Advertisement

CAESES—The HOLISHIP Platform for Process Integration and Design Optimization

  • Stefan HarriesEmail author
  • Claus Abt
Chapter

Abstract

This chapter focuses on the approach taken within the European R&D project HOLISHIP to flexibly integrate and utilize software tools and systems of tools for the design, analysis, and optimization of maritime assets, primarily of ships. The tools and systems come from different developers, companies, and research institutes and, consequently, have been mostly used as stand-alone applications. The purpose of integration is to create (software) synthesis models that comprise many, if not all, key aspects that ought to be considered when working on a specific ship design task. Rather than proposing an all-encompassing single (monolithic) design system in a top-down approach, the idea pursued within HOLISHIP is to support bottom-up approaches, namely the ad hoc assembly of dedicated models that are fit for a specific purpose under the umbrella of a state-of-the-art computer-aided engineering (CAE) system, namely CAESES®. This CAE system will be elaborated in the present book chapter. The approach of tool integration will be discussed, and it will be shown how to replace time-consuming simulations by means of surrogate models. Examples taken from the design and optimization of a RoPAX ferry and of an offshore supply vessel will be given for illustration.

Keywords

Process integration and design optimization (PIDO) Computer-aided engineering (CAE) Simulation-driven design (SDD) Synthesis model Surrogate model Parametric model Tool coupling 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank Heinrich von Zadow, FRIENDSHIP SYSTEMS, for his support of the HOLISHIP project, his work on the parametric model of the RoPAX ferry and his contribution to this chapter.

References

  1. Abt C, Harries S (2007a) A new approach to integration of CAD and CFD for naval architects. In: 6th international conference on computer applications and information technology in the maritime industries (COMPIT 2007), Cortona, Italy, Apr 2007Google Scholar
  2. Abt C, Harries S (2007b) Hull variation and improvement using the generalised Lackenby method of the FRIENDSHIP-framework. The naval architect magazine, Issue Sep 2007Google Scholar
  3. Abt C, Harries S, Wunderlich S, Zeitz B (2009) Flexible tool integration for simulation-driven design using XML, generic and COM interfaces. In: 8th international conference on computer applications and information technology in the maritime industries (COMPIT 2009), Budapest, Hungary, May 2009Google Scholar
  4. Albert S, Harries S, Hildebrandt T, Reyer M (2016) Hyrodynamic optimization of a power boat in the cloud. In: High-performance marine vehicles (HIPER 2016), Cortona, Italy, Oct 2016Google Scholar
  5. Birk L, Harries S (eds) (2003) OPTIMISTIC—optimization in marine design. WEGEMT summer school. Mensch & Buch Verlag, Berlin. ISBN 3-89820-514-2Google Scholar
  6. Bostrom N (2014) Superintelligence—Paths, dangers, strategies. Oxford University Press, Oxford. ISBN 978-0-19-873983-8Google Scholar
  7. de Jongh M, Olsen KE, Berg B, Jansen JE, Torben S, Abt C, Dimopoulos G, Zymaris A, Hassani V (2018) High-level demonstration of holistic design and optimisation process of offshore supply vessel. In: 13th international marine design conference (IMDC 2018), Helsinki, Finland, June 2018Google Scholar
  8. Harries S (1998) Parametric design and hydrodynamic optimization of ship hull forms. Ph.D. thesis, Technical University Berlin, Mensch & Buch Verlag, ISBN 3-933346-24-XGoogle Scholar
  9. Harries S (2010) Investigating multi-dimensional design spaces using first principle methods. In: Seventh international conference on high-performance marine vehicles (HIPER 2010), Melbourne, Florida, USA, Oct 2010Google Scholar
  10. Harries S (2014) Practical shape optimization using CFD. Whitepaper. Retrieved from www.friendship-systems.com. Abridged version in the naval architect magazine. Issue Apr 2018, Nov 2014
  11. Harries S (2017) Living in the cloud—How web-based apps will make high-tech more accessible. The Naval Architect Magazine. Issue Sep 2017Google Scholar
  12. Harries S, Abt C, Brenner M (2015a) Upfront CAD—Parametric modeling techniques for shape optimization. In: International conference on evolutionary and deterministic methods for design, optimization and control with applications to industrial and societal problems (EUROGEN 2015), Glasgow, UK, Sept 2015Google Scholar
  13. Harries S, MacPherson D, Edmonds A (2015b) Speed-power optimized AUV design by coupling CAESES and NavCad. In: 14th computer and IT applications in the maritime industries (COMPIT 2015), Ulrichshusen, Germany, May 2015Google Scholar
  14. Harries S, Cau C, Marzi J, Kraus A, Papanikolaou A, Zaraphonitis G (2017) Software platform for the holistic design and optimisation of ships. 112. Hauptversammlung Schiffbautechnische Gesellschaft, Potsdam, Germany, STG, Bd. 111, Nov 2017Google Scholar
  15. Harries S, Lorentz K, Palluch J, Praefke E (2018) Appification of propeller modeling and design via CAESES. In: 17th computer applications and information technology in the maritime industries (COMPIT 2018), Pavone, Italy, May 2018Google Scholar
  16. MacPherson D, Harries S, Broenstrup S, Dudka J (2016) Real cost savings for a waterjet-driven patrol craft design using a CAESES-NavCad coupled solution. In: 15th computer applications and information technology in the maritime industries (COMPIT 2016), Lecce, Italy, May 2016Google Scholar
  17. Marzi J, Papanikolaou A, Brunswig J, Corrignan P, Zaraphonitis G, Harries S (2018) HOLISTIC ship design optimisation. In: 13th international marine design conference (IMDC 2018), Helsinki, Finland, June 2018Google Scholar
  18. Myers RH, Montgomery DC (2009) Response surface methodology: process and product optimization using designed experiments. Wiley, HobokenzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  19. Press W, Teukolsky S, Vetterling W, Flannery B (2007) Numerical recipes—The art of scientific computing. Cambridge University Press, New York. ISBN 9780521880688zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  20. Schrage M. (2000) Serious play: how the world’s best companies simulate to innovate. Harvard Business School Press, Boston, ISBN 0-87584-814-1Google Scholar
  21. Siebertz K, van Bebber D, Hochkirchen T (2010) Statistische Versuchsplanung, design of experiments. Springer, Berlin, HeidelbergCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Sobol IM (1976) Uniformly distributed sequences with an additional uniform property. Zh Vych Mat Mat Fiz 16:1332–1337 (in Russian); USSR Comput Math. Math Phys 16:236–242 (in English)Google Scholar
  23. Walsh J (2018) Design space exploration—Markets and opportunities. Ora Research LLC and intrinSIM LLC, 224 ppGoogle Scholar
  24. Zeitz B, Harries S, Matthiesen A, Flehmke A, Bertram V (2014) Structural optimization of midship sections for container vessels coupling POSEIDON with CAESES/ FRIENDSHIP-framework. In: 13th computer applications and information technology in the maritime industries (COMPIT 2014), Redworth, UK, May 2014Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.FRIENDSHIP SYSTEMS AGPotsdamGermany

Personalised recommendations