Advertisement

Structural Design Optimization—Tools and Methodologies

  • Philippe RigoEmail author
  • Jean-David Caprace
  • Zbigniew Sekulski
  • Abbas Bayatfar
  • Sara Echeverry
Chapter

Abstract

This chapter focuses on methodologies to perform ship structure optimization, decreasing steel weight and keeping the production cost at an acceptable level. Ship performance is always an important concern when a design is started, and should always be considered for new designs. This is in line with the evolution of ship classes and size. For this reason, several aspects are important to be taken into account within the optimization procedure, and therefore, multi-objective optimization is the common route. This chapter outlines actual trends in optimization methodologies, comments on the quality assessment of the obtained Pareto solutions and describes modern tools used in/by the maritime industry (with focus on the LBR-5, BESST and HOLISHIP projects). The importance of consideration of risk assessment in the structural design optimization procedure (e.g. of a ship collision with an offshore structure) is also elaborated with a highlight on the response surface method and its use in combination with optimization algorithms for ship and offshore structures in early design stages.

Keywords

Holistic ship structural design Multi-objective optimization Pareto optimal dominance Optimization algorithms Integration sets Quality assessment 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors wish to acknowledge the support given by European Community’s Seventh Framework Programme (FP7/2007–2013) under grant agreement n° 233980 which was led to the results presented—for BESST project—in this chapter.

