Shape Optimization in Free Surface Flow Using Adjoint Method

N
S
W
C
C
D
-
5
0
-
T
R
2
0
0
3
/
0
3
3

S
h
a
p
e

O
p
t
i
m
i
z
a
t
i
o
n

i
n

F
r
e
e

S
u
r
f
a
c
e

P
o
t
e
n
t
i
a
l

F
l
o
w

U
s
i
n
g

a
n

A
d
j
o
i
n
t

F
o
r
m
u
l
a
t
i
o
n

Naval Surface Warfare Center
Carderock Division
West Bethesda, MD 20817-5700
NSWCCD-50-TR2003/33 August 2003
Hydrodynamics Directorate
Technical Report

Shape Optimization in Free Surface Potential Flow
Using an Adjoint Formulation
by
Saad A. Ragab

Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited.

Carderock Division


NSWCCD-50-TR2003/33 August 2003
Hydrodynamics Directorate
Technical Report
Shape Optimization in Free Surface Potential Flow
Using an Adjoint Formulation
by
Saad A. Ragab
REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE
Form Approved
OMB No. 0704-0188
Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 1 hour per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the
data needed, and completing and reviewing this collection of information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing
this burden to Department of Defense, Washington Headquarters Services, Directorate for Information Operations and Reports (0704-0188), 1215 Jefferson Davis Highway, Suite 1204, Arlington, VA 22202-
4302. Respondents should be aware that notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information if it does not display a currently
valid OMB control number. PLEASE DO NOT RETURN YOUR FORM TO THE ABOVE ADDRESS.
1. REPORT DATE (DD-MM-YYYY)
08-01-2003
2. REPORT TYPE
Final
3. DATES COVERED (From - To)
08/10/99- 08/09/00
5a. CONTRACT NUMBER

5b. GRANT NUMBER

4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE
Shape Optimization in Free Surface Potential Flow Using an
Adjoint Formulation
5c. PROGRAM ELEMENT NUMBER

5d. PROJECT NUMBER

5e. TASK NUMBER

6. AUTHOR(S)
Saad A. Ragab
5f. WORK UNIT NUMBER

7. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) AND ADDRESS(ES)
Carderock Division (Code 50)
9500 Macarthur Boulevard

8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT
NUMBER

NSWCCD-50-TR2003/033
9. SPONSORING / MONITORING AGENCY NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) 10. SPONSOR/MONITORS ACRONYM(S)
Attn ONR 333
Chief of Naval Research
Ballston Centre Tower One
800 North Quincy Street
Arlington, VA 22217-5660

11. SPONSOR/MONITORS REPORT
NUMBER(S)

12. DISTRIBUTION / AVAILABILITY STATEMENT
13. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES

14. ABSTRACT
In this report, a numerical method for shape optimization of surface ships and submarines operating
near a free surface is presented. The classical potential flow theory is used, and the free surface
boundary conditions are linearized using Kelvins or Dawsons method. Several objective functionals
are shown for (a) wave resistance minimization and (b) inverse problems where a target pressure
distribution on hull or a free surface wave pattern is prescribed.

An important contribution of this work is the formulation of an adjoint approach for computing the
gradients of these objective functionals. The potential flow problem is solved using a panel code
(SWAN-v2.2). Like the velocity potential function, the adjoint function is governed by Laplaces
equation, however, the adjoint radiation (uniqueness) condition demands that waves may exist only
upstream. The adjoint problem is also solved using the same code (SWAN-v2.2) after some modifications
are introduced to handle the respective boundary conditions.

15. SUBJECT TERMS
Optimization; adjoint; potential flow; free surface
16. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF: 19a. NAME OF RESPONSIBLE PERSON
Arthur M. Reed
a. REPORT
UNCLASSIFIED
b. ABSTRACT
UNCLASSIFIED
c. THIS PAGE
UNCLASSIFIED
17. LIMITATION
OF ABSTRACT

SAR
18. NUMBER
OF PAGES

122
19b. TELEPHONE NUMBER (include area
code)
301-227-4309

Standard Form 298 (Rev. 8-98)
Prescribed by ANSI Std. Z39.18
i

(BLOCK 19)

The hull geometry is parameterized by B-spline surface patches whose control-points
offsets are used as design variables. The optimized hull is constrained to have equal
displacement as a base-line hull, but its wetted surface is not allowed to increase
above a given margin. To prevent bizarre shapes, lower and upper bounds are also
specified on control points. This constrained optimization problem is solved by a
generalized reduced gradient method.

The method has been applied successfully to several examples of submerged bodies and
surface ships. A base-line hull is first defined. At a given Froude number, the hull
is optimized for minimum wave resistance or for a prescribed pressure distribution on
hull. The target pressure used in this study is the double-body pressure distribution
on the base-line hull. This is the pressure that would exist on the base-line hull if
the free surface is replaced by a rigid lid; also known as zero-Froude-number flow.
Other pressure distributions can be easily specified. The accuracy and efficiency of
the adjoint approach are demonstrated by comparisons with direct calculations of the
gradients using a finite-difference method. Results also include geometric
characteristics, wave resistance, and surface wave patterns of optimized hull forms.

