Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-5cf477f64f-tgq86 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-04-01T20:48:28.841Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

14 - Optimum Design of Ship Structures

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 March 2025

P. A. Caridis
P. A. Caridis
Affiliation:
National Technical University of Athens
Get access

Summary

The optimum structural design of the hull girder is discussed in this chapter. In the first part, early efforts at optimisation are described: structural optimisation, topology and scantlings optimisation and nonlinear programming. The use of linear and sequential linear programming and its use in the MAESTRO program are described. The need to consider wider issues is discussed and the various single-parameter optimisation criteria described (design for X). Multi-objective optimisation criteria and Pareto optimality are discussed. The background to genetic algorithms and the fundamental theorem of genetic algorithms are presented. Single and multi-objective optimisation using genetic algorithms is described and illustrated with application to a catamaran structure. The analytic hierarchy process used in the ranking of different criteria put forward by stakeholders in an optimum structural design problem is described. This is applied in a case study described in the last part of the chapter that concerns the optimum structural design of a RoPax carrier. In this finite element models are used in the concept design stage to select a topology of the structure as well as the preliminary design stage. A series of criteria selected by a number of stakeholders are used as a basis for the optimisation process.

Keywords

optimum ship structural designsequential linear programmingdesign for Xmulti-objective optimisationPareto optimalitygenetic algorithmanalytic hierarchy processoptimim structural design of RoPax carrier
Type
Chapter
Information
Global Strength of Ships
Analysis and Design using Mathematical Methods
 , pp. 672 - 744
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2025