References

  1. Arai M, Suzuki T, Shimizu T (2000) On the application of response surface methodology to the optimization of ship structural design. J Soc Naval Archit Jpn 2000(188):545–552.  https://doi.org/10.2534/jjasnaoe1968.2000.188_545CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bayatfar A, Amrane A, Rigo Ph (2013) Towards a ship structural optimization methodology at early design stage. Int J Eng Res Dev 9(6):76–90Google Scholar
  3. Bela A, Le Sourne H, Buldgen L, Rigo Ph (2017) Ship collision analysis on offshore wind turbine monopile foundations. Mar Struct 51:220–241CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bosman PAN, Thierens D (2003) The balance between proximity and diversity in multiobjective evolutionary algorithms. IEEE Trans Evol Comput 7(2):174–188CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Buldgen L, Le Sourne H, Pire T (2014) Extension of the super-elements method to the analysis of a jacket impacted by a ship. Mar Struct 38:44–71CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Caprace J-D, Bair F, Rigo Ph (2010) Scantling multi-objective optimization of a LNG carrier. Mar Struct 23(3):288–302CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Collette M, Bronsart R, Chen Y, Erikstad SO, Georgiev P, Giuglea V, Jeong HK, Lazakis I, Moro L, Sekulski Z, Sicchiero M, Toyoda M, Ventura M, Zanic V (2015) Design methods. In: GuedesSoares C, Garbatov Y (eds) Proceedings of the ISSC2015, 19th international ship and offshore structures congress, 7–10 Sept, Cascais, Portugal, vol 1, pp 459–518Google Scholar
  8. Cui J-J, Wang D-Y (2013) Application of knowledge-based engineering in ship structural design and optimization. Ocean Eng 72:124–139CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cui H, Turan O, Sayer P (2012) Learning-based ship design optimization approach. Comput Aided Des 44(3):186–195CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Ehlers S, Kujala P (2013) Cost optimization for ice-loaded structures, analysis and design of marine structures. In: Proceedings of the MARSTRUCT 2013, 4th international conference on marine structures 25–27th Mar, Espoo, Finland, pp 111–118Google Scholar
  11. Fu S-Y, Huang H-Y, Lin Z-X (2012) Collaborative optimization of container ship on static and dynamic responses. Procedia Eng 31:613–621CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Gorshy H, Chu X, Gao L, Li P (2009) An approach combined response surface method and particle swarm optimization to ship multidisciplinary design and optimization. In: 2009 IEEE international conference on industrial engineering and engineering management.  https://doi.org/10.1109/ieem.2009.5373175
  13. Hansen MP, Jaszkiewicz A (1998) Evaluating the quality of approximations of the non-dominated set. IMM Technical Report IMM-REP-1998-7, Lyngby, Institute of Mathematical Modeling, Technical University of DenmarkGoogle Scholar
  14. Hughes EJ (2003) Multiple single objective sampling. In: Proceeding of the 2003 congress on evolutionary computation, pp 2678–2684Google Scholar
  15. Hughes EJ (2005) Evolutionary many-objective optimization: many once or one many? In: Proceedings of the 2005 congress on evolutionary computation, pp 222–227Google Scholar
  16. Hutchinson KW, Sen P, Buxton IL, Hills W (1998) Multiple criteria design optimization of Ro-Ro passenger ferries with consideration of recently proposed probabilistic stability standards. In: Proceedings of the PRADS 1998, seventh international symposium on practical design of ships and mobile, The Netherlands, 20–25 Sept, pp 303–312Google Scholar
  17. Jang CD, Shin SH (1997) A study on the optimal structural design for oil tankers using multi objective optimization. In: Proceedings of the international marine design conference IMDC, Newcastle, United Kingdom, vol 1, pp 217–231Google Scholar
  18. Jaszkiewicz A (2004) On the computational efficiency of multiple objective metaheuristics: the Knapsack Problem case study. Eur J Oper Res 158:418–433MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Jelovica J, Klanac A (2009) Multi-objective optimization of ship structures: using quided search vs. conventional concurrent optimization. In: Proceedings of the MARSTRUCT, 2nd international conference on marine structures, Lisboa, 16–18 Mar, London, UK, Taylor & Francis Group, pp 447–457Google Scholar
  20. Jones N (1997) Structural impact. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  21. Kitamura M, Nobukawa H, Yang F (2000) Application of a genetic algorithm to the optimal structural design of a ship’s engine room taking dynamic constraints into consideration. J Mar Sci Technol 5(3):131–146CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Klanac A, Kujala P (2004) Optimal design of steel sandwich panel applications in ships. In: Proceedings of the PRADS 2004, 9th symposium on practical design of ships and other floating structures, Lubeck-Travemuende, Germany, 12–17 Sept, vol 2, pp 907–914Google Scholar