ii
NSWCCD-50-TR-2003/33
Contents
Page
Figures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iii
Tables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vii
Administrative Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . viii
Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . viii
Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Wave Resistance Minimization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Inverse Problems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Gradient-Based Optimization Techniques . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
An Adjoint Formulation For Free-Surface Flow . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
The Potential Flow Problem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Objective Functionals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
The Adjoint Problem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
The Gradient dL/d . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
Dawsons Linearized Free-Surface Condition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
Submarines Operating Near a Free Surface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
Geometry Parameterization by B-Spline Surfaces . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
Base-Line Submarine G
0
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
Wave Resistance Minimization at Froude Number F
n
= 0.230 . . . . . . . . . . . 27
n
= 0.300 . . . . . . . . . . . 29
Using the Depths of Control Points as Design Variables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
Wave Resistance Minimization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
Design for a Target Pressure Distribution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
Surface Ships . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59
Base-Line Ship G
0
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59
n
= 0.287 . . . . . . . . . . . 60
Optimization Using Finite Dierence for Gradient Computation . . . . . . . . . . 61
A Target Pressure Distribution at Froude Number F
n
= 0.287 . . . . . . . . . . . 62
Weakly Wall-Sided Design at Froude Number F
n
= 0.287 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64
Partially Constrained Stern at Froude Number F
n
= 0.287 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64
Conclusions and Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105
Recommendations for Future Work . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 106
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107
iii
Figures
Page
1. A submarine model with a sail and its wave pattern at Froude number F
n
=
0.192 and axis depth = 0.12, (Reference length = body length). . . . . . . . . 3
2. A submarine model with two sails and its wave pattern at Froude number
F
n
= 0.192 and axis depth = 0.12, (Reference length = body length). . . . . . 4
3. A sketch of ow domain boundaries: Free Surface (FS), Body Surface (BS), and
Far Field Surface (FFS). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
4. A sketch of free surface boundaries and waterline. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
5. Indices of bi-cubic B-spline control points for a submarine conguration. . . . 35
6. Base-line submarine G
0
, z = 0 is the free surface. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
7. Wave resistance coecient for base-line submarine G
0
(R
p
by pressure integra-
tion and R
w
by wave cut method). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
8. Gradient computed by adjoint and nite-dierence methods, F
n
= 0.230. . . . 37
9. Errors in gradient components normalized by gradient vector magnitude, F
n
=
0.230. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
10. A view of designed hull G
d2
sub230. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
11. Projection on the xz-plane of designed hull G
d2
sub230. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
12. Projection on the xy-plane of designed hull G
d2
sub230. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
13. Cross sections of designed hull G
d2
sub230. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
14. Wave pattern of base-line hull G
0
(lower half) and designed hull G
d2
sub230
(upper half), F
n
= 0.230. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
15. Wave elevation in plane of symmetry of base-line hull G
0
and designed hull G
d2
sub230, F
n
= 0.230. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
16. Pressure contours (0.5F
2
n
C
p
) on top of base-line hull G
0
, F
n
= 0.230. . . . . . . 43
2
n
C
p
) on top of designed hull G
d20
sub230, F
n
= 0.230. . 43
2
n
C
p
) on side of base-line hull G
0
sub230, F
n
= 0.230. . 44
2
n
C
p
) on side of designed hull G
d2
sub230, F
n
= 0.230. . 44
20. Gradient computed by adjoint and nite-dierence methods, F
n
= 0.300. . . . 45
n
=
0.300. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
22. Reduction of cost functional with design cycles for G
d10
sub300. . . . . . . . . 46
23. A view of designed hull G
d10
sub300. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
24. Projection on the xz-plane of designed hull G
d10
sub300. . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
d10
sub300. . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
26. Bow view of designed hull G
d10
sub300. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
27. Stern view of designed hull G
d10
sub300. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
iv
Figures (Continued)
Page
28. Wave resistance coecient for base-line hull G
0
and designed hull G
d10
sub300 (R
p
by pressure integration and R
w
by wave cut method). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
29. Wave pattern of base-line hull G
0
d10
sub300
(upper half). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52
30. Wave elevation in the plane of symmetry of base-line hull G
0
and designed hull
G
d10
sub300. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
2
n
C
p
) on bow of base-line hull G
0
(left half) and designed
hull G
d10
sub300 (right half). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
2
n
C
p
) on stern of base-line hull G
0
hull G
d10
sub300 (right half). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55
33. Contribution of station strips (between x and x+dx) to wave resistance of base-line
hull G
0
and designed hull G
d10
sub300. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56
34. Contribution of all strips between bow (x = 0.5) and station x to wave resistance
of base-line hull G
0
and designed hull G
d10
sub300. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56
35. Designed body G
d
sub450 for optimal solution to the inverse problem; free surface
z = 0, Froude number F
n
= 0.450. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57
36. Pressure coecient distributions on the top line of symmetry of designed body G
d
sub450 and initial body G
0
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58
37. Indices of B-spline control points for base-line surface ship G
0
. . . . . . . . . . . 66
38. Base-line hull G
0
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67
39. Projection on the xy-plane of base-line hull G
0
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68
40. Body plan of base-line hull G
0
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68
0
(R
p
by pressure integration and
R
w
by wave cut method). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69
42. Gradient of cost function computed by nite-dierence and adjoint methods, hull
G
0
, F
n
= 0.287. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70
n
= 0.287. 70
44. Gradient computed with and without contribution of adjoint ( = 0) and nite-
dierence method, F
n
= 0.287. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71
n
= 0.287. 71
46. Reduction of cost functional with design cycles for G
d20
S287. . . . . . . . . . . . 72
47. Water-line view of designed hull G
d20
S287. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73
48. Keel view of designed hull G
d20
S287. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74
d20
S287. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75
50. Body plan of designed hull G
d20
S287. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75
v
Figures (Continued)
Page
0
and designed hull G
d20
S287 (R
p
w
52. Wave pattern on base-line hull G
0
d20
S287 (upper
half). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77
53. Water-line wave elevation on base-line hull G
0
and designed hull G
d20
S287. . . . 78
2
n
C
p
0
hull G
d20
S287 (right half). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79
2
n
C
p
0
hull (G
d20
S287 (right half). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80
56. Contribution of station strips (between x and x+dx) to wave resistance of base-line
hull G
0
and designed hull G
d20
S287. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81
57. Contribution of all strips between bow x = 0.5 and station x to wave resistance
of base-line hull G
0
and designed hull G
d20
S287. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82
58. Comparison of hull forms by adjoint (right half) and nite dierence (left half),
bow view. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83
59. Comparison of hull forms by adjoint (right half) and nite dierence (left half),
stern view. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84
60. Comparison of wave pattern on nite-dierence hull (lower half) and adjoint hull
(upper half). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85
61. Comparison of water-line wave elevation on nite-dierence hull and adjoint hull. 86
62. Contribution of all strips between bow x = 0.5 and station x to wave resistance
of nite-dierence hull, adjoint hull, and base-line hull. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87
63. Wave resistance coecient for nite-dierence hull and adjoint hull (R
w
by wave
cut method). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88
64. Sectional area distribution for nite-dierence hull and adjoint hull. . . . . . . . 89
65. Waterline for nite-dierence hull and adjoint hull. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90
66. Gradient computed by nite-dierence and adjoint methods, hull G
0
, F
n
= 0.287. 91
67. Error in gradient components normalized by magnitude of gradient vector, hull
G
0
, F
n
= 0.287. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91
68. Reduction of cost functional for hull G
d10
S287P. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92
69. Pressure distribution on hull, P = pressure on designed hull G
d10
S287P, P
d
=
target pressure, and P
0
= pressure on G
0
, F
n
= 0.287. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93
d10
S287P. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94
71. Keel view of designed hull G
d10
S287P. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95
d10
S287P. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96
d10
S287P. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96
vi
Figures (Continued)
Page
0
and designed hull G
d20
S287P (R
p
w
d20
S287WS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98
d20
S287WS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98
77. Water-line wave elevation on hull G
d20
S287 and weakly wall-sided hull G
d20
S287WS. 99
d20
S287B. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100
d20
S287B. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101
d20
S287B. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101
81. Comparison of wave pattern on hull G
d20
S287 (lower half) and partially con-
strained stern hull G
d20
S287B (upper half). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102
82. Water-line wave elevation on hull G
d20
S287 and partially constrained stern hull
G
d20
S287B. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103
83. Contribution of all strips between bow x = 0.5 and station x to wave resistance of
base-line hull G
0
, designed hull G
d20
S287, and partially constrained stern hull
G
d20
S287B. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 104
Tables
Page
1. dF/dy
k
by adjoint and central nite dierence, minimum wave resistance, and
osets y
k
of B-spline control points . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
2. dF/dz
k
by adjoint and central nite dierence, minimum wave resistance, and
depths z
k
3. dF/dy
k
by adjoint and central nite dierence, prescribed surface pressure, and
osets y
k
4. dF/dz
k
by adjoint and central nite dierence, prescribed surface pressure, and
depths z
k
vii
Administrative Information
Final report on research conducted by the author while on sabbatical at the Carderock
Division Naval Surface Warfare Center (NSWCCD), West Bethesda, MD, under the Inter-
governmental Personnel Act assignment to the Oce of Naval Research, Arlington, VA,
during the year August 10, 1999 to August 9, 2000.
Acknowledgments
I wish to thank Dr. L. Patrick Purtell for the opportunity to conduct this research as a
part of the Intergovernmental Personnel Act (IPA) assignment to the Oce of Naval Research
(ONR) during the year August 10, 1999 to August 9, 2000. Special thanks are due to Dr.
Spiro G. Lekoudis at ONR for encouragement and insightful discussions. I am also indebted
to Dr. Arthur M. Reed (NSWCCD Code 5050) for numerous helpful ideas and suggestions
regarding the interpretation of results. This work could not have been completed without
the help of Mr. John Telste (NSWCCD Code 5400); I thank him for providing technical
support with the SWAN-v2.2 computer code and for many helpful discussions.
I wish to thank Dr. William Smith (NSWCCD Code 5030) for the warm hospitality
and all the support during the IPA year. I also thank Drs. Dane Hendrix, Thomas Fu,
and William Faller (NSWCCD Code 50) for their assistance with computer networking and
printing. I have also enjoyed the friendship of Mr. Michael Smith and Mr. Samuel Balboa
(Sam); thanks for the good times and support.
It is a pleasure to acknowledge Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University for
sponsoring my study-research leave (sabbatical) during the academic year August 10, 1999
to May 9, 2000. I wish to thank Mr. S. M. Shin, a Ph. D. candidate in the Aerospace and
Ocean Engineering Department, for helpful discussions on free surface ows.
viii
Summary
This report presents a numerical method for shape optimization of surface ships and
submarines operating near a free surface. The classical potential ow theory is used, and the
free surface boundary conditions are linearized using Kelvins or Dawsons method. Several
objective functionals are shown for (a) wave resistance minimization and (b) inverse problems
where a target pressure distribution on hull or a free surface wave pattern is prescribed.
The formulation of an adjoint approach for computing the gradients of these objective
functionals is an important contribution of this work. The potential ow problem is solved
using a panel code (SWAN-v2.2). Like the velocity potential function, the adjoint function
is governed by Laplaces equation, however, the adjoint radiation (uniqueness) condition
demands that waves may exist only upstream. The adjoint problem is also solved using the
same code (SWAN-v2.2) after some modications are introduced to handle the respective
boundary conditions.
The hull geometry is parameterized by B-spline surface patches whose control-points
osets are used as design variables. The optimized hull is constrained to have equal dis-
placement as a base-line hull, but its wetted surface is not allowed to increase above a given
margin. To prevent bizarre shapes, lower and upper bounds are also specied on control
points. This constrained optimization problem is solved by a generalized reduced gradient
method.
The method has been applied successfully to several examples of submerged bodies and
surface ships. A base-line hull is rst dened. At a given Froude number, the hull is optimized
for minimum wave resistance or for a prescribed pressure distribution on hull. The target
pressure used in this study is the double-body pressure distribution on the base-line hull.
This is the pressure that would exist on the base-line hull if the free surface is replaced
by a rigid lid; also known as zero-Froude-number ow. Other pressure distributions can
be easily specied. The accuracy and eciency of the adjoint approach are demonstrated
by comparisons with direct calculations of the gradients using a nite-dierence method.
Results also include geometric characteristics, wave resistance, and surface wave patterns of
optimized hull forms.
Introduction
Marine vehicles design can be improved signicantly by using automatic shape optimiza-
tion techniques. These techniques can be used to control ow separation, wave resistance,
and cavitation on submarines, ships and hydrofoils. In this report, an ecient numerical
method for shape optimization is presented. The salient feature of the method is the use of
an adjoint formulation for computing the gradient of a cost functional. The adjoint approach
is very ecient when the number of design variables is large; it is practically independent of
that number. This allows more exibility in the design of complex surfaces. Two problems
are considered: (a) the design of hull forms of minimum wave resistance and (b) optimal
1
solution to the inverse problem in free-surface potential ow. Since panel methods are com-
monly used in the early stages of design of marine vehicles, the method presented here also
uses a panel code for solving the eld and adjoint equations. Such a fast design code will be
a valuable tool in the hands of the hydrodynamicist.
Wave Resistance Minimization
The orderly waves created by a ship on the face of calm water are beautiful to watch,
yet they are undesirable. A signicant amount of energy must be spent to sustain their
generation. This energy is carried away and never recovered by the ship, and hence it
represents wave resistance. Ship waves are detectable and may contain information not to
be revealed to adversaries. These waves can also cause erosion of rivers banks and canals.
One of the objectives of hydrodynamic design of hull forms is to eliminate or minimize
wave resistance. Apparently, this objective has been pursued for more than a hundred years
since Kelvin (1887) published his work on ship waves. The principle at work for achieving
minimum wave resistance is destructive (favorable) wave interference. Kelvin (1905) ide-
alized the ship as a two-dimensional moving surface pressure distribution and showed that
the waves produced are almost sinusoidal. He also demonstrated that, by adjusting the
separation distance between two identical distributions, the waves interfere destructively to
produce a waveless ship. Froude (1877) extensively studied the wave pattern produced by a
ship in steady motion. He showed that the humps and dips in the variation of wave resis-
tance with Froude number are manifestations of the constructive and destructive interference
between the bow and stern transverse wave systems. Wave interference is also the underly-
ing mechanism for the success of bulbous bows in reducing wave resistance. However, their
eectiveness is limited to low Froude numbers. Based on a paper by Eckert and Sharma
(1970), Wehausen (1973) reported The unanticipated saving in wave resistance is a result
of improved ow near the bow that avoids loss of energy through wave breaking.
In addition to many examples in the literature, an interesting example of waves cancel-
lation by destructive interference is presented here. The wave pattern due to a submarine
model, which is an ellipsoid (length/diameter ratio = L/D = 8) tted with a sail, is shown
in Figure 1. The axis depth is 0.12 L and Froude number based on length is 0.192. The sails
top is 0.018L below the free surface. As shown in the gure, strong transverse waves domi-
nate the wave pattern. They can be eliminated easily by installing a second sail downstream
of the existing one. The wave pattern due the same model but with two sails is shown in
Figure 2 which clearly shows the cancellation of transverse waves at this Froude number.
The wave drag per unit displacement for the model with one sail is 0.0642, and for the model
with two sails is 0.0265.
The search for waveless ships continues in the work of Tuck (1991). His approach is
somewhat dierent, he does not rely on interference between the wave systems of bow and
stern. Instead, he attempts to design a waveless stern, and by reversing the ow, he also
obtains a waveless bow. More recently, Tulin and Oshri (1996) have used the principle of wave
2
X
Y
-2.5 -2 -1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1
-1
-0.5
0
0.5
1
0.001
-0.001
Figure 1. A submarine model with a sail and its wave pattern at Froude number
F
n
= 0.192 and axis depth = 0.12, (Reference length = body length).
3
X
Y
-2.5 -2 -1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1
-1
-0.5
0
0.5
1
0.001
-0.001
Figure 2. A submarine model with two sails and its wave pattern at Froude
number F
n
= 0.192 and axis depth = 0.12, (Reference length = body
length).
4
cancellation to synthesize wave-free compound singularities. By using their method, they
modied the Wigley hull so that its wave resistance is reduced by a factor of 0.3 at Froude
number of 0.5, however, the practicality of the modied hull remains to be established.
A more direct and fruitful approach is to use optimization methods and search for the
hull geometry that minimizes the wave resistance. Michell (1898) formulated and solved the
thin-ship problem. He obtained the wave resistance as an integral that depends explicitly on
the hull geometry. Early works on nding optimum hull forms minimized Michells integral.
Wehausen (1973) gives an excellent review and summary of important results on ships of
minimum resistance. Of the vast literature on the subject, we mention only two examples:
Hsiung (1981) who used Michells integral and Wyatt and Chang (1994) who used slender-
ship theory.
The shortcomings of thin-ship theory and the related slender-ship theory are well known.
With the advent of modern computers, more accurate numerical treatments of the ship prob-
lem are possible. The exact potential ow problem can be solved by panel methods. The hull
surface boundary condition and the nonlinear free-surface conditions can be satised exactly.
The exact treatment of the nonlinear free-surface boundary conditions requires much more
computer time than the linearized conditions. For optimization problems, it is essential to
have a fast ow solver. This is because of the many evaluations of the ow solution called for
by the optimization technique. The Neumann-Kelvin and Neumann-Dawson formulations,
in which the free-surface conditions are linearized but the hull surface condition is exactly en-
forced, have been widely used for wave resistance calculations. Although inconsistent, these
formulations are acceptable for optimization of hull forms because of the eciency oered by
the linear free-surface condition. Renements of optimized hulls should be eventually based
on the exact nonlinear conditions and include viscous eects as well.
Few articles have been published on optimization of hull forms using numerical solution to
the ship problem. To the knowledge of this writer, Lowe et al.s (1994) is the only published
work that uses this approach. They designed a yacht hull for minimum wave resistance
subject to certain constraints. The salient feature of their work is the use of the partial
dierential equation method (Bloor and Oleksiewicz 1995) to generate the hull surface. This
method enables the shape of the hull to be completely specied using only a small number
of parameters while not overly limiting the range of obtainable shapes. They computed the
wave resistance by using a panel method similar to that developed by Dawson and evaluated
the gradient of the cost functional by nite dierences.
Inverse Problems
Traditionally, hydrodynamic design has been posed as an inverse problem in which the
body shape is unknown and the desired performance is expressed through a pressure dis-
tribution. A well known example is due to Lighthill (1945) who solves the inverse problem
for a two-dimensional hydrofoil. An exact and feasible solution to an inverse problem may
not exist. Shape optimization techniques aim at nding the best shape that produces the
5
target pressure distribution. The inverse formulation is desirable when a clear idea about the
pressure distribution is at hand, such as the case of ow cavitation and separation control or
shock-free ow in the design of transonic wings. Some of the recent studies on inverse prob-
lems include Pashin et al. (1996) who present a method for nding three-dimensional body
forms from given surface pressure distribution. They demonstrate their method for a body
of revolution at an angle of attack, and obtain blunt noses for best cavitation performance.
Huang et al. (1998) use an optimization technique to solve the inverse problem for a surface
ship.
The presence of a free surface oers an alternative formulation of the inverse problem.
It may be feasible to seek a hull form so that its wave pattern at a given Froude number
matches a target pattern as nearly as possible. A target pattern may be provided by the
double-body pressure distribution on the free surface (a rigid lid in this ow). The pressure
coecient distribution, C
p
, on the rigid lid is interpreted as a wave pattern
0
= 0.5F
2
n
C
p
,
where F
n
is the Froude number. This pattern has a near-eld disturbance but no waves in
the far eld and hence can be used to reduce wave resistance and other undesirable wave
eects.
Gradient-Based Optimization Techniques
Gradient-based optimization techniques such as conjugate gradient and quasi-Newton
methods (e. g. Vanderplaats 1998) are commonly used because of their eciency. An impor-
tant step in their implementation is an accurate and fast evaluation of the gradient of the
cost functional. A nite-dierence method can be used but it becomes very inecient if the
number of design variables is large because it requires solving the eld equations as many
times as the number of design variables just to obtain the gradient.
Alternatively, an adjoint approach (e. g. Jameson 1988, Pironneau 1984, and Soemarwoto
1997) avoids this diculty by treating the eld equations as constraints on the variations
in ow variables (the velocity potential). The constrained problem is then solved using
Lagrange multipliers which are dened so that the rst variation of the Lagrangian with
respect to ow variables vanishes. The governing equations of the Lagrange multipliers (also
called adjoint variables or co-states) have to be solved only once on an unperturbed shape.
The eort of solving these equations is comparable to that of the eld equations. The rest
of the terms in the gradient still depend on the number of control parameters but the cost
of their calculations is much less than solving the eld equations. Their calculations require
only geometric characteristics of the perturbed shapes but no eld equations are solved on
these shapes.
The adjoint approach is well known in the mathematical theory for the control of systems
governed by partial dierential equations (Lions, 1971). Applications of this approach to
problems governed by elliptic equations (e. g. potential ow problems) have been presented
by Pironneau (1984). Recently, Jameson (1988, 1995) extended this approach to problems
governed by the compressible Euler and Navier-Stokes equations for the design of transonic
6
nite wings. We have applied Jamesons method to the inverse problem of three-dimensional
deeply submerged conguration (Ragab, 1997). The new contributions of this report are the
formulation of the adjoint problem for free-surface ows and its implementation in a panel
code for the hydrodynamic design of surface ships as well as bodies submerged near a free
surface.
7
An Adjoint Formulation For Free-Surface Flow
The Potential Flow Problem
We consider a ship in a steady rectilinear motion with constant velocity in a calm sea.
Figure 3 denes a coordinate system that is xed in the ship. The x-axis is positive in the
direction of ship velocity, the z-axis is positive vertically upward and the y-axis completes
a right-hand system. The plane z = 0 coincides with the undisturbed free surface, and the
plane y = 0 is assumed to be a plane of symmetry for the ship and ow eld. In this system,
we assume the ow to be steady, inviscid and irrotational. We linearize the free-surface
conditions using either Kelvins or Dawsons method. In the rst method, the basis ow,
around which the conditions are linearized, is a uniform ow whereas in the second method
the basis ow is the double-body ow. In this section we use Kelvins linearization. The
modications due to Dawsons linearization are presented at the end of this section on the
adjoint formulation beginning on page 24. The no-penetration condition is exactly enforced
on the hull surface. To formulate the problem, we select a ow domain that is bounded
by the hull surface BS, the free surface FS and a far eld surface FFS. The union of the
three surfaces is denoted by = BS FS FFS. The body surface is parameterized by a
set of geometric parameters (
i
, i = 1, . . . , N); in the following we will use to denote any
of the members of the set.
In terms of the disturbance velocity potential , the ow eld is governed by:
2
= 0 in , (1)
n +

U
n = 0 on BS, (2)
x
2
+
z
= 0 on FS, (3)
and
= 0 on FFS, (4)
where n is the unit normal to the ship hull; it is directed from the water into the inside of
hull, and = g
0
/U
2
where g
0
is the gravitational acceleration. In Equation (2)

