Optimal Commonality Decisions in Multiple Ship Classes

  • Michael J. Corl
  • Michael G. Parsons
  • Michael Kokkolaras


A methodology is presented for the determination of the Pareto optimal choice of components and elements to make common between two different classes of military vessels. The use of commonality can produce fleet-wide savings in component purchasing, training, spare parts, vessel construction, etc. The methodology presented here determines the optimal commonality decision and designs the vessel classes to maximize the mission performance per average acquisition cost of each vessel class and the total fleet saving achieved by the commonality. A customized evolutionary algorithm is used to determine the resulting discrete Pareto surface. The methodology is illustrated by its application to the design of two ship classes to perform the specific missions of the US Coast Guard’s National Security Cutter and Offshore Patrol Cutter. The results show that the methodology is effective and that not all commonality choices produce a net savings.


Pareto Front Nondominated Solution Coast Guard Mission Design Ship Design 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.



This development of the commonality optimization methodology described here was possible with academic leave and related support of the US Coast Guard for the lead author and support from the Office of Naval Research through N00014-03-0983 for all authors. The authors would like to thank the US Coast Guard for the use of their ship synthesis model and emphasize that this research is by no means intended to be a comparison to any US Coast Guard design work for either the OPC or the NSC. The initial mission requirements for the endurance cutter designs were used for academic purposes only.


  1. ASSET (2005) Advanced surface ship evaluation tool. Naval Surface Warfare Center, Carderock Division, Version 5.2.0Google Scholar
  2. Ayyub BM (2002) Elicitation of expert opinions for uncertainty and risks. CRC, Boca Raton, FLGoogle Scholar
  3. Brown A, Salcedo J (2003) Multi-objective optimization in naval ship design. Nav Eng J 115:49–61CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Corl MJ (2007) Methodology for optimizing commonality decisions in multiple classes of ships. Dissertation, University of MichiganGoogle Scholar
  5. Corl MJ, Kokkolaras M, Parsons MG (2007a) Platform-based design of a family of ships considering both performance and savings. In: Proceedings of international conference on engineering design, ICED’07, Paris, FranceGoogle Scholar
  6. Corl MJ, Parsons MG, Kokkolaras M (2007b) Methodology for the optimization of commonality in multiple ship classes. Trans Soc Nav Archit Mar Eng (SNAME) 115:68–93Google Scholar
  7. Deb K (2001) Multi-objective optimization using evolutionary algorithms. Wiley, New YorkMATHGoogle Scholar
  8. Fellini R, Kokkolaras M, Michelena N, Papalambros PY, Saitou K, Perez-Duarte A, Feynes P (2004) A sensitivity-based commonality strategy for family products of mild variation with application to automotive body structures. Struct Multidiscip Optim 27:89–96CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Fellini R, Kokkolaras M, Papalambros PY, Perez-Duarte A (2005) Platform selection under performance loss constraints in optimal design of product families. J Mech Des 127:524–535CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Fellini R, Kokkolaras M, Papalambros PY (2006) Quantitative platform selection in optimal design of product families, with application to automotive engine design. J Eng Des 17:429–446CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Fujita K, Yoshida H (2004) Product variety optimization: simultaneously designing module combination and module attributes. Concur Eng Res Appl 12:105–118CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Goldberg DE (1989) Genetic algorithms for search, optimization, and machine learning. Addison-Wesley, Reading, MAGoogle Scholar
  13. Gonzalez-Zugasti JP, Otto KN (2000) Modular platform-based product design. In: Proceedings of the 2000 ASME design engineering technical conference, Baltimore, MDGoogle Scholar
  14. Gonzalez-Zugasti JP, Otto KN, Baker JD (2000) A method for architecting product platforms. Res Eng Des 12:61–72CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Kosko B (1992) Neural networks and fuzzy systems: a dynamical systems approach to machine learning. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJMATHGoogle Scholar
  16. Li J, Parsons MG (1998) An improved method for shipbuilding market modeling and forecasting. Trans Soc Nav Archit Mar Eng 106:157–183Google Scholar
  17. Messac A, Martinez MP, Simpson TW (2002) Effective product family design using physical programming. Eng Optim 34:245–261CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Michalewicz Z (1996) Genetic algorithms + data structures = evolutionary programs. Springer, BerlinCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Naval Surface Warfare Center Carderock Division (1998) User’s guide USCG performance based cost modelGoogle Scholar
  20. Nayak RW, Chen W, Simpson TW (2002) Variation-based methodology for product family design. J Eng Optim 34:65–81CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Osyczka A (2002) Evolutionary algorithms for single and multicriteria design optimization. Physica, BerlinMATHGoogle Scholar
  22. Parsons MG (2003) Parametric design. In: Lamb T (ed) Ship design and construction. SNAME, Jersey City, NJGoogle Scholar
  23. Parsons MG (2009) Applications of optimization in early ship design. Ship Sci Technol (Rev Cienc Technol Buques) 5:9–31Google Scholar
  24. Saaty TL (1996) The analytical hierarchy process. RWS, Pittsburgh, PAGoogle Scholar
  25. Simpson TW (2004) Product platform design and customization: status and promise. Artif Intell Eng Des Anal Manuf 18:3–20Google Scholar
  26. Simpson TW, Maier JRA, Mistree F (2001) Product platform design: method and application. Res Eng Des 13:2–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Simpson TW, Siddique Z, Jiao J (eds) (2005) Product platform and product family design: methods and application. Springer, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  28. U.S. Coast Guard Internal Documents, variousGoogle Scholar
  29. U.S. Coast Guard Memorandum (1995) Mission analysis report (MAR) N-001-95 deepwater missionsGoogle Scholar
  30. U.S. Coast Guard (2006) Accessed 15 Dec 2006
  31. Zalek SF (2007) Multicriterion evolutionary optimization of ship hull forms for propulsion and seakeeping. Dissertation, University of MichiganGoogle Scholar
  32. Zalek SF, Parsons MG, Papalambros PY (2006) Multi-criteria design optimization of monohull vessels for propulsion and seakeeping. In: Proceedings of the 9th international marine design conference, vol 2, pp 533–557Google Scholar
  33. Zitzler E, Laumanns M, Bleuler S (2003) A tutorial on evolutionary multi-objective optimization. Accessed 4 June 2003

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Michael J. Corl
    • 1
  • Michael G. Parsons
    • 2
  • Michael Kokkolaras
    • 3
  1. 1.CDR, U.S.C.G., U.S. Coast Guard AcademyNew LondonUSA
  2. 2.University of MichiganAnn ArborUSA
  3. 3.McGill UniversityMontrealCanada

Personalised recommendations