  23. Klanac A, Jelovica J (2007) Vectorization in the structural optimization of a fast ferry. Brodogradnja-Shipbuilding 58(1):11–17Google Scholar
  24. Klanac A, Niemeläinen M, Jelovica J, Remes H, Domagallo S (2008) Structural omni-optimization of a tanker. In: Proceedings of the COMPIT’2008, 7th international conference on computer applications and information technology in the maritime industries, Bedford Hotel, Liege, Belgium, 21–23 Apr, pp 537–550Google Scholar
  25. Klanac A, Ehlers S, Jelovica J (2009) Optimization of crashworthy marine structures. Mar Struct 22:670–690CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Knowles JD, Corne DW (2002) On metrics for comparing nondominated sets. In: Proceedings of the 2002 congress on evolutionary computation conference, pp 711–716Google Scholar
  27. Kong YM, Choi SH, Song JD, Yang BS, Choi BK (2006) Development of the Rsm-based hybrid evolutionary algorithm for low vibration of ship structure. In: Mathew J, Kennedy J, Ma L, Tan A, Anderson D (eds) Engineering asset management. Springer, LondonGoogle Scholar
  28. Le Sourne H, Barrera A, Maliakel JB (2015) Numerical crashworthiness analysis of an offshore wind turbine jacket impacted by a ship. J Mar Sci Technol 23(5):694–704Google Scholar
  29. Le Sourne H, Pire T, Hsieh JR, Rigo Ph (2016) New analytical developments to study local and global deformations of an offshore wind turbine jacket impacted by a ship. In: Proceedings of the ICCGS. University of Ulsan, KoreaGoogle Scholar
  30. Lee J-C, Shin S-C, Kim S-Y (2015) An optimal design of wind turbine and ship structure based on neuro-response surface method. Int J Naval Archit Ocean Eng 5(7):750–769.  https://doi.org/10.1515/ijnaoe-2015-0053CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Liu Y, Colette MD (2015) Efficient optimization framework for robust and reliable structural design considering interval uncertainty. In: Proceedings of the MARSTRUCT 2015, 5th international conference on marine structures, Southampton, UK, 25–27 Mar, pp 555–563Google Scholar
  32. Moe J, Lund S (1968) Cost and weight minimization of structures with special emphasis on longitudinal strength members of tankers. Trans R Inst Naval Archit (RINA) 110(1):43–70Google Scholar
  33. Na S-S, Karr DG (2016) Development of Pareto strategy multi-objective function method for the optimum design of ship structures. Int J Naval Archit Ocean Eng 8:602–614CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Okada T, Neki I (1992) Utilization of genetic algorithm for optimizing the design of ship hull structure. J Soc Naval Archit Jpn 171:71–83Google Scholar
  35. Paik JK, Thayamballi AK (2003) A concise introduction to the idealized structural unit method for nonlinear analysis of large plated structures and its application. Thin-Walled Struct 41:329–355CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Pareto V (1896) Cours D’Economie Politique, vol 1. Lausanne, F. Rouge (ed)Google Scholar
  37. Parsons MG, Scott RL (2004) Formulation of multicriterion design optimization problems for solution with scalar numerical methods. J Ship Res 48(1):61–76Google Scholar
  38. Pedersen RA, Molnes DA, Stokkeland LS (2014) Structural optimization for ice-strengthened vessels. In: Proceedings of the MARTECH 2014, 2nd international conference on maritime technology and engineering, Lisbon, Portugal, 15–17 Oct, pp 449–454Google Scholar
  39. Pire T, Le Sourne H, Echeverry S, Rigo Ph (2017) Analytical formulations to assess the energy dissipated at the base of an offshore wind turbine jacket impacted by a ship. Mar Struct 59:192–218CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Purshouse RC, Fleming PJ (2003) Evolutionary many-objective optimization: an exploratory analysis. In: Proceedings of the 2003 congress on evolutionary computation, pp 2066–2073Google Scholar
  41. Rahman MK (1992) Structural design of a midship Cargo hold: rule-based and rational procedures. In: Proceedings of the PRADS’92, 5th international symposium on the practical design of ships and mobile units, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK, May, pp 966–980Google Scholar
  42. Rahman MK, Caldwell JB (1995) Ship structures: improvement by rational design optimization. Int Shipbuilding Prog 429:61–102Google Scholar
  43. Richir T, Caprace J-D, Losseau N, Bay M, Parsons MG, Patay S, Rigo P (2007) Multicriterion scantling optimization of the midship section of a passenger vessel considering IACS requirements. In: Proceedings of the 10th international symposium on practical design of ships and other floating structures (PRADS), October, Houston, Texas, USA, vol 1, pp 339–345Google Scholar