U
= U
is the uid velocity far upstream of the ship and is the unit vector in the x-direction. We
note that boundary condition Equation (4) is valid only if the ow domain is unbounded (no
side walls or bottom) and the far eld surface FFS is removed to innite distance from the
ship.
A radiation (uniqueness) condition that allows no waves to propagate upstream must
also be added to the above equations (Stoker, 1957). We write such a condition as
and

x
0 as x +. (5)
8
y
z
x
F
S
B
S
FFS
U
Figure 3. A sketch of ow domain boundaries: Free Surface (FS), Body Surface
(BS), and Far Field Surface (FFS).
9
Panel methods are very ecient for solving this problem. An existing code (SWAN-v2.2) is
used to solve for the velocity potential and other ow variables.
Objective Functionals
Shape optimization starts with the selection of an objective (or cost) functional to be
minimized with respect to the hull geometric parameters . A candidate objective functional
is the wave resistance:
F =
_
BS
pn
x
dS, (6)
where p is the pressure and n
x
is the x-component of the unit normal. Another method for
computing wave resistance follows from global conservation of linear momentum (Wehausen,
1973), which is also the basis for the wave-cut method,
F =
1
2
_
WS
_
_
x
_
2
y
_
2
z
_
2
_
dS +
1
2
g
0
_

2
0
dy, (7)
where is the uid density, WS is a vertical plane in the far wake normal to the ships
velocity and
0
is the wave elevation relative the undisturbed free surface.
A second choice for the objective functional is
F =
_
FS
(
0
0d
)
2
dS (8)
where
0d
is a target wave pattern. A hull form that minimizes this integral will have a wave
pattern very close to
0d
.
A third choice for the objective functional is still possible. We seek a hull geometry whose
surface pressure distribution is as nearly as possible to a prescribed (target) pressure. In the
least-squares sense, the objective functional is given by
F =
1
2
_
BS
(p p
d
)
2
dS, (9)
where p
d
is the target pressure distribution. The last two objective functionals are classied
as inverse problems. In the absence of clear ideas about what p
d
and
0d
should be, the
double-body ow oers useful suggestions. The double-body ow over an existing hull is
determined, and the pressure coecient distributions on the hull and free surfacenow
considered as a rigid lidcan be used to specify a target pressure p
d
or a wave pattern
0d
.
In this report, an objective functional of the general form:
F =
_
BS
f(, ) dS +
_
FS
g(, ) dS (10)
10
is considered, where f and g are given functions of and . The function g should be dened
so that the free-surface integral exists. The case in which f or g is a function of pressure
will be considered afterwards.
The Adjoint Problem
To minimize F with respect to the set using gradient-based optimization methods
such as the steepest descent, conjugate gradient, or the quasi-Newton method, the gradient
dF/d is needed. Because of the large number of control parameters, use of nite dierences
for evaluating the gradient is very expensive. The adjoint approach is an ecient method
for nding the gradient at the expense of solving an additional boundary-value problem
similar to the original problem for the velocity potential. This approach is widely used in
aerodynamic design. An important contribution of the present work is the formulation of
the adjoint approach for free-surface ow and its implementation in a panel code. In this
work, modications have been introduced into SWAN-v2.2 code to solve the adjoint problem
formulated here.
We note that a small variation in produces a variation in F that can be decomposed
into three components. For example, if the function f represents the pressure at a surface
element on the hull, then perturbing the hull geometry produces new pressure distribution
at the element which is now displaced to a new position in the new ow eld. This implies
two sources of variations in F. A third component results from the change in the measure
of the surface element dS. We assume that the hull surface and the free surface each can be
mapped into a rectangular domain (, ) and express the surface element by
dS = H(, , ) d d. (11)
A variation produces a variation in dS given by
(dS) =
1
H
H
dS. (12)
The corresponding variation in the cost functional as dened by Equation (10) is
F =
_
BS
_
f
+
f
+
f
H
H

_
dS
+
_
FS
_
g
+
g
+
g
H
H

_
dS.
(13)
The terms containing in Equation (13) show that the gradient dF/d requires solving
the eld equations N times for a variation in each of the control parameters and that can
be very expensive when the number of these parameters is large. We can replace the
terms with terms that depend only on the solution to the adjoint problem which is dened
and solved only once on the unperturbed geometry. The rest of the terms in Equation (13)
depend on the ow solution that is also calculated on the same geometry.
11
Lets rewrite the conditions Equations (24) as
B(, ) =

n
+

U
n = 0 on BS (14a)
M(, ) =

2
x
2
+
z
= 0 on FS (14b)
and
A(, ) = = 0 on FFS (14c)
We note that Equation (1) and conditions Equations (14a) play the role of constraints on the
velocity potential , and an admissible variation must be consistent with these constraints.
The problem of minimizing F with respect to while satises the respective constraints
can be replaced by unconstrained minimization of a Lagrangian L dened by
L =
_
BS
f dS +
_
FS
g dS +
_
2
d+
_
BS
BdS +
_
FS
M dS +
_
FFS
AdS, (15)
where , , and are Lagrange multipliers (also called co-states or adjoint variables) that
are dened on , BS, FS and FFS, respectively. The radiation condition Equation (5),
which is also a constraint on , is not included in the Lagrangian, and therefore an admissible
variation must satisfy this condition. Observing that the Lagrangian is a sum of integrals
each of the general form
_
G(, ), we write the variation in L due to a variation in as
L =
_
G
_
G
. (16)
We note that the variations in L due to variations in the Lagrange multipliers all vanish
because of the constraints on (Soemarwoto, 1997). The rst term in Equation (16) is
the undesirable term because it requires . This term can be eliminated if we dene the
Lagrange multipliers so that
_
G
= 0, (17)
and obtain
dL
d
=
_
G
. (18)
To this end, we use Greens identity
_
2

2
_
d =
_
n
_
dS, (19)
12
and write the Lagrangian as
L =
_
BS
f dS +
_
FS
g dS +
_
2
d +
_
BS
_
n
+ B
_
dS
+
_
FS
_
n
+ M
_
dS +
_
FFS
_
n
+ A
_
dS.
(20)
The variation L due to is
L|
=
_
2
d +
_
BS
_
f
n
+
B
_
dS
+
_
FS
_
g
n
+
M

_
dS
+
_
FFS
_
n
+
A
_
dS.
(21)
The idea is to dene , , and such that each of the integrals in Equation (21) vanishes.
It is easy to get rid of the volume integral by dening as a solution to Laplaces equation
2
= 0 in . (22)
Taking the variation of Equation (14a), we get
B
=

n
on BS, (23)
and we can make the integral on BS vanish by choosing
n
=
f
on BS (24)
and
= on BS. (25)
Similarly we note from Equation (14c) that
A
= 1 on FFS, (26)
and the corresponding integral vanishes by setting
= 0 on FFS (27)
13
and
=

n
on FFS. (28)
Equations (24) and (27) are boundary conditions to be satised by the solution to Laplaces
equation.
The only integral remaining is that over the free surface. Again we want to choose the free
surface boundary condition on and dene such that this integral vanishes for arbitrary
. Let
I
FS
=
_
FS
_
g
n
+
M

_
dS. (29)
In the linearization used here, the free surface conditions are transferred to z = 0, and hence
/n = /z. Recalling the denition of M from Equation (14b), we have
M
=

2
x
2
+
z
on FS (z = 0). (30)
Substituting Equation (30) into Equation (29), we get
I
FS
=
_
FS
_
( + )

z
+
_
g
z
+
x
2
__
dS. (31)
We choose
=
on FS (z = 0). (32)
This condition denes the Lagrange multiplier in terms of on the free surface. The free
surface integral now becomes
I
FS
=
_
FS
_
g
x
2
_
dS. (33)
The case of a fully submerged body is easier to analyze than the case of a body that
pierces the free surface. In the former case, the body may be shallowly submerged. We
consider this case rst and write the free surface integral as
I
FS
=
_
y
0
y
0
dy
_
xu
x
d
dx
_
g
x
2
_
, (34)
where x
d
and x
u
are x-coordinates of the downstream and upstream boundaries of a rectangu-
lar domain that covers the free surface, and y
0
and y
0
are its boundaries in the y-direction.
14
We integrate the last term by parts;
I
1
=
_
y
0
y
0
dy
_
xu
x
d
dx
x
2
=
_
y
0
y
0
dy
_
xu
x
d
_
xu
x
d
dx
x
_
=
_
y
0
y
0
dy
_
x
_
xu
x
d
+
_
y
0
y
0
dy
_
xu
x
d
dx
x
2
. (35)
Substituting Equation (35) into Equation (34), we obtain
I
FS
=
_
FS
_
g

z

1
x
2
_
dS
_
y
0
y
0
1
x
_
xu
x
d
dy. (36)
We get rid of the rst integral by specifying the free surface boundary condition on to be
x
2
+
z
=
g
on FS (z = 0). (37)
In the second integral we invoke the radiation condition Equation (5) which requires that
and /x both to be zero as x
u
+. Hence the integrand of the second integral
in Equation (36) vanishes at x
u
without imposing any conditions on ; that is to say
and /x are unconstrained on the upstream boundary. At the downstream boundary
and/x are not constrained because waves may propagate out of the domain across that
boundary. Therefore, we impose two conditions on at the downstream boundary,
and

x
0 as x
d
. (38)
This is a radiation condition to be satised by the adjoint function . We can imagine
that the adjoint problem is a ctitious ow eld in which waves are not allowed downstream,
but they may exist upstream. This is opposite to the physical picture of the real ow eld
given by the problem. Nonetheless, this result is consistent with the use of Rayleighs
method of articial viscosity for enforcing the radiation condition (Kostyukov 1968, page
20). If the term /x, with > 0, is added to the left side of the free-surface condition
Equation (3), we obtain the term /x in the left side of the adjoint free-surface condition
Equation (37). The change of sign of the articial viscosity term has implications regarding
the way contours are deformed in the complex wavenumber plane when Fourier integrals
are inverted (Kostyukov 1968, page 58). Instead of contours being deformed around the
poles below (or above) the real axis when solving for , they are deformed in the opposite
directions when solving for . This results in waves to be present on the upstream boundary
but not downstream for the adjoint.
15
In summary, the adjoint problem for the objective functional Equation (10) is dened
by:
2
= 0 in , (39a)
n
=
f
on BS, (39b)
x
2
+
z
=
g
on FS, (39c)
= 0 on FFS, (39d)
and the radiation condition
and

x
0 as x . (39e)
The remaining Lagrange multipliers are given in terms of by
= on BS, (40a)
=
on FS (z = 0), (40b)
and
=

n
on FFS. (40c)
With these denitions of the Lagrange multipliers, the gradient dL/d is given by Equa-
tion (18) which does not require . Of course the gradient depends on the Lagrange
multipliers which have to be determined rst by solving the adjoint problem.
Next we consider the case of a surface ship. The task is to specify conditions on on the
free surface so that the integral I
FS
given by Equation (29) vanishes for that is consistent
with the radiation condition but otherwise arbitrary. The only dierence between this case
and the case of a fully submerged body is that integration by parts of the second derivative
term in Equation (34) produces line integrals on the waterline. We show in Figure 4 a
rectangular domain that covers the free surface and depict the waterline where the body
pierces the free surface. A line parallel to the x-axis may intersect the waterline at two
points x
B
(y) and x
S
(y) (B and S signify bow and stern, respectively). If the line does
not intersect the waterline, we take x
B
= x
S
. Now we reconsider Equation (35). After
integration by parts the integral I
1
becomes
I
1
=
_
FS
x
2
dS +
_
y
0
y
0
dy
_
x
_
xu
x
d
+
_
y
0
y
0
dy
_
x
_
x
S
x
B
. (41)
We see that the rst two integrals are identical to the integrals of the fully submerged body,
and thus we combine them with other terms in I
FS
to obtain the same free-surface boundary
16
conditions on as those for the submerged case; specically, Equations (3738). However,
the free surface integral is now reduced to
I
FS
=
_
b
b
1
x
_
x
S
x
B
dy, (42)
where we reduced the limits of integration to b, where b is half the maximum beam. The
substitution dy = t dx, where t is the slope of the waterline, enables us to integrate the rst
term by parts. The result is
I
FS
=
1
[(t)
u
(t)
l
]
x
2
x
1
+
_
x
2
x
1
1
dt
dx
+ 2t
x
_
u
dx
_
x
2
x
1
1
dt
dx
+ 2t
x
_
l
dx,
(43)
where the subscripts u and l denote the waterline branches (y 0) and (y 0), respectively,
and x
1
and x
2
are the trailing and leading edges of the waterline.
The velocity potential is unconstrained on the waterline, hence the integral in Equa-
tion (42) vanishes if we set = /x = 0 on the waterline. We note that if the slope t and
curvature dt/dx both vanish on a portion of the waterline (for example on a long uniform mid
section) then the contribution from that portion to the integrals in Equation (43) vanishes
without putting any constraints on on that portion. However, if the slope of the waterline
does not vanish, the only way to make the integrals vanish is to set dt/dx + 2t/x = 0.
In this report, we use = 0 if |t| > (a small number) otherwise a natural spline condition
in the direction transverse to the waterline is used. The natural spline condition is used in
the SWAN-v2.2 code for the problem.
Alternative Forms of the Cost Functional
Boundary condition Equation (24) implies that the integrand of the cost functional f is
an explicit function of . As an example
f(, ) =
1
2
(
d
)
2
, (44)
where
d
is a prescribed velocity potential distribution on the hull surface. In this case the
hull boundary condition is
n
=
d
on BS. (45)
A more practical situation is a case where f is a function of pressure P [= (p p
)/]
which is determined from Bernoullis equation as
P =
1
2
U
2
1
2
V
2
g
0
z. (46)
17
x
B
x
S
x
y
y
o
-y
o
x
1
x
2
x
d x
u
Water line
Figure 4. A sketch of free surface boundaries and waterline.
18
We recall that the origin of boundary condition Equation (24) is the requirement that
_
BS
n
dS =
_
BS
dS. (47)
When f is a function of P, we rst write
f
=
f
P
P. (48)
The next step is to write P in terms of . To this end we introduce a three-dimensional
curvilinear coordinate transformation
x = x(, , ) (49a)
y = y(, , ) (49b)
z = z(, , ). (49c)
In this system the body surface is given by = 0. The Cartesian velocity components
are
u =

x
=

x
+

x
+

x
(50a)
v =

y
=

y
+

y
+

y
(50b)
w =

z
=

z
+

z
+

z
. (50c)
The variation in the velocity components due to a variation are
u =

x
+

x
+

x
(51a)
v =

y
+

y
+

y
(51b)
w =

z
+

z
+

z
. (51c)
To determine P, we use
V
2
=
_
U
+ u
_
2
+
_
V
+ v
_
2
+
_
W
+ w
_
2
(52)
V
2
= U
2
+ V
2
+ W
2
, (53)
where U
, V
and W
are the Cartesian velocity components in the far eld. In the

present work, we have: U
= U
and V
= W
= 0. It follows from Equation (46) that

P =
_
U
u + V
v + W
w
_
1
2
_
u
2
+ v
2
+ w
2
_
g
0
z. (54)
19
Taking the variation of this equation, we obtain
P =
__
U
+ u
_
u +
_
V
+ v
_
v +
_
W
+ w
_
w
. (55)
Substituting for the variations in the velocity components from Equations (51a51c), we get
P =
_
+

