.com/forum/
14. http://www.naval-architecture.co.uk
17. Nikolopoulos L. “A holistic methodology for the optimization of tanker design and operation and
its applications.” , National Technical University of Athens , 2012
18. Pallas G. “Απιθμηηικη και πειπαμαηικη διεπεςνηζη ανηιζηαζηρ και ςτοςρ κςμαηορ διγαζηπος
ζκαθοςρ συπιρ βολβo.” , National Technical University of Athens , 2013
19. Papanikolaou A. , “Μελέηη Πλοίος, Μεθοδολογίερ Ππομελέηηρ”, Σεύσορ 1,Εκδ. ςμεών, 2009
20. Papanikolaou, Α. , Zaraphonitis, G., Androulakakis, Μ., "Hydrodynamic Aspects and Conceptual
Design of SWATH vessels", Final Report to the Greek Secr. General for Res. and Tech.,ΠΡΟΠΕ 86Γ924,
NTUA, March 1990 (Greece).
99
21. Papanikolaou, Α. D., Bouliaris, Ν., Koskinas, C., Pigounakis, Κ., "Conceptual Design and
Hydrodynamic Analysis of SMUCC - SWATH Multipurpose Container Carrier for Short Sea
Shipping", Proc. 3rd Int. Conf. on Fast Sea Transportation, FAST' 95, Sept.1995, Travemuende
(Germany).
23. Papanikolaou, Α., "EU409 EUROMAR Project : SMURV-SWATH Multipurpose Research Vessel
for the Mediterranean Area", NTUA-EU409 3rd Report, Athens, February 1992, (Greece).
26. Papanikolaou, Α., Atlar, Μ., Khattab, Ο., "Hydrodynamic Analysis and Design of a SWATH
Multipurpose Research Vessel", Proc. 2nd Int. Conf. on Fast Sea Transportation FAST'93,
Yokohama, December 1993 (Japan).
27. Papanikolaou, Α., Nowacki, Η. et al., "Concept Design and Optimization of α SWATH
Passenger/Car Ferry", Proc. IMAS-89 Int. Conf. on Applications of New Technology in Shipping,
Athens, May 1989, (United Kingdom).
28. Papanikolaou, Α., Zaraphonitis, G., Androulakakis, Μ., "Preliminary Design of a High-Speed
SWATH Passenger Car/ Ferry", Journal Marine Technology, SNAME, Vol. 28, Νο. 3, ππ.129-141,
May 1991 (USA).
29. Papanikolaou, Α., Zaraphonitis, G., Koskinas, C., Sawas, Ι., "Stability of a SWATH car/ ferry in
calm water and in waves", Proc. STAB '90 Conf., Naples, Sept.1990 (Italy).
30. Rizos H. , “Mελεηη ε/γ- ο/γ SWATH για ηην ελληνικη ακηοπλοια” , National Technical University
of Athens , 2005
31. Skoupas S. “Αναπηςξη μεθοδολογιαρ για ηην μελεηη και ζσεδιαζη – βεληιζηοποιηζη επιβαηηγυν –
οσημαηαγυγυν πλοιυν νεαρ ηεσνολογιαρ.” , National Technical University of Athens , 2011
100
APPENDICES
APPENDIX A - TriSwath
The name of the three-hull designed is TriSwath and the geometry is the
same as the Swath designed at this diploma thesis but scaled by a factor of
0.66 in order to keep the displacement fixed at 1000t. The formation of the
vessel is like an arrow and the placement of the individual hulls is as follows:
101
Attribute Active Active
Name lat_sep long_sep eval_R155_tri eval_R31_tri
Scope |parameters |parameters
Reference
Lower Bound 3.15625 10.3125 155.25453 593.13305
Upper Bound 12.84375 29.6875 480.06862 947.44427
As we can see it is close to the best optimized values from AQ3. And this
without a form optimization. Moreover it must not be forgotten that obviously
the wetted surface is more than AQ3 something that means increased friction
resistance. But the most interesting and promising at the same time is that the
speeds we assumed is a random(the same as AQ3). At these exact speed the
resistance curve does not present a local minimum(unlikely it is near a local
maximum). So if a it is about to create a new model and we have the right to
adjust the speed we need to run the results are awesome.
The resistance curve is as follows (from a random model of the Sobol results):
Graph A.1
102
Finally the trends of the longitudinal and lateral separation are presented:
Graph A.2
The trend of the lateral separation here is not so obvious although as the
parameter increases the Rt for 15,5Kn is stabilizing.
Graph A.3
It is obvious at the diagram that the least Rt for 15,5Kn is for parameter value
of 17-21m
103
Graph A.4
The lateral separation for the high speed seems to be almost the same with
the low speed. Just the scatter extends to a lesser degree. Agan the trend is
not so obvious.
Graph A.5
Not the same with the low speed , although Rt at 31 Kn seems to decrease at
the greater values of the longitudinal separation.
104
APPENDIX B - DiamondSwath
The aim of this annex is again to optimize the placement of individual hulls in
a multihull configuration, in order to minimize wavemaking. No attempt is
made here to optimize the shape of individual hulls. For a general multihull
vessel, these are coupled tasks, but we consider here only a special case
where they are uncoupled.
The name of the tetra-hull designed is DiamondSwath and the geometry is the
same as the Swath designed at this diploma thesis but scaled by a factor of
0.5 in order to keep the displacement fixed at 1000t. The formation of the
vessel is like an diamond configuration while all hulls are identical. The
placement of the individual hulls is as follows:
105
Attribute Active Active
Name lat_sep long_sep eval_R18 eval_R31
Scope |parameters |parameters
Reference
Lower Bound 3.1875 10.78125 136.20971 525.27443
Upper Bound 14.4375 34.609375 808.48636 1012.3346
The results here seems to be more promising as the total resistance was
reduced even more (without a form optimization). And it is easily understood
that the friction resistance is far more greater. But now indeed we are to local
minimum of the resistance curve (as stated below). Anyway the evaluations
can also be diminished more.
Graph B.1
106
Graph B.2
Graph B.3
107
Graph B.4
The trend here is not so obvious but some good designs and their values give
a hint.
Again without being obvious the least total resistance for the speed of 31 Kn
seems to be at very low or very high longitudinal separation values.
Graph B.5
108