  44. Rigo Ph, Fleury C (2001) Scantling optimization based on convex linearizations and a dual approach—Part II. Mar Struct 14:631–649CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Rigo Ph (2001a) A module-oriented tool for optimum design of stiffened structures—part I. Mar Struct 14:611–629Google Scholar
  46. Rigo Ph (2001b) Least-cost structural optimization oriented preliminary design. J Ship Prod 17(4):202–215Google Scholar
  47. Rigo Ph (2003) An integrated software for scantling optimization and least production cost. Schiffstechnik, Bd. 50/Ship Technology Research, vol 50, pp 126–141Google Scholar
  48. Rigo Ph, Caprace J-D (2011) Optimization of ship structures. In: Proceedings of the MARTECH 2011, 1st international conference on maritime technology and engineering, 11–12 May, Lisbon, Portugal, pp 925–944Google Scholar
  49. Rigo Ph, Bayatfar A, Buldgen L, Pire T, Echeverry S, Caprace J-D (2017) Optimization of ship and offshore structures and effective waterway infrastructures to support the global economic growth of a country/region. Ship Sci Technol 11:9–27.  https://doi.org/10.25043/19098642.155
  50. Sayin S (2000) Measuring the quality of discrete representations of efficient sets in multiple objective mathematical programming. Math Program Ser A 87:543–560MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Sekulski Z (2010) Multi-objective topology and size optimization of high speed vehicle-passenger catamaran structure by genetic algorithm. Mar Struct 23(4):405–433CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Sekulski Z (2014) Ship hull structural multiobjective optimization by evolutionary algorithm. J Ship Res 58(2):45–69CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Shin SH, Song HC, Jang CD (2006) Optimum structural design of tankers using multi-objective optimization technique. Ships Offshore Struct 1(3):213–219CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Soreide T, Amdahl J, Eberg E, Homas T, Hellan O (1993) USFOS: a computer program for progressive collapse analysis of steel offshore structures. SINTEFGoogle Scholar
  55. Stone K, McNatt T (2017) Ship hull structural scantling optimization. In: Proceedings of the MARSTRUCT 2017, 6th international conference on marine structures, progress in the analysis and design of marine structures, 8–10 May, Lisbon, PortugalGoogle Scholar
  56. Yang JM, Hwang CN (2002) Optimization of corrugated bulkhead forms by genetic algorithm. J Mar Sci Technol 10(2):146–153Google Scholar
  57. Zanic V, Preberg P (2004) Primary response assessment method for concept design of monotonous thin-walled structures. In: Proceedings of the AED 2004, 4th international conference on advanced engineering design, Glasgow, UKGoogle Scholar
  58. Zanic V, Rogulij A, Jancijev T, Bralić S, Hozmec J (2002) Methodology for evaluation of ship structural safety. In: Proceedings of the IMAM 2002, 10th international congress of international maritime association of mediterranean, Crete, Greece, 13–17 MayGoogle Scholar
  59. Zanic V, Piric K, Kitarovic S (2013a) Reliability and robustness based design attributes for multi-criteria decision making. In: Proceedings of the ASME 2013, 32nd international conference on ocean, offshore and arctic engineering, 6th Sept, Nantes, FranceGoogle Scholar
  60. Zanic V, Prebeg P, Andric J (2013b) Method for structural concept design of ‘Open’ ships. In: Proceedings of the PRADS 2013, 12th international symposium practical design of ships and other floating structures, Changwon, Korea, 20–25 Oct, pp 280–289Google Scholar
  61. Zitzler E, Deb K, Thiele L (2000) Comparison of multi-objective evolutionary algorithms: empirical results. Evol Comput 8(2):173–195CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Zitzler E, Laumanns M, Thiele L, Fonseca CM, Grunert da Fonseca V (2002) Why quality assessment of multiobjective optimizers is difficult. In: Proceedings of the GECCO’2002, genetic and evolutionary computation conference, San Francisco, California, July 2002, pp 666–673Google Scholar
  63. Zitzler E, Thiele L, Laumanns M, Fonseca CM, Grunert Da Fonseca V (2003) Performance assessment of multiobjective optimizers: an analysis and review. IEEE Trans Evol Comput 7(2):117–132CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Zitzler E, Knowles J, Thiele L (2008) Quality assessment of Pareto set approximations. In: Branke J, Deb K, Miettinen K, Słowiński R (eds) Multiobjective optimization. LNCS 5252. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, pp 373–404Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Philippe Rigo
    • 1
    Email author
  • Jean-David Caprace
    • 2
  • Zbigniew Sekulski
    • 3
  • Abbas Bayatfar
    • 1
  • Sara Echeverry
    • 1
  1. 1.ANAST, University of LiègeLiègeBelgium
  2. 2.Ocean Engineering DepartmentFederal University of Rio de JaneiroRio de JaneiroBrazil
  3. 3.West Pomeranian University of TechnologySzczecinPoland

Personalised recommendations