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Adamchak, J. (1975) Applications of Structural Synthesis and Optimization Techniques. In Evans, J. H. (Ed) Ship Structural Design Concepts. Centreville, MD: Cornell Maritime Press 487-501.Google Scholar
Analytic Hierarchy Process AHP – business performance management. 19 April 2010. Available: www.youtube.com/watch?v=18GWVtVAAzs (accessed 19 December 2020).Google Scholar
André, J. Beale, R. Baptista, A. M. (2015) New indices of structural robustness and structural fragility. Struct. Eng. & Mech. Vol. 56 1063–1093.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Andrić, J. Prebeg, P. Žanić, V. (2019) Multi-level Pareto supported design methodology: application to RO-PAX structural design Mar. Struct. Vol. 67 102638.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Andrić, J. Žanić, V. (2010) The global structural response model for multi-deck ships in concept design phase. Ocean Eng. Vol. 37 688–704.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Arora, J. S. (2012) Introduction to Optimum Design. 3rd ed. Amsterdam: Elsevier Academic Press.Google Scholar
Bureau Veritas (2003) Rules for the Classification of Steel Ships.Google Scholar
Burns, S. A. (Ed) (2002) Recent Advances in Optimal Structural Design. ASCE Struct. Eng. Inst.Google Scholar
Caldwell, J. B. Woodhead, R. G. (1973) Ship structures: some possibilities for improvement. Trans NECIES Vol. 88 101–120.Google Scholar
Calresco.org. Available: www.calresco.org/lucas/pmo.html (accessed 19 December 2020).Google Scholar
Deb, K. (2004) Multi-objective Optimization Using Evolutionary Algorithms. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
Det Norske Veritas (2005) Hull Structure Course.Google Scholar
Dextremel (1997) Design for Structural Safety under Extreme Loads State of the Art Review. BriteEuRam III contract BRPR-CT97–0513.Google Scholar
Evans, J. H. Khoushy, D. (1963) Optimized Design of Midship Section Structure. SNAME Annual Meeting.Google Scholar
Faulkner, D. (1975) Ship and Ocean Structures. Lecture Notes Dept. Naval Arch & Ocean Eng. Univ. Glasgow Scotland.Google Scholar
Fleury, C. (1993) Mathematical programming methods for constrained optimization: dual Methods. Structural optimization: Status and Promise, Progress in Astronautics and Aeronautics.Google Scholar
Gallagher, R. H. (1973) Linear Programming in Structural Analysis and Design. In Gallagher, R. H. Zienkiewicz, O. C. Optimum Structural Design. Theory and Applications. New York: John Wiley & Sons 79–108.Google Scholar
Ghosh, A. Dehuri, S. (2004) Evolutionary algorithms for multi-criterion optimization: a survey. Int. J. Comp. & Inform. Sc. Vol. 2 38–57.Google Scholar
Goldberg, D. E. (1989). Genetic Algorithms in Search Optimization and Machine Learning. Reading, MA: Addison Wesley Publishing Co.Google Scholar
van Hemmen, H. F. (2014) Game Theory for the Maritime Professional. Soc. Mar. Port Engrs Mtg.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holland, J. H. (1992) Adaptation in Natural and Artificial Systems: An Introductory Analysis with Applications to Biology Control and Artificial Intelligence. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hughes, O. F. (1983) Ship Structural Design: A Rationally-Based Computer-Aided Optimization Approach. New York: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
Hughes, O. F. Mistree, F. Žanić, V. (1980) A practical method for the rational design of ship structures. J. Ship Res. Vol. 24 101–113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hughes, O. F. Paik, J. K. (2010) Ship Structural Analysis and Design. Jersey City, NJ: SNAME.Google Scholar
Jendo, S. (1990) Optimal Design of Elastic Frame Structures. In Save, M. Prager, W. (Eds) Structural Optimization Vol. 2 Mathematical Programming New York: Plenum Press 221–228.Google Scholar
Jendo, S. (1990) Multi-objective Optimisation. In Save, M. Prager, W. (Eds) Structural Optimisation. Vol. 2 Mathematical Programming. New York: Plenum Press 311–341.Google Scholar
Karr, D. et al. (2009) Design Methods. Committee IV.2 Rept. In Jang, C. D. Hong, S. Y. (Eds) Proc. 17th Int. Ship & Offsh. Struct. Cong. Vol. 1 689–756.Google Scholar
Kahraman, C. Çevik Onar, S. Oztaysi, B. (2015) Fuzzy multicriteria decision-making: a literature review. Int. J. Comp. Intell. Sys. Vol. 8 637–666.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kemene, A. (2018) Newbuildings and Yards. Optima Shipping Services. MarineMoney week New York.Google Scholar
Klanac, A. Varsta, P. (2011) Design of marine structures with improved safety for environment. Rel. Eng. & Sys. Saf. Vol. 96 75–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mistree, F. Hughes, O. F. Phuoc, H. B. (1981) An optimization method for the design of large highly constrained complex systems. Eng. Optim. Vol. 5 179–197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moe, J. (1974) Fundamentals of optimization. Comp. & Struct. Vol. 4 95–113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moe, J. Lund, S. (1968) Cost and weight minimization of structures with special emphasis on longitudinal strength members of tankers. Trans RINA Vol. 110 43–70.Google Scholar
Parsons, M. G. (2009) Applications of optimization in early stage ship design. Ship Sc. & Techn. Vol. 5 9–31.Google Scholar
Pradillon, J.-Y. et al. (2012) Design Methods. Committee IV.2 Rept. In Fricke, W. Bronsart, R. (Eds) Proc. 18th Int. Ship & Offsh. Struct. Cong. Vol. 1 Schiffarts-Verlag Hansa GmbH & Co KG Hamburg 507–576.Google Scholar
Rigo, P. (2001) A module-oriented tool for optimum design of stiffened structures – part I. Mar. Struc. Vol. 14 611–629.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schaffer, J. D. (1984) Multiple Objective Optimization with Vector Evaluated Genetic Algorithms. Proc. First Int. Conf. Gen. Alg. 93–100.Google Scholar
Schipperen, I. et al. (2012) Materials and Fabrication Technology. Committee V.3 Rept. In Fricke, W. Bronsart, R. (Eds) Proc. 18th Int. Ship & Offsh. Struct. Cong. Vol. 2 Schiffarts-Verlag Hansa GmbH & Co KG Hamburg 113–152.Google Scholar
Saaty, T. L. (1980) The Analytic Hierarchy Process: Planning Priority Setting Resource Allocation. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Sekulski, Z. (2009) Structural weight minimization of high speed vehicle-passenger catamaran by genetic algorithm. Pol. Mar. Res. Vol. 16 11–23.Google Scholar
Sekulski, Z. (2010) Multi-objective topology and size optimization of high speed vehicle-passenger catamaran structure by genetic algorithm. Mar. Struct. Vol. 23 405–433.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shanley, F. H. (1957) Strength of Materials New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Tibco.com. Available: https://docs.tibco.com/pub/spotfire/6.5.2/doc/html/para/para_what_is_a_parallel_coordinate_plot.htm (accessed 19 December 2020).Google Scholar
Triantaphyllou, E. Shu, B. Nieto Sanchez, S. Ray, T. (1998) Multi-Criteria Decision Making: An Operations Research Approach. In Webster, J. G. (Ed) Encyclopaedia of Electrical and Electronics Engineering Vol. 15. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons 175–186.Google Scholar
Velasquez, M. Hester, P. T. (2013) An analysis of multi-criteria decision makingmethods. Int. J. Oper. Res. Vol. 10 56–66.Google Scholar
Analytic hierarchy process. Wikipedia The Free Encyclopedia 5 December 2020. Available: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Analytic_hierarchy_process&oldid=992518831 (accessed 19 December 2020).Google Scholar
Genetic algorithm. Wikipedia The Free Encyclopedia 1 December 2020. Available: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Genetic_algorithm&oldid=991805472 (accessed 19 December 2020).Google Scholar
Holland’s schema theorem. Wikipedia The Free Encyclopedia 1 December 2020. Available: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Holland%27s_schema_theorem&oldid=991622109 (accessed 19 December 2020).Google Scholar
Multiple-criteria decision analysis. Wikipedia The Free Encyclopedia 25 October 2020. Available: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Multiple-criteria_decision_analysis&oldid=985414997 (accessed 19 December 2020).Google Scholar
Schema (genetic algorithms). Wikipedia The Free Encyclopedia 21 September 2020. Available: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Schema_(genetic_algorithms)&oldid=979504170 (accessed 19 December 2020).Google Scholar
Žanić, V. Rogulj, A. Jancijev, T. Bralić, S. Hozmec, J. (2002) Methodology for Evaluation of Ship Structural Safety. Proc. IMAM 2002 Cong. Crete.Google Scholar
Zimmermann, H.-J. (2001) Fuzzy Set Theory – and Its Applications. 4th ed. New York: Springer Science+Business Media.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected] is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×