V

+

W

_
, (56)
where

U,

V and

W are the contravariant velocity components:
U =
_
U
+ u
_
x
+
_
V
+ v
_
y
+
_
W
+ w
_
z
(57a)
V =
_
U
+ u
_
x
+
_
V
+ v
_
y
+
_
W
+ w
_
z
(57b)
W =
_
U
+ u
_
x
+
_
V
+ v
_
y
+
_
W
+ w
_
z
. (57c)
The no-penetration condition Equation (2) can be written exactly as

W = 0, thus
P =
_
+

V

_
on BS. (58)
With P given by Equation (58), substitution of Equation (48) into Equation (47) gives
_
BS
n
dS =
_
BS
f
P
_
+

V

_
dS. (59)
Recalling the expression of the surface element Equation (11) and assuming that the body
surface is mapped into a rectangular domain in the plane = 0, we write Equation (59) as
_
BS
n
dS =
_

2
1
_

2
1
f
P
H
d d
_

2
1
_

2
1
f
P
H
d d, (60)
where
1
,
2
,
1
, and
2
are the boundaries of the rectangular domain. Integration by parts
yields
_
BS
n
dS =
_
BS
1
H
_

_
H
U
f
P
_
+

_
H
V
f
P
__
dS
_

2
1
H
U
f
P
1
d
_

2
1
H
V
f
P
1
d.
(61)
For a fully submerged body, the -line integral vanishes because
1
and
2
correspond
to singular lines at the nose and tail points. Also, the -line integral vanishes because
would be a periodic direction (or
1
and
2
are on a plane of symmetry), hence the integrand
20
has equal values on
1
and
2
(or zero in the case of plane of symmetry). It follows from
Equation (61) that the boundary condition on is
n
=
1
H
_

_
H
U
f
P
_
+

_
H
V
f
P
__
on BS. (62)
For the objective functionals Equations (6) and (9), we nd f/P to be n
x
and (PP
d
),
respectively. The rst case is for minimizing wave resistance and the second is for matching
a target pressure distribution on the hull.
Next we consider the case where the function g in the cost functional Equation (10)
depends on the free-surface elevation
0
above the undisturbed water surface. We use the
linearized equation
0
=
U
g
0
u =
U
g
0
x
. (63)
Following similar procedure as that for the hull boundary condition, we replace the free
surface condition Equation (39c) by
x
2
+
z
=
1
U
x
_
g
_
on FS (z = 0). (64)
The cost functional Equation (7) which gives the wave resistance as an integral on a yz-plane
in the ships wake is more reliable than integrating the pressure on the hull surface. We have
formulated the adjoint problem for this cost functional. It is given by Equations (39a39d)
with homogeneous conditions on BS and FS (f = 0 and g = 0), but with non-homogeneous
conditions on the downstream plane WS: = /x and /x =
2
/x
2
.
The analysis leading to Equation (62) may imply that a three-dimensional curvilin-
ear grid is needed. Such a grid would be available if a eld solver such as nite vol-
ume/dierence/element is used for solving the ow equations. However, panel methods
are commonly used for potential ows. Equation (62) can still be implemented in a panel
code without generating a three-dimensional grid. In a panel code, a surface grid is natu-
rally available which gives the coordinates of a surface point by a parameterization [x
B
(, ),
y
B
(, ), z
B
(, )], where and are two surface parameters. A volume parameterization in
the neighborhood of the surface BS can be constructed as follows
x = x
B
(, ) n
x
(65a)
y = y
B
(, ) n
y
(65b)
z = z
B
(, ) n
z
, (65c)
where (n
x
, n
y
, n
z
) is the outward unit normal and is the distance along the normal. The
body surface is given by = 0. The derivatives needed in Equation (62) can be found from
(x, y, z)
(, )
=0
=
(x
B
, y
B
, z
B
)
(, )
(66)
21
and
(x, y, z)
=0
= (n
x
, n
y
, n
z
). (67)
The Gradient dL/d
We can evaluate the gradient dL/d after solving the adjoint problem and determining
the Lagrange multipliers. To this end we develop two auxiliary relations (Soemarwoto 1997).
First, consider a volume integral
F
1
=
_
f
1
(, ) d. (68)
The gradient of F
1
for xed is
F
1
=
_
f
1
d +
_
f
1
(d). (69)
The derivative of the volume element with respect to is
(d) =

(dx) dy dz +

(dy) dxdz +

(dz) dxdy. (70)

Introducing the grid velocity
= (
x
,
y
,
z
) =
x
+
y
+
z
k, (71)
we write Equation (70) as
(d) = d(
x
) dy dz + d(
y
) dxdz + d(
z
) dxdy
=
_
x
x
+

y
y
+

z
z
_
dxdy dz
or
(d) = d, (72)
which reminds us of the fact that the rate of change of volume per unit of volume is the
divergence of the velocity eld.
With the help of we can write
f
1
= f
1
. (73)
22
Substituting Equations (72) and (73) into Equation (69), we obtain
F
1
=
_
( f
1
+ f
1
)d
=
_
(f
1
) d (74)
Finally, using Greens theorem, we have
F
1
=
_
f
1
n
dS, (75)
where
n
is the projection of onto the normal to the boundary of .
The second auxiliary relation is the gradient of a surface integral
F
2
=
_
f
2
(, ) dS. (76)
Recalling Equations (11) and (12), we write the gradient of F
2
at xed as
F
2
=
_
1
H
f
2
H
dS. (77)
Applying Equations (75) or (77) appropriately to terms in Equation (15), we get
dL
d
=
_
BS
1
H
fH
dS +
_
2
dS +
_
BS
1
H
(HB) dS
+
_
FS
1
H
(gH) dS +
_
FS
1
H
(HM) dS +
_
FFS
1
H
(HA) dS.
(78)
Recalling that
2
= 0 in including points on its boundary and imposing the constraints
Equations (14a14c), we obtain
dL
d
=
_
BS
_
1
H
fH
+
B
_
dS +
_
FS
_
1
H
gH
+
M
_
dS +
_
FFS
dS. (79)
On FFS we have A = = 0, hence A/ = 0. Using Equations (25) and (32) for and
, we write Equation (79) as
dL
d
=
_
BS
_
1
H
fH
_
dS +
_
FS
_
1
H
gH
_
dS. (80)
This is the desired result. It can be shown that M/ = 0 on the free surface. The gradient
is composed of two kinds of terms, the rst gives the change in the cost functional due to
geometry variations while the ow eld is xed. The second, which is now given in terms of
the solution to the adjoint problem , accounts for the change in ow eld . For a deeply
23
submerged sphere, analytical solutions to the two problems for and can be determined.
This model problem can be used to show that the two kinds of terms are equally important.
For a submerged body, g and H being dened on the free surface cannot depend explicitly
on . Hence gH/ = 0 on FS and the free-surface integral in Equation (80) vanishes. It
is interesting to note that if f = 0 but g = 0, the gradient depends only on the term B/
which has no explicit reference to the cost functional. The function g aects the gradient
implicitly through the free-surface condition on as shown by Equation (39c).
Dawsons Linearized Free-Surface Condition
In the Dawsons formulation of the ship problem, the basis ow, around which the free
surface conditions are linearized, is the double-body ow. Nakos and Sclavounos (1990)
provide a rigorous treatment of the double-body linearization and their formulation for steady
waves is used in this section. The velocity potential is decomposed into three components:
the incoming uniform stream U
x, the double-body disturbance potential , and the

steady wave potential
w
. The sum of the rst two potentials gives the double-body ow.
Two problems are solved in succession. The rst is for where the no-penetration condition
is enforced on the hull surface BS and the undisturbed free surface FS as if it were rigid.
Next the
w
problem is solved with a linearized free-surface condition whose coecients
now depend on the double-body solution . The double-body solution also appears as a
non-homogeneous term in the hull surface boundary conditions.
It appears that two adjoint problems are needed: one for and another for
w
. Here,
the linear problem for
w
is rewritten in terms of the total disturbance potential =
w
+.
The advantage of working with is that appears only in the coecients of the free-surface
condition, which is still linear in , but it does not appear in the hull surface condition.
In fact the governing equations for are Equations (1, 2, 4, and 5) and the free-surface
condition:
A
x
2
+ B
y
2
+ C

2
xy
+ D
x
+ E
y
+ g
0
z
F = 0 on FS (z = 0), (81)
24
where
A =
_
U
+

x
_
2
(82a)
B =
_
y
_
2
(82b)
C = 2
_
U
+

x
_

y
(82c)
D = 3
_
U
+

x
_

2
x
2
+ 2
xy
+
_
U
+

x
_

2
y
2
(82d)
E = 3
y
2
+ 2
_
U
+

x
_

2
xy
+

y
x
2
(82e)
F =
1
2
_
5
_
U
+

x
_
2
+
_
y
_
2
+ U
2
_

2
x
2
+
1
2
_
_
U
+

x
_
2
+ 5
_
y
_
2
+ U
2
_

2
y
2
+ 4
_
U
+

x
_

y
xy
.
(82f)
In deriving the expression of F, the boundary condition /z = 0 on the free surface is
used.
The double-body disturbance potential does not appear explicitly anywhere in the
governing equations of the total disturbance potential except in the coecients of the free-
surface condition Equation (81). Therefore, a perturbation in geometry produces variations
and , the second of them aects only the mentioned coecients. Solving an adjoint
equation for the double-body potential is avoided by neglecting variations in the coecients
of the free-surface condition. With this approximation in mind, the derivation presented
previously starting on page 11 for the Kelvins free surface condition is repeated for the
double-body linearization. The adjoint problem is still dened by Equations (39a) and (39e)
except that the free surface condition Equation (39c) is now replaced by:
2
A
x
2
+

2
B
y
2
+

2
C
xy

D
x

E
y
+ g
0
z
= g
0
g
on FS (z = 0). (83)
This condition can be adapted to the SWAN-v2.2 code.
25
Submarines Operating Near a Free Surface
In this section, we demonstrate the use of the adjoint formulation for shape optimization
of submarine congurations operating near a free surface. We seek hull forms of minimum
wave resistance subject to certain geometric constraints that will be given later. We also
solve the inverse problem in which a target pressure distribution on hull is specied and a
hull form is sought. We use double-body linearization of the free-surface conditions in all
results in this section unless otherwise noted.
Geometry Parameterization by B-Spline Surfaces
A method of geometry parameterization that allows systematic variations in shape is
essential for shape optimization. Such a method is B-spline surfaces (Mortenson 1997). The
tensor product equation is
r(, ) =
m
i=0
n
j=0
r
ij
N
i,K
()N
j,L
(), (84)
where r
ij
are position vectors of the control points. The N
i,K
() and N
j,L
() are the basis
functions. We use a uniform bi-cubic B-spline surface with C
2
continuity. The -parameter
runs along a meridional line from bow to stern and the -parameter runs on a station line
(x = constant) from keel to crown. We assume that the submerged body has a plane of
symmetry. There are (m+1)(n +1) control points on half the body and each control point
is identied by two indices (i, j) where i = 0, 1, . . . , m and j = 0, 1, . . . , n. For later use, we
combine the two indices into a one dimensional index k = (m + 1)j + i + 1. These indices
are depicted in Figure 5 for the case m = 8 and n = 14. The streamwise positions x
ij
of the
control points vary only with index j, however, their osets y
ij
and depths z
ij
vary with both
i and j. In the rest of this section, we identify a control point by the index k. The streamwise
coordinates x
k
of the control points are held xed while the osets y
k
and depths z
k
can be
used as design variables. Because of symmetry and other constraints on the depth of the
nose and tail points, the number of control parameters is reduced to (m3)(n 3) osets
and (m3)(n 1) depths. We note that the number of panels used to represent the body
in the ow solver SWAN-v2.2 is much larger than the number of B-spline surface patches.
There are (m2)(n2) surface patches on half the body and each patch is subdivided into
(m
p
n
p
) panels. The total number of panels is m
p
n
p
(m2)(n2). Grid sensitivity studies
can be easily achieved by varying one or more of the four parameters (m, n, m
p
, n
p
).
Base-Line Submarine G
0
A base-line submarine, which is denoted by G
0
, is given by a composite B-spline surface
patches. The control points are placed on a mathematically dened surface, however, this
surface is used only for the denition of G
0
and is not needed for the optimization procedure.
The bow region is a semi-ellipsoid with semi-axes a = 0.15 and b = 0.06 and the stern is
26
also a semi-ellipsoid with a = 0.30 and b = 0.06. These semi-ellipsoids are connected by
a cylindrical section of length of 0.55 and radius of 0.06. The base-line hull G
0
, which is
contained within this mathematically dened surface, is nearly a body of revolution. The
length of G
0
is re-scaled to be one and its nominal diameter is 0.1146, hence L/D = 8.73.
For m = 8 and n = 14 the B-spline control points indices are depicted in Figure 5. The
nose point corresponds to the line j = 1, i = 1, . . . , 7, and the tail point to the line j = 13,
i = 1, . . . , 7. The keel corresponds to the line i = 1, j = 1, . . . , 13, and the crown line to
the line i = 7, j = 1, . . . , 13. Each patch is subdivided into (m
p
n
p
) = (5 6) panels
which gives 73 stations and 31 waterlines on half the hull. A projection of G
0
on the plane
of symmetry y = 0 is depicted in Figure 6. The axis depth is z = 0.1 and the nose and
tail points are placed at x = 0.5 and x = 0.5, respectively. The displacement of G
0
is
V
0
= 0.00866 and its wetted surface area is S
0
= 0.327.
The ow around G
0
is solved using SWAN-v2.2 code. The basis ow around which the
free-surface conditions are linearized is the double-body ow (similar to Dawsons lineariza-
tion, see Nakos and Sclavounos (1990) for more details). The wave resistance coecient as
a function of Froude number (based on ship length) is shown in Figure 7. There are two
curves corresponding to two dierent methods of calculating wave resistance in SWAN-v2.2
code. The curve denoted by R
w
is based on transverse wave cut method while R
p
is obtained
by integrating hull surface pressure.
n
= 0.230
The wave resistance of G
0
has local maxima near Froude numbers F
n
= 0.230 and 0.300.
We choose to optimize the hull at these Froude numbers subject to geometric constraints.
Here we consider the lower Froude number. The objective functional is the wave resistance
as dened by Equation (6). The design variables are the osets of the B-spline control points
while their depths and streamwise locations are held xed. However, not all of the control
points are available as design variables. This is because the rst station (nose point), the last
station (tail point), the keel and crown must all have zero osets. The control points which
are free to change correspond to indices i = 2, . . . , m2 and j = 2, . . . , (n 2). Therefore,
the number of design variables is n
dv
= (m3)(n 3) which is 55 in the present example.
Since the depths and streamwise positions of the control points are xed, the optimized
hull, which is denoted by G
d
sub230, will have a prole in the plane of symmetry as that of
the original hull G
0
. Two constraints are imposed on G
d
: the displacement of G
d
satises an
equality constraint V
d
= V
0
, whereas its wetted surface area satises an inequality constraint
S
d
1.3 S
0
. This means that the displacement of the optimized hull must be equal to that
of the original hull but its surface area may be greater than the original surface area.
We must also specify side constraints. To this end, we let y
0
k
denote the initial values of the
design variables that give the original hull G
0
, and let d
1
denote the minimum of these values.
We specify side constraints by: d
1
y
k
0.1. This constrained optimization problem is
solved using a generalized reduced gradient method (GRG) as detailed by Belegundu and
27
Chandrupatla (1999, page 176). In this method, inequality constraints are replaced with
equality constraints by introducing slack variables.
It is important to establish credibility of the adjoint method for computing the gradient of
the cost functional with respect to the design variables y
k
. For this purpose, we compare the
gradient found by the adjoint with that by a nite-dierence method. In the latter method,
we perturb the control variables y
k
one at a time and recalculate the cost functional on
each perturbed hull. Knowing the cost functional on the unperturbed hull, we compute the
gradient by a rst-order forward nite-dierence method. There are 55 control variables, and
thus the ow eld has to be recomputed on 55 dierent hulls in addition to the unperturbed
hull. This should be compared with only two solutions for the adjoint approach; one for the
velocity potential and the other for the adjoint function. The 55 components of the gradient
computed by the two methods are depicted in Figure 8 against the index k which is dened
by Figure 5. The overall agreement between the two methods is excellent. However, there
are discrepancies in the nose and tail regions which we attribute to grid stretching and large
pressure gradient in these regions. In Figure 9 we depict the dierence between the two
methods after normalization by the magnitude of the gradient vector. The error is less than
3 percent.
In the rst two design cycles, the cost functional is reduced to 0.100 and 0.008 of its
initial value, respectively. Therefore, the design iteration was terminated. The designed
hull, which is denoted by G
d2
sub230, is shown in Figures 1013. Its wetted surface area is
0.332, which is 1.5 percent larger than the original surface area. The major changes in shape
happen in the mid section which is pinched as evident in Figure 13, followed by a small
increase in beam fore and aft of that section as shown in Figure 12. This redistribution of
sectional area along the body axis results in destructive wave interference which is the only
mechanism available for wave resistance minimization in the present ow model. The wave
drag coecient (based on wetted surface area) of the base-line hull G
0
is R
w
= 1.22 10
3
and of the designed hull it is 0.0197 10
3
. The wave drag of G
d2
sub230 is about 2 percent
of that of G
0
. The optimized hull is practically a waveless hull at Froude number 0.230. It
is important to recall that this result is based on potential ow theory.
The lower wave resistance of G
d2
sub230 manifests itself in the wave pattern on the free
surface and in the plane of symmetry wave elevation shown in Figures 14 and 15, respectively.
From Figure 15 we see that the wave length of transverse waves on the original hull G
0
is
approximately 0.333. That is to say, the body length is about three times the wave length.
Hence, the local maximum in the wave resistance at F
n
= 0.230 is a direct consequence
of constructive wave interference between the bow and stern waves. Pinching the original
hull at its mid section divides the hull into two bodies each with an eective length that is
1.5 times transverse wave length resulting in destructive wave interference and hence drag
reduction.
It is interesting to investigate the pressure distribution on the hull surface. Top views
of pressure contours on the two hulls G
0
and G
d2
sub230 are shown in Figures 16 and 17,
28
respectively. Side views of the same contours are shown in Figures 18 and 19. The footprints
of surface waves are clearly visible on the top of G
0
sub230, with a suction region on the
stern induced by a trough above it. On the designed hull G
d2
, pressure contours are similar
to those on G
0
only on bow, but signicantly dierent on stern where the suction region
is replaced by higher pressure induced by a crest above the stern. The removal of the low
pressure region on the stern is the source of drag reduction on the designed hull.
n
= 0.300
We noted earlier that the wave resistance of the base-line submarine G
0
shown in Figure 7
has strong local maximum at Froude number F
n
= 0.300. In this section, we minimize wave
resistance at this Froude number. The constrained optimization problem is exactly the same
as described in the previous section except for the Froude number.
At Froude number F
n
= 0.300, we rst establish credibility of the adjoint method for
computing the gradient of the cost functional with respect to the design variables y
k
. Again
we compare with a rst-order nite-dierence method. The 55 components of the gradient
vector computed by the two methods are depicted in Figure 20 against the index k which
is dened by Figure 5. The overall agreement between the two methods is excellent. In
Figure 21 we depict the dierence between the two methods after normalization by the
magnitude of the gradient vector. Here, the error is also less than 3 percent.
The reduction of the cost functional Equation (6) obtained by GRG method is shown in
Figure 22. The iteration process is terminated after 10 design cycles since the reduction is
deemed sucient while further reduction becomes very slow in the current GRG method. In
fact, the cost functional is reduced to 0.12 of its initial value in the rst ve cycles.
The designed hull, which is denoted by G
d10
sub300, is shown in Figures 2327. This
shape is characteristically dierent from the one obtained at the lower Froude number of
F
n
= 0.230. Its bow and stern are thinner than those of G
0
whereas its mid section is
fattened and attened in the horizontal direction thereby keeping equal displacement as
G
0
. This is an attempt by the hull to shorten its eective length so that destructive wave
interference can be realized. The side constraints on the design variables play an important
role in this case. They limit the extent by which the body expands or shrinks in the horizontal
direction. The wetted surface area of G
d10
sub300 is 0.333, which is 1.8 percent larger than
that of G
0
.
It may be anticipated that a minimum wave resistance body should be symmetric fore
and aft of the mid section. Such symmetry is lacking in the current design because the plane
of symmetry prole, which is held xed, is not symmetric fore and aft of mid section. Also,
double-body linearization breaks the fore-aft symmetry.
The wave resistance coecient of G
d10
sub300 over a range of Froude number is compared
with that of G
0
in Figure 28. At the optimization Froude number F
n
= 0.300, the wave
resistance coecient of G
0
is R
w
= 5.37 10
3
and for the optimized hull G
d10
sub300 it
is R
w
= 0.0878 10
3
. It is important to recall that this result is based on potential ow
29
theory. We also note that the wave resistance of the designed hull is lower than that of G
0
over the Froude number range 0.26 to 0.34; for higher Froude numbers this trend is reversed.
The minimum wave resistance of G
d10
sub300 manifests itself in the free surface wave
pattern and in the plane of symmetry wave elevation shown in Figures 29 and 30, respectively.
From Figure 30 we see that the wave length of transverse waves on the original hull G
0
is approximately 0.54. That is to say the original body length is about twice transverse
wave length. Hence, the local maximum in the wave resistance at F
n
= 0.300 is a direct
consequence of constructive wave interference between the bow and stern waves. The trick
of pinching the original hull at its mid section does not work at this higher Froude number
because the resulting body would have an eective length equal to one transverse wave
length. The fact that the shape of the optimized hull G
d10
sub300 is thinner at bow and
stern but fatter in the middle suggests that its characteristic length of relevance to wave
interference is actually less than 1; but it must be greater than 0.5 to cause destructive
interference. The basic features of the wave pattern of G
d10
sub300 shown in Figures 29
and 30 are two crests above bow and stern separated by a trough above mid section. These
features are similar to those of the pressure coecient distribution that would exist on the
free surface as if it were a rigid lid (a body in ground eect).
It is interesting to investigate the pressure distribution on the hull surface. The pressure
distribution on bow is shown in Figure 31 and on stern in Figure 32. The left side of each
gure is for G
0
and the right side for G
d10
sub300. A thinner nose results in a smaller region
of positive C
p
and a larger suction region on the forward half of hull. The major changes
in the pressure distribution on stern is the removal of the strong suction that used to exist
on top of G
0
and its replacement with a slightly positive pressure coecient. The removal
of low pressure region on the stern is the source of drag reduction on the designed hull.
This conclusion is also supported by Figures 33 and 34. The contributions of small strips
between stations x and x +dx to the cost functional Equation (6) is shown as a function of
x in Figure 33. The cumulative eect of all stations between bow and station x is shown in
Figure 34. It is interesting to note that the forward half of the optimized hull experiences
zero wave drag and only the 3rd quarter of body contributes all the drag. Almost all of the
drag reduction on the designed hull G
d10
sub300 is due to the improved pressure distribution
on the last 25 percent of the hull. This is a bit unfortunate because viscous eects and
interactions with propellers dominate the ow eld in this region. Considerations of these
eects and interactions are necessary for the design of the stern region.
Using the Depths of Control Points as Design Variables
In the previous two sections, the osets of B-spline control points are used as design
variables while their depths are held xed. In this section, both the osets and depths of
submergence are used as design variables. This introduces more degrees of freedom and
exibility in shape optimization. Only in this section of the report, Kelvins rather than
double-body linearization of the free-surface conditions is used. The only reason for using
30
Kelvins linearization is that the results in this section have been obtained in the early stages
of code development.
The accuracy of Equation (80) for calculating the gradient is validated by compari-
son with direct calculations using second-order nite dierences, dL/d [L( + )
L( )]/2. To this end, we consider a simple body and use bi-cubic B-spline sur-
faces (Mortenson 1997) for parameterization. The control points of the B-spline surfaces are
placed on an ellipsoid (length = L = 1, diameter = 0.2, axis depth = 0.2) and we denote
this body by G
0
. There are (m+1)(n+1) control points on half the body which is assumed
to have a plane of symmetry but the body is not axisymmetric. The streamwise coordinates,
x
k
, of the control points are held xed while the osets, y
k
, and depths, z
k
, are considered
to be the control parameters
i
. The index k takes the values k = 1, 2, . . . , (m + 1)(n + 1).
Because of symmetry and other constraints on the depth of the nose and tail points, the
number of free control parameters is (m 3)(n 3) osets and (m 3)(n 1) depths. In
the results presented here, we use m = 8 and n = 18, which results in a total of 180 control
parameters for half the body. We note that each B-spline patch is subdivided into 4 4
panels resulting in 1536 panels on half the body.
It is important to note that to determine the gradient by central nite dierences, the 180
control parameters are perturbed one at a time, and for each parameter the eld equations
are solved twice on a perturbed geometry. In contrast, in the adjoint approach the eld and
adjoint equations are solved only once on unperturbed geometry. Evaluation of the gradient
from Equation (80) requires geometric properties (area, centroid, unit normal of each panel)
of the perturbed hull forms but no eld equations are solved. This is a clear advantage of
the adjoint approach over nite dierences.
Wave Resistance Minimization
The rst example is for wave resistance minimization whose objective functional is given
by Equation (6). At a Froude number (F
n
= U
g
0
L) of 0.450, we compare the components
of the gradient by adjoint and nite dierences in Tables 1 and 2. The discrepancies are less
than 3 percent. Only osets and depths of control points that dene the body nearest to
the free surface are shown.
Design for a Target Pressure Distribution
The second example concerns the inverse problem whose objective functional is given by
Equation (9). The target pressure p
d
is the pressure distribution that would result on the
B-spline body G
0
if we replace the free surface by a rigid lid (also known as the double body
or zero-Froude-number pressure). This pressure is signicantly dierent from the actual
free-surface ow on the same body at nite Froude number. It is important to note that the
rigid lid condition is used once at the beginning of calculations only to provide the target
pressure distribution. When solving for and , the respective free-surface conditions at
nite Froude number are enforced. At a Froude number of 0.450, Tables 3 and 4 show that
31
the discrepancies between the nite dierences and adjoint formulation is less than 5 percent.
In this example, a simple unconstrained steepest descent method is used to determine
an optimal geometry for this inverse problem. The osets, y
k
, are constrained to be posi-
tive. Some of the osets start to become negative after 108 functional evaluations and the
calculations are terminated. At this stage the cost functional is reduced to 0.02 of its initial
value. The designed body, G
d
sub450 is shown in Figure 35. Signicant changes in the cross
sections can be observed near the free surface. The cross sections in the forward half of body
(0 x 0.5L) develop a at top, whereas sections in the rear half (0.5L x 0) become
thinner near the free surface forming a n-like structure. However, the cross sections remain
nearly circular in the lower half that is farther away from the free surface.
In Figure 36 we depict three pressure coecient distributions: The target pressure (solid
line) which is the pressure distribution on the B-spline body G
0
at zero Froude number, the
pressure on the optimal solution G
d
sub450 (lled circles), and the pressure on G
0
at Froude
number of 0.450 (dashed line). All the distributions are on the top meridional line. The
pressure distribution on G
d
sub450 has a lower suction peak and milder adverse pressure
gradient than the initial body G
0
. Because the volume is not constrained, the designed body
has a slightly smaller volume. However, it is found that the wave drag per unit volume of
the designed body is 0.60 that of the initial body G
0
.
32
Table 1. dF/dy
k
by adjoint and central nite dierence, minimum wave resis-
tance, and osets y
k
of B-spline control points
k y
k
Adjoint Finite Di. |%| discrep
43 +0.27779E01 0.34456E03 0.35413E03 2.70
52 +0.35355E01 0.32731E03 0.33133E03 1.21
61 +0.41573E01 +0.58274E04 +0.58805E04 0.90
70 +0.46194E01 +0.80873E03 +0.81433E03 0.69
79 +0.49039E01 +0.15918E02 +0.16021E02 0.64
88 +0.50000E01 +0.19319E02 +0.19383E02 0.33
97 +0.49039E01 +0.15948E02 +0.15959E02 0.07
106 +0.46194E01 +0.79862E03 +0.79763E03 0.12
Table 2. dF/dz
k
by adjoint and central nite dierence, minimum wave resis-
tance, and depths z
k
k z
k
44 0.14444E+00 0.42650E03 0.43374E03 1.67
53 0.12929E+00 0.44952E03 0.45543E03 1.30
62 0.11685E+00 0.47806E04 0.48654E04 1.74
71 0.10761E+00 +0.82454E03 +0.82817E03 0.44
80 0.10192E+00 +0.18179E02 +0.18245E02 0.36
89 0.10000E+00 +0.23273E02 +0.23312E02 0.17
98 0.10192E+00 +0.19593E02 +0.19588E02 0.02
107 0.10761E+00 +0.93872E03 +0.93685E03 0.20
33
Table 3. dF/dy
k
by adjoint and central nite dierence, prescribed surface pres-
sure, and osets y
k
k y
k
43 +0.27779E01 0.11320E03 0.11053E03 2.41
52 +0.35355E01 0.14600E03 0.14272E03 2.30
61 +0.41573E01 0.93342E04 0.91620E04 1.88
70 +0.46194E01 +0.66461E04 +0.65918E04 0.82
79 +0.49039E01 +0.26798E03 +0.26625E03 0.65
88 +0.50000E01 +0.44116E03 +0.43780E03 0.77
97 +0.49039E01 +0.58772E03 +0.58339E03 0.74
106 +0.46194E01 +0.66642E03 +0.66375E03 0.40
Table 4. dF/dz
k
by adjoint and central nite dierence, prescribed surface pres-
sure, and depths z
k
k z
k
44 0.14444E+00 0.12224E03 0.11911E03 2.63
53 0.12929E+00 0.16318E03 0.15954E03 2.28
62 0.11685E+00 0.11501E03 0.11310E03 1.69
71 0.10761E+00 +0.47383E04 +0.45716E04 3.65
80 0.10192E+00 +0.26455E03 +0.25958E03 1.91
89 0.10000E+00 +0.49133E03 +0.48480E03 1.35
98 0.10192E+00 +0.73054E03 +0.72554E03 0.69
107 0.10761E+00 +0.85242E03 +0.85207E03 0.04
34
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
i
j
k=
21
22
23
24
25
30 39 48 66 75 84 93 102 111 57
115
114
113
112
106 43 52 61 70 79 88 97 34
Bow Stern
Figure 5. Indices of bi-cubic B-spline control points for a submarine conguration.
35
x
z
-0.5 -0.4 -0.3 -0.2 -0.1 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
-0.25
-0.2
-0.15
-0.1
-0.05
0
0.05
Figure 6. Base-line submarine G
0
, z = 0 is the free surface.
Fr
R
w
,
R
p
0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45
0
0.001
0.002
0.003
0.004
0.005
0.006
0.007
0.008
R
w
R
p
Figure 7. Wave resistance coecient for base-line submarine G
0
(R
p
by pressure
integration and R
w
by wave cut method).
36
k
20 40 60 80 100 120
-0.0025
-0.0020
-0.0015
-0.0010
-0.0005
0.0000
0.0005
0.0010
0.0015
0.0020
Gradient
Adjoint
Finite Difference
Figure 8. Gradient computed by adjoint and nite-dierence methods, F
n
= 0.230.
k
e
r
r
o
r
20 40 60 80 100 120
-0.04
-0.03
-0.02
-0.01
0
0.01
0.02
0.03
0.04
0.05
Figure 9. Errors in gradient components normalized by gradient vector magni-
tude, F
n
= 0.230.
37
X
Y
Z
Figure 10. A view of designed hull G
d2
sub230.
38
x
z
-0.5 -0.4 -0.3 -0.2 -0.1 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
-0.25
-0.2
-0.15
-0.1
-0.05
0
0.05
Figure 11. Projection on the xz-plane of designed hull G
d2
sub230.
x
y
-0.5 -0.4 -0.3 -0.2 -0.1 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
-0.1
-0.05
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
Figure 12. Projection on the xy-plane of designed hull G
d2
sub230.
39
y
z
-0.08 -0.06 -0.04 -0.02 0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08
-0.16
-0.14
-0.12
-0.1
-0.08
-0.06
-0.04
x = 0
x = 0.25
x = -0.25
Figure 13. Cross sections of designed hull G
d2
sub230.
40
X
Y
-1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1
-1
-0.5
0
0.5
1
0.001
0.001
-0.001
-0.001
G
d2
G
o
Figure 14. Wave pattern of base-line hull G
0
d2
sub230 (upper half), F
n
= 0.230.
41
x
-1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1

-0.015
-0.01
-0.005
0
0.005
0.01
0.015
G
d2
G
o
Figure 15. Wave elevation in plane of symmetry of base-line hull G
0
and designed
hull G
d2
sub230, F
n
= 0.230.
42
X
Y
Z
0.0
-0.009
0.0
-0.008
0.005
Figure 16. Pressure contours (0.5F
2
n
C
p
) on top of base-line hull G
0
, F
n
= 0.230.
X
Y
Z
0.0
-0.008 0.0
-0.006
0.004
2
n
C
p
) on top of designed hull G
d20
sub230, F
n
= 0.230.
43
Y X
Z
-0.003
-0.005
0.0
-0.006 0.005
2
n
C
p
) on side of base-line hull G
0
sub230, F
n
= 0.230.
Y X
Z
0.0
-0.005
0.0
-0.006
0.005
2
n
C
p
) on side of designed hull G
d2
sub230, F
n
= 0.230.
44
k
20 40 60 80 100 120
-0.005
-0.004
-0.003
-0.002
-0.001
0
0.001
0.002
0.003
0.004
Adjoint
Finite Difference
Gradient
Figure 20. Gradient computed by adjoint and nite-dierence methods, F
n
= 0.300.
k
e
r
r
o
r
20 40 60 80 100 120
-0.04
-0.03
-0.02
-0.01
0
0.01
0.02
0.03
0.04
0.05
tude, F
n
= 0.300.
45
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
0.00
0.10
0.20
0.30
0.40
0.50
0.60
0.70
0.80
0.90
1.00
F / F
o
Design Cycle
Figure 22. Reduction of cost functional with design cycles for G
d10
sub300.
46
X
Y
Z
Figure 23. A view of designed hull G
d10
sub300.
47
x
z
-0.5 -0.4 -0.3 -0.2 -0.1 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
-0.25
-0.2
-0.15
-0.1
-0.05
0
0.05
Figure 24. Projection on the xz-plane of designed hull G
d10
sub300.
x
y
-0.5 -0.4 -0.3 -0.2 -0.1 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
-0.1
-0.05
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
d10
sub300.
48
y
z
-0.08 -0.06 -0.04 -0.02 0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1
-0.16
-0.14
-0.12
-0.1
-0.08
-0.06
-0.04
-0.02
0
Figure 26. Bow view of designed hull G
d10
sub300.
49
y
z
-0.08 -0.06 -0.04 -0.02 0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1
-0.16
-0.14
-0.12
-0.1
-0.08
-0.06
-0.04
-0.02
0
Figure 27. Stern view of designed hull G
d10
sub300.
50
Fr
R
w
,
R
p
0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45
0
0.001
0.002
0.003
0.004
0.005
0.006
0.007
0.008
G
o
G
d10
R
p
R
w
R
w
R
p
Figure 28. Wave resistance coecient for base-line hull G
0
and designed hull G
d10
sub300 (R
p
w
51
X
Y
-1 0 1
-1
-0.5
0
0.5
1
0.002
-0.002
0.002
-0.002
0.002
0.002
G
d10
G
o
Figure 29. Wave pattern of base-line hull G
0
d10
sub300 (upper half).
52
x
-1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1

-0.03
-0.02
-0.01
0
0.01
0.02
0.03
G
d10
G
o
Figure 30. Wave elevation in the plane of symmetry of base-line hull G
0
and
designed hull G
d10
sub300.
53
X Y
Z
0.03
-0.006
-0.006
0.0
-0.006
G
d10
G
o
0.0
0.0
0.03
-0.008
2
n
C
p
0
(left half)
and designed hull G
d10
sub300 (right half).
54
X Y
Z
-0.008
-0.002
0.002
-0.006
G
d10
G
o
0.0
0.0
-0.018
2
n
C
p
0
(left half)
and designed hull G
d10
sub300 (right half).
55
x
d
f
(
x
)
-0.5 -0.25 0 0.25 0.5
-4E-05
-2E-05
0
2E-05
4E-05
6E-05
8E-05
Bow
Stern
G
o
G
d10
Figure 33. Contribution of station strips (between x and x + dx) to wave resis-
tance of base-line hull G
0
and designed hull G
d10
sub300.
x
f
(
x
)
-0.5 -0.25 0 0.25 0.5
-1.0E-04
0.0E+00
1.0E-04
2.0E-04
3.0E-04
4.0E-04
5.0E-04
6.0E-04
Bow
Stern
G
o
G
d10
Figure 34. Contribution of all strips between bow (x = 0.5) and station x to
wave resistance of base-line hull G
0
and designed hull G
d10
sub300.
56
-0.14 -0.12 -0.1 -0.08 -0.06 -0.04 -0.02 0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12 0.14
y
-0.28
-0.26
-0.24
-0.22
-0.2
-0.18
-0.16
-0.14
-0.12
z
Stations at -0.5 <= x <=0 Stations at 0<=x<=0.5
-0.5 -0.25 0 0.25 0.5
x
-0.25
-0.2
-0.15
-0.1
-0.05
0
z
Figure 35. Designed body G
d
sub450 for optimal solution to the inverse problem;
free surface z = 0, Froude number F
n
= 0.450.
57
-0.5 -0.25 0 0.25 0.5
x
-0.5
-0.25
0
0.25
0.5
0.75
1
C
p
G
d
at Fr=0.450
G
o
at Fr=0 (DB)
G
o
at Fr=0.450
Figure 36. Pressure coecient distributions on the top line of symmetry of de-
signed body G
d
sub450 and initial body G
0
.
58
Surface Ships
In this section, we demonstrate the use of the adjoint formulation for shape optimization
of surface ships. We seek hull forms of minimum wave resistance subject to certain geometric
constraints that will be given later. For the sake of comparison, we perform the optimization
using a nite-dierence for the gradient of the cost functional at all design cycles. We also
solve the inverse problem in which a target pressure distribution on hull is specied and a
hull form is sought. All results are based on double-body linearization of the free-surface
boundary conditions.
Base-Line Ship G
0
A base-line ship, which is denoted by G
0
, is constructed by a composite B-spline surface
patches. Uniform bi-cubic patches are used. The control points are uniformly spaced in the x-
and z-directions and their osets are placed on a mathematically dened surface. However,
this surface is used only for the denition of G
0
and is not needed for the optimization
procedure. The plane y = 0 is a plane of symmetry and half the hull surface is parameterized
by (m+1)(n +1) control points. Each control point is identied by two indices (i, j) where
i = 0, 1, . . . , m and j = 0, 1, . . . , n. For later use, the two indices are combined into a one
dimensional index k = j(m + 1) + i + 1. The streamwise positions x
ij
of the control points
vary only with index j and their depths z
ij
vary only with index i. There are (m2)(n2)
surface patches and each patch is subdivided into a small number of panels (m
p
n
p
). The
total number of panels on half the hull is m
p
n
p
(m2)(n 2). Grid sensitivity studies can
be easily achieved by varying one or more of the four parameters in this expression.
For m = 7 and n = 11, the B-spline control points indices are depicted in Figure 37. The
rst station of bow corresponds to the line j = 1, i = 1, . . . , 6, and the last station of stern
to the line j = 10, i = 1, . . . , 6. The keel corresponds to the line i = 1, j = 1, . . . , 10, and the
waterline to the line i = 6, j = 1, . . . , 10. Each patch is subdivided into (m
p
n
p
) = (5 8)
panels which gives 73 stations and 26 waterlines and a total of 1800 panels on half the hull.
Dierent projections of G
0
are depicted in Figures 3840.
The ship length is used as a reference length. The rst station of bow is at x = 0.5
and the last station of stern is at x = 0.5. The hull is symmetric fore and aft of the mid-
ship section (x = 0). Some geometric characteristics of G
0
are: waterline beam B = 0.116
(L/B = 8.62), draft T = 0.0544 (B/T = 2.13) which is uniform along the ship length,
displacement V
0
= 0.00396, wetted surface area S
0
= 0.168, and block coecient C
B
= 0.628.
The ow around G
0
is solved using SWAN-v2.2 code. The basis ow around which the free
surface conditions are linearized is the double-body ow (similar to Dawsons linearization,
see Nakos and Sclavounos, 1990, for more details). The wave resistance coecient as a
function of Froude number (based on ship length) is shown in Figure 41. There are two
curves corresponding to two dierent methods of calculating wave resistance in SWAN-v2.2
code. The curve denoted by R
w
is based on transverse wave cut method while R
p
is obtained
by integrating surface pressure including a waterline contribution.
59
n
= 0.287
The wave resistance of G
0
has a local maximum near F
n
= 0.287 due to constructive
wave interference. We choose to optimize the hull at this Froude number subject to geo-
metric constraints. The objective functional is the wave resistance given by Equation (6).
The design variables are the osets of the B-spline control points while their depths and
streamwise locations are held xed. However, not all of the control points are available as
design variables. This is because the rst station, the last station, and the keel must all have
zero osets. The control points which are free to change correspond to indices i = 2, . . . , m
and j = 2, . . . , (n 2). Therefore, the number of design variables is n
dv
= (m 1)(n 3),
which is 48 in the present example.
Since the depths and streamwise positions of the control points are xed, the optimized
hull will have a prole in the plane of symmetry as that of the original hull G
0
. Two
constraints are imposed on the optimized hull: its displacement V
d
satises an equality
constraint V
d
= V
0
, whereas its wetted surface area S
d
satises an inequality constraint
S
d
< 1.3S
0
. This means that the displacement of the optimized hull is equal to that of the
original hull but its surface may be larger than the original surface.
We must also specify side constraints. To this end, we let y
0
k
denote the initial values of
the design variables that give the original hull G
0
and let d
1
and d
2
denote the minimum
and maximum of these values, respectively. In terms of these quantities, we dene lower
and upper limits for each design variable: y
l
k
= max(d
1
, 0.5y
0
k
) and y
u
k
= min(1.2d
2
, 1.5y
0
k
).
Finally, we specify side constraints by: y
l
k
< y
k
< y
u
k
. This constrained optimization problem
is solved using a generalized reduced gradient method (GRG) as detailed by Belegundu and
Chandrupatla (1999, page 176). In this method, inequality constraints are replaced with
equality constrained by introducing slack variables.
It is important to establish credibility of the adjoint method for computing the gradient
of the cost functional with respect to the design variables y
k
. For this purpose, comparison
is made between the gradient found by the adjoint and that by a nite-dierence method. In
the latter method, the control variables y
k
are perturbed one at a time and the cost functional
is computed on each perturbed hull. With the cost function on the unperturbed hull known,
the gradient is computed by a rst-order forward nite-dierence method. There are 48
control variables, and thus the ow eld has to be recalculated on 48 dierent perturbed
hulls in addition to the unperturbed one. This should be compared with only two solutions
for the adjoint approach; one for the velocity potential and the other for the adjoint function.
The 48 components of the gradient computed by the two methods are depicted in Figure 42
against the index k which is dened by Figure 37. The overall agreement between the two
methods is satisfactory. The discrepancies in the components of the two gradients after
normalization by the magnitude of the gradient vector are shown in Figure 43. The error is
less than 6 percent.
It is instructive to investigate the contribution of the adjoint term to the gradient of the
cost functional. In Equation (80) we substitute = 0 and determine the gradient using the
60
remaining terms, which is equivalent to setting = 0 in Equation (13). The gradient and
the corresponding error of this (incorrect) method of computing the gradient are shown in
Figures 44 and 45. Neglecting the contribution of the adjoint results in a 30 percent error
and gives a qualitatively incorrect gradient. Figure 44 clearly shows that the present adjoint
formulation is correct. The discrepancy between nite-dierence method and the adjoint
may be reduced by improving the waterline conditions or considerations of the adjoint for
the double-body ow.
The reduction of the cost functional Equation (6) obtained by GRG method is shown in
Figure 46. The iteration process is terminated after 20 design cycles since the reduction is
deemed sucient while further reduction becomes very slow in the current GRG method.
d20
S287, is shown in Figures 4750. We note that
the bow and stern regions are pinched while a small bulge develops at the mid ship region.
The stern region suers the most modications. The maximum waterline beam is 0.133 and
the wetted surface area is 0.173; which is 3.0 percent larger than that of G
0
.
The wave resistance coecient of G
d20
S287 over a range of Froude number is compared
with that of G
0
in Figure 51. At the optimization Froude number F
n
= 0.287, the coecient
R
w
for G
0
is 2.70 10
3
and for G
d20
S287 it is 0.204 10
3
. The reduction in the wave
resistance is approximately 92 percent. It is important to recall that this result is based on
potential ow theory. We also note that the wave resistance of the designed hull is lower
than that of G
0
over the Froude number range 0.25 to 0.35, outside this range the trend is
reversed.
The lower wave resistance of G
d20
S287 manifests itself in the wave pattern and water-line
wave elevation shown in Figures 52 and 53, respectively. As evident in Figure 53, the stern
wave is signicantly reduced while the bow wave is slightly reduced. It is also interesting
to note that there are two waves on the base-line hull G
0
whereas only one wave can be
identied on the designed hull G
d20
S287. The pressure distribution on bow is shown in
Figure 54 and on stern in Figure 55. The left side of each gure is for G
0
and the right
side for G
d20
S287. The major changes in the pressure distribution take place in the stern
region where a strong suction on G
0
is practically removed and the pressure becomes nearly
uniform at free stream value, C
p
= 0. The removal of the low pressure region on the stern
is the source of drag reduction on the designed hull. This conclusion is also supported by
Figures 56 and 57. The contributions of small strips between stations x and x + dx to the
cost functional Equation (6) is shown as a function of x in Figure 56. The cumulative eect
of all stations between bow and station x is shown in Figure 57. Almost all of the drag
reduction on the designed hull G
d20
S287 is due to the improved pressure distribution on the
last 25 percent of the hull. This is a bit unfortunate because viscous eects and interactions
with propeller/jet dominate the ow eld in this region. Considerations of these eects and
interactions are necessary for the design of the stern region.
61
Optimization Using Finite Dierence for Gradient Computation
Using nite-dierence for gradient calculations is very expensive, especially for 48 design
variables, but it can be used occasionally to verify a design obtained by the adjoint formula-
tion. In the previous section, comparison is made between the two methods for computing
the gradient on G
0
with 48 design variables and 7800 panels (1800 panels on half the hull).
In this section, the optimization problem is solved using a nite-dierence method for gra-
dient calculations throughout 20 design cycles. The same 48 control points of the previous
section are used as design variables but the number of panels per patch is reduced so that
the computation can be completed in a reasonable time. Here, the total number of panels
is reduced to 3600 (900 on half the hull) and the design takes 200 hours of wall time on
SGI-R10000. The adjoint formulation takes 14 hours to complete 20 design cycles on this
coarse grid. All adjoint results shown here have been obtained on the ne resolution of 7800
panels, and it takes 48 hours to complete 20 design cycles. A nite-dierence design would
have taken an estimated 700 hours.
At the end of 20 design cycles of the nite-dierence design, the 48 osets are used to
generate a rened grid with a total of 7800 panels (1800 on half the hull). The form of this
hull, its wave pattern and resistance are now compared with those obtained by the adjoint
method on the ne grid. The bow and stern are compared in Figures 58 and 59, respectively.
There are discernible dierences between the two hulls, especially in the bow region. This is
due the dierences in gradient vectors of the two methods, which are compounded through
the 20 design cycles. Nonetheless, the hydrodynamic performances of these two hull forms
are remarkably similar. This is shown by the wave patterns and waterline elevations for the
two hulls depicted in Figures 60 and 61, respectively. Moreover, the force distributions on
the two hull forms shown in Figure 62 are in close agreement. Finally, the wave resistance
coecients over a range of Froude number are compared in Figure 63. Taken collectively,
these results arm that the two hull forms have the same hydrodynamic performance. This
seemingly fortuitous agreement in the hydrodynamic performance can be explained by the
fact that the two hull forms have almost identical sectional area distributions as shown in
Figure 64. The waterline of the two hulls are also shown in Figure 65 which shows a small
dierence at mid-ship.
A Target Pressure Distribution at Froude Number F
n
= 0.287
This section concerns the application of the present shape optimization method to the
solution of an inverse problem in ship hydrodynamics. The objective is to design a hull
form so that the pressure distribution on its surface matches a target distribution to be
specied by the designer. Experience in ship hydrodynamics plays an important role in the
specication of such a distribution. For example, the pressure distribution on an existing
hull is rst determined, the designer may choose to introduce modications as to mitigate
ow separation or cavitation in a certain locality. An exact solution to the inverse problem
may not exist. The use of shape optimization techniques provides a hull form whose pressure
62
distribution is as nearly as possible to the target distribution. The cost functional is given
by Equation (9).
To demonstrate the method, the target pressure distribution is given by the double-
body pressure coecient distribution on the base-line hull G
0
. This is an interesting target
pressure because it gives zero wave drag on G
0
. Although Froude number (or gravitational)
eects do not play a role in the determination of the double-body pressure coecient, the
optimized hull form depends on the Froude number at which optimization is performed.
Moreover, the wave drag of the designed hull may not be zero. Even though the pressure
coecient at each panel center of the optimized hull matches the target distribution, the
area and orientation of each panel may have changed from those of the corresponding panel
of G
0
. The double-body pressure distribution gives zero drag only on G
0
but not necessarily
on a deformed shape that follows from it.
The inverse problem is solved at Froude number F
n
= 0.287. The constraints on dis-
placement and wetted surface area as well as side constraints are exactly the same as given
on pages 6061 for wave resistance minimization at Froude number F
n
= 0.287. However,
because a dierent objective functional is specied, it is important to establish credibility of
the adjoint method for computing the gradient. Here again comparison is made between the
gradient found by the adjoint and that by a nite-dierence method. The 48 components
of the gradient computed by the two methods are depicted in Figure 66 against the index
k which is dened by Figure 37. The overall agreement between the two methods is very
good. In Figure 67 we depict the dierence between the two methods after normalization by
the magnitude of the gradient vector. The error is less than 5 percent.
The reduction of the cost functional Equation (9) is shown in Figure 68. The iteration
process is terminated after 10 design cycles since the reduction is deemed sucient, in fact
the cost functional levels o after 7 cycles.
The target and actual pressure distributions on the designed hull G
d10
are shown in
Figure 69 as a function of x at four dierent depths. The rst plot at k
z
= 1 corresponds
to the row of panels closest to the free surface, and the fourth plot at k
z
= 25 corresponds
to the last row of panels at the keel. The pressure distribution on the base-line hull G
0
at Froude number F
n
= 0.287 is given by the dashed line. This pressure distribution is
signicantly dierent from the double-body pressure distribution on the same hull (shown
by the open circles) and which is used as a target pressure. It is evident in these gures that
the pressure on the optimized hull is close to the target pressure almost everywhere on hull
except in the bow region (x = 0.5) near the waterline (k
z
= 1). This is expected because
shape deformation downstream of bow has little inuence on bow ow due to the hyperbolic
character of the free-surface condition.
d10
S287P, is shown in Figures 7073. It is
surprising that the bow region is strongly pinched but the stern suers less modications. The
maximum waterline beam is 0.127 and the wetted surface area is 0.172; which is 2.3 percent
larger than that of G
0
. The body plan depicted in Figure 72 shows that the hull lacks
63
symmetry fore and aft of the mid ship section.
The optimization iteration is continued for another 20 cycles but no changes are observed
in hull form. The wave resistance coecient over a range of Froude number is shown in
Figure 74. At the design Froude number F
n
= 0.287, the wave drag coecient is R
w
=
0.907 10
3
, thus the drag reduction is 65 percent of the base-line hull. Although the
objective functional in this design is for a target pressure, the wave resistance of the designed
hull shows favorable reduction over a relatively high Froude numbers up to 0.4.
Weakly Wall-Sided Design at Froude Number F
n
= 0.287
The eects of imposing more geometric constraints on the ship previously optimized to
minimize wave resistance at F
n
= 0.287 (pages 6061) is investigated in this and the next
section. This task is made easy by the exibility of the B-spline parameterization. In this
section, the hull surface is constrained to be normal to the undisturbed free surface z = 0,
that is to say y/z = 0 at z = 0. With reference to Figure 37, this condition is obtained if
the last three control points (i = 5, 6, 7) at any column, j, have the same value. Of course
this will reduce the number of design variables from 48 to 32. All other geometric and side
constraints of the previous optimization apply here. The optimized hull is called weakly
wall-sided design.
d20
S287WS, is shown in Figures 75 and 76. It
is clear that the zero-slope condition is satised on the free surface z = 0. The geometric
characteristics of this hull are similar to those of G
d20
S287; hence they have similar hydro-
dynamic performances. For instance the water-line elevations are shown in Figure 77; the
wall-sided hull shows smoother and lower wave at mid ship.
Partially Constrained Stern at Froude Number F
n
= 0.287
In this section, we reconsider the optimization of the base-line hull G
0
and use a subset
of the control points used for the previous wave resistance minimization on pages 6061.
That previous, optimized hull shows major deformation in the stern region and less in the
bow region. Therefore, we partially constrain the stern region by excluding the last two
rows of control points, those corresponding to j = 8 and 9 in Figure 37. Thus the number
of control points is reduced to 36. All geometric constraints of ship S287 remain eective in
this section.
At the end of 20 design cycle, the optimized hull, which is denoted by G
d20
S287B, is shown
in Figures 7880. A small bulge develops on the bow about half depth, but no signicant
deformation appears on the stern. At the optimization Froude number F
n
= 0.287, the wave
resistance coecient of G
d20
S287B is R
w
= 0.358 10
3
, which shows a drag reduction of
86 percent.
The wave pattern and water-line wave elevation for the two ships G
d20
S287 and G
d20
S287B are compared in Figures 8182, respectively. As evident in Figure 82, bow wave is
reduced but the reduction of stern wave is less than with ship S287 for which the stern
64
region is not constrained. Finally, the force on hull between bow and station x is shown in
Figure 83. The bow region (x < 0.25) shows reduction of force due improved ow on bow,
but soon that reduction is lost on mid-ship. The stern region also shows less reduction in
force.
65
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
j
i
k= 24 32 40 48 56 64 72 80
19 27 35 43 51 59 67 75
23
22
21
20
79
78
77
76
Bow Stern
Keel
WL
Figure 37. Indices of B-spline control points for base-line surface ship G
0
.
66
X Y
Z
Figure 38. Base-line hull G
0
.
67
x
y
-0.5 -0.4 -0.3 -0.2 -0.1 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
-0.1
-0.05
0
0.05
0.1
Figure 39. Projection on the xy-plane of base-line hull G
0
.
y
z
-0.05 0 0.05
-0.07
-0.06
-0.05
-0.04
-0.03
-0.02
-0.01
0
Figure 40. Body plan of base-line hull G
0
.
68
Fr
R
w
,
R
p
0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.35 0.40 0.45
0.0000
0.0005
0.0010
0.0015
0.0020
0.0025
0.0030
0.0035
0.0040
0.0045
0.0050
0.0055
0.0060
R
p
R
w
G
o
0
(R
p
by pressure inte-
gration and R
w
69
k
16 24 32 40 48 56 64 72 80 88
-0.0015
-0.0010
-0.0005
0.0000
0.0005
0.0010
0.0015
0.0020
Gradient
Adjoint
Finite Difference
Figure 42. Gradient of cost function computed by nite-dierence and adjoint
methods, hull G
0
, F
n
= 0.287.
k
e
r
r
o
r
16 24 32 40 48 56 64 72 80 88
-0.07
-0.06
-0.05
-0.04
-0.03
-0.02
-0.01
0
0.01
0.02
0.03
0.04
0.05
tude, F
n
= 0.287.
70
k
16 24 32 40 48 56 64 72 80 88
-0.0015
-0.0010
-0.0005
0.0000
0.0005
0.0010
0.0015
0.0020
Gradient
Adjoint
Finite Difference
= 0
Figure 44. Gradient computed with and without contribution of adjoint ( = 0)
and nite-dierence method, F
n
= 0.287.
k
e
r
r
o
r
16 24 32 40 48 56 64 72 80 88
-0.20
-0.10
0.00
0.10
0.20
0.30
0.40
Adjoint
= 0
tude, F
n
= 0.287.
71
Design Cycle
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
0.00
0.10
0.20
0.30
0.40
0.50
0.60
0.70
0.80
0.90
1.00
F / F
o
Figure 46. Reduction of cost functional with design cycles for G
d20
S287.
72
X Y
Z
Figure 47. Water-line view of designed hull G
d20
S287.
73
Y
Z
X
Figure 48. Keel view of designed hull G
d20
S287.
74
x
y
-0.5 -0.25 0 0.25 0.5
-0.1
-0.05
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
d20
S287.
y
z
-0.05 0 0.05
-0.07
-0.06
-0.05
-0.04
-0.03
-0.02
-0.01
0
Figure 50. Body plan of designed hull G
d20
S287.
75
Fr
R
w
,
R
p
0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45
0.0000
0.0005
0.0010
0.0015
0.0020
0.0025
0.0030
0.0035
0.0040
0.0045
0.0050
0.0055
0.0060
R
p
R
w
R
p
R
w
G
o
G
d20
0
and designed hull G
d20
S287 (R
p
w
76
X
Y
-1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5
-1
-0.75
-0.5
-0.25
0
0.25
0.5
0.75
1
0.001
-0.001
0.001
-0.001
G
o
G
d20
Figure 52. Wave pattern on base-line hull G
0
d20
S287 (upper half).
77
x
-1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1

-0.015
-0.01
-0.005
0
0.005
0.01
0.015
G
d20
G
o
Figure 53. Water-line wave elevation on base-line hull G
0
and designed hull G
d20
S287.
78
Y
Z
-0.05 0 0.05
-0.06
-0.05
-0.04
-0.03
-0.02
-0.01
0
0.01
0.009
0.0
-0.007 -0.007
G
o
G
d20
0.008 0.0
2
n
C
p
0
(left half)
and designed hull G
d20
S287 (right half).
79
Y
Z
-0.05 0 0.05
-0.06
-0.05
-0.04
-0.03
-0.02
-0.01
0
0.01
0.0
-0.01
-0.007
-0.008
G
o
G
d20
0.004
0.0
0.005
2
n
C
p
0
(left half)
and designed hull (G
d20
S287 (right half).
80
x
d
f
(
x
)
-0.5 -0.25 0 0.25 0.5
-1.5E-05
-1E-05
-5E-06
0
5E-06
1E-05
1.5E-05
Bow
Stern
G
o
G
d20
Figure 56. Contribution of station strips (between x and x + dx) to wave resis-
tance of base-line hull G
0
and designed hull G
d20
S287.
81
x
f
(
x
)
-0.5 -0.25 0 0.25 0.5
-5.0E-05
0.0E+00
5.0E-05
1.0E-04
1.5E-04
2.0E-04
Bow
Stern
G
o
G
d20
Figure 57. Contribution of all strips between bow x = 0.5 and station x to wave
resistance of base-line hull G
0
and designed hull G
d20
S287.
82
y
z
-0.05 0 0.05
-0.07
-0.06
-0.05
-0.04
-0.03
-0.02
-0.01
0
0.01
Finite Difference Adjoint
Bow
Figure 58. Comparison of hull forms by adjoint (right half) and nite dierence
(left half), bow view.
83
y
z
-0.05 0 0.05
-0.07
-0.06
-0.05
-0.04
-0.03
-0.02
-0.01
0
0.01
Finite Difference Adjoint
Stern
Figure 59. Comparison of hull forms by adjoint (right half) and nite dierence
(left half), stern view.
84
X
Y
-1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5
-1
-0.75
-0.5
-0.25
0
0.25
0.5
0.75
1
Adjoint
Finite Difference
0.001
-0.001
0.001
-0.001
Figure 60. Comparison of wave pattern on nite-dierence hull (lower half) and
adjoint hull (upper half).
85
x
-1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1

-0.015
-0.01
-0.005
0
0.005
0.01
0.015
Adjoint
Finite Difference
Figure 61. Comparison of water-line wave elevation on nite-dierence hull and
adjoint hull.
86
x
f
(
x
)
-0.5 -0.25 0 0.25 0.5
-5.0E-05
0.0E+00
5.0E-05
1.0E-04
1.5E-04
2.0E-04
G
d20
Adjoint
G
d20
Finite Difference
G
o
Bow
Stern
resistance of nite-dierence hull, adjoint hull, and base-line hull.
87
Fr
R
w
0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45
0.0000
0.0005
0.0010
0.0015
0.0020
0.0025
0.0030
0.0035
0.0040
0.0045
0.0050
0.0055
0.0060
G
d20
Finite Difference
G
d20
Adjoint
Design Froude Number
Figure 63. Wave resistance coecient for nite-dierence hull and adjoint hull
(R
w
88
x
A
-0.5 -0.4 -0.3 -0.2 -0.1 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
0
0.001
0.002
0.003
0.004
0.005
0.006
0.007
0.008
G
d20
Adjoint
G
d20
Finite Difference
G
o
Figure 64. Sectional area distribution for nite-dierence hull and adjoint hull.
89
x
y
W
L
-0.5 -0.4 -0.3 -0.2 -0.1 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
0
0.01
0.02
0.03
0.04
0.05
0.06
0.07
G
d20
Adjoint
G
d20
Finite Difference
G
o
Figure 65. Waterline for nite-dierence hull and adjoint hull.
90
k
16 24 32 40 48 56 64 72 80 88
-0.0015
-0.0010
-0.0005
0.0000
0.0005
0.0010
0.0015
Gradient
Adjoint
Finite Difference
Figure 66. Gradient computed by nite-dierence and adjoint methods, hull G
0
,
F
n
= 0.287.
k
e
r
r
o
r
16 24 32 40 48 56 64 72 80 88
-0.04
-0.03
-0.02
-0.01
0.00
0.01
0.02
0.03
0.04
Figure 67. Error in gradient components normalized by magnitude of gradient
vector, hull G
0
, F
n
= 0.287.
91
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
F / F
o
Design Cycle
Figure 68. Reduction of cost functional for hull G
d10
S287P.
92
x
P
,
P
d
,
P
o
-0.5 -0.25 0 0.25 0.5
-0.1
-0.05
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
k
z
=8
P
o
P
P
d
x
P
,
P
d
,
P
o
-0.5 -0.25 0 0.25
-0.1
-0.05
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
k
z
=16
P
o
P
P
d
x
P
,
P
d
,
P
o
-0.5 -0.25 0 0.25 0.5
-0.1
-0.05
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
k
z
=1
P
o
P
P
d
x
P
,
P
d
,
P
o
-0.5 -0.25 0 0.25
-0.1
-0.05
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
k
z
=25
P
P
o
Figure 69. Pressure distribution on hull, P =
pressure on designed hull G
d10
S287P, P
d
= target pressure, and
P
0
= pressure on G
0
, F
n
= 0.287.
93
X
Y
Z
d10
S287P.
94
Y
Z
X
Figure 71. Keel view of designed hull G
d10
S287P.
95
x
y
-0.5 -0.4 -0.3 -0.2 -0.1 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
-0.1
-0.05
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
d10
S287P.
y
z
-0.05 0 0.05
-0.07
-0.06
-0.05
-0.04
-0.03
-0.02
-0.01
0
d10
S287P.
96
Fr
R
w
,
R
p
0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45
0.0000
0.0005
0.0010
0.0015
0.0020
0.0025
0.0030
0.0035
0.0040
0.0045
0.0050
0.0055
0.0060
R
p
R
w
G
d20
R
p
R
w
G
o
0
and designed hull G
d20
S287P (R
p
w
97
x
y
-0.5 -0.4 -0.3 -0.2 -0.1 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
-0.1
-0.05
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
d20
S287WS.
y
z
-0.05 0 0.05
-0.07
-0.06
-0.05
-0.04
-0.03
-0.02
-0.01
0
d20
S287WS.
98
x
-1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1

-0.015
-0.01
-0.005
0
0.005
0.01
0.015
S287-Wall-Sided
S287
Figure 77. Water-line wave elevation on hull G
d20
S287 and weakly wall-sided
hull G
d20
S287WS.
99
X Y
Z
d20
S287B.
100
x
y
-0.5 -0.4 -0.3 -0.2 -0.1 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
-0.1
-0.05
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
d20
S287B.
y
z
-0.05 0 0.05
-0.07
-0.06
-0.05
-0.04
-0.03
-0.02
-0.01
0
d20
S287B.
101
X
Y
-1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5
-1
-0.75
-0.5
-0.25
0
0.25
0.5
0.75
1
0.001
-0.001
0.001
-0.001
G
d20
-S287B
G
d20
-S287
Figure 81. Comparison of wave pattern on hull G
d20
S287 (lower half) and par-
tially constrained stern hull G
d20
S287B (upper half).
102
x
-1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1

-0.015
-0.01
-0.005
0
0.005
0.01
0.015
S287B
S287
Figure 82. Water-line wave elevation on hull G
d20
S287 and partially constrained
stern hull G
d20
S287B.
103
x
f
(
x
)
-0.5 -0.25 0 0.25 0.5
-5.0E-05
0.0E+00
5.0E-05
1.0E-04
1.5E-04
2.0E-04
G
d20
-S287B
G
d20
-S287
G
o
resistance of base-line hull G
0
, designed hull G
d20
S287, and partially
constrained stern hull G
d20
S287B.
104
Conclusions and Recommendations
An ecient gradient-based optimization method has been applied successfully to the
hydrodynamic design of submarine congurations operating near a free surface and surface
ships. The eciency of the method stems from the use of an adjoint formulation for the
gradient of the cost functional with respect to design variables. The ow model is given by the
classical potential ow theory with Kelvins or Dawsons linearized free-surface condition.
Submarine shapes are optimized for minimum wave resistance subject to constraints on
depth, displacement and surface area. For surface ships, a base-line hull is rst dened. This
hull is optimized for minimum wave resistance or for a target pressure distribution subject
to constraints. These constrained problems are solved by a generalized reduced gradient
method. The inverse problem, in which a target pressure distribution on hull is specied,
has been also presented. B-spline surfaces are used for geometry parameterizations and prove
to be versatile for shape optimization.
In several examples, the accuracy of the adjoint formulation for free surface ows has
been validated by comparisons with direct calculations using a nite-dierence method. In
all examples considered, the discrepancies between the two methods is less than 6 percent
of the gradient vector magnitude. Furthermore, the geometric characteristics and hydrody-
namic performance of an optimized hull using a nite-dierence method for gradient have
been compared with that using the adjoint approach. Although there are dierences in the
geometric details of the two surface ship hull forms, they show almost identical wave pat-
terns and wave resistance not only at the optimization Froude number F
n
= 0.287 but also
over a wide range of Froude numbers. This is because the two hull forms have nearly equal
sectional area distributions.
A base-line hull which is a body of revolution typical of submarine congurations was
rst analyzed. Its wave resistance was then minimized at the Froude number corresponding
to a local maxima in the F
n
-Resistance curve. The optimized hull forms are consistent with
the concept of destructive wave interference. These forms are strongly dependent on Froude
number. A practically waveless hull has been obtained at Froude number of 0.230, and
signicant reductions in wave resistance have been obtained at other Froude numbers.
The use of B-spline parameterization has proven very useful in controlling local features
of the designed hull forms. For example, a nearly wall-sided hull can be designed. Also, a
hull form is optimized while its stern region is partially constrained.
The current generalized-reduced-gradient methods takes about 20, or less, design cycles to
reach a minimum. All of the adjoint results presented in this chapter have been obtained on
a ne grid of 7800 panels (1800 panels on half the hull). Computations have been performed
on a single-processor SGI-R10000 workstation. Typical wall times to complete 20 design
cycles are 4872 hours. A nite-dierence method would take an estimated 7001000 hours
on the same grid and for the same number of design variables.
105
Recommendations for Future Work
The shape optimization technique presented in this report is very encouraging. It can be
enhanced and applied to the design of more practical congurations. The following extensions
and applications are recommended:
1. Apply method to bulbous bows thereby relieving the modications in the stern region.
2. Investigate the advantages and potential of cost functionals dened on the free surface
or the downstream boundary.
3. Improve treatment of the adjoint water-line boundary conditions, and include the ef-
fects of double-body ow adjoint on the free-surface condition.
4. Extend adjoint formulation to nonlinear free-surface ow.
5. Apply nonlinear method to the optimization of ships with transom sterns.
6. Apply method to the optimization of multi-hull ships.
7. Apply method to the optimization of hydro-propulsion systems for fast ships propelled
by water jets.
106
References
Belegundu, A. D., and Chandrupatla, T. R., Optimization Concepts and Applications in
Engineering, Prentice-Hall, New Jersey, 1999.
Bloor, M. I. G., and Oleksiewicz, B., Computational Geometry For Ships, 1995.
Eckert, E., and Sharma, S. D., Bugwulste fur langsame, vollige Schie. Jahrb. Schift-
bautech. Ges. 64 , 1970, 129158; Erort, 159171.
Froude, W., Experiments upon the eect produced on the wave-making resistance of
ships by length of parallel middle body, The Papers of William Froude, The Institution of
Naval Architects, London, 1955.
Hsiung, C. C., Optimal shape forms for minimum wave resistance, J. Ship Research,
Vol. 25, No. 2, 1995, pp. 95116.
Huang, C-H., Chiang, C-C., and Chou, S-K., An inverse geometry design problem in
optimizing hull surfaces, J. Ship Research, Vol. 42, No. 2, 1998, pp. 7985.
Jameson, A., Aerodynamic design via control theory, J. Sci. Comp., Vol. 3, 1988,
pp. 233260.
Jameson, A., Optimum aerodynamic design using CFD and control theory, AIAA
Paper No. 95-1729-CP, 1995.
Kelvin, Sir William Thomson, On deep-water ship waves, Mathematical and Physical
Papers, Vol. IV, Cambridge University Press, 1910, pp. 394418.
Kelvin, Sir William Thomson, On the waves produced by a single impulse in water of
any depth, or in a dispersive medium, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, Ser. A.,
Vol. 42, 1887, pp. 8085.
Kostyukov, A. A., Theory of Ship Waves and Wave Resistance, Eective Comm. Inc.,
Iowa City, Iowa, 1968.
Lions, J. L., Optimal Control of Systems Governed by Partial Dierential Equations,
Springer-Verlag, New York, 1971.
Lowe, T. W., Bloor, M. I. G., and Wilson, M. J., The automatic functional design of
hull surface geometry, J. Ship Research, Vol. 38, No. 4, December 1994, pp. 319328.
Michell, J. H., The wave resistance of a ship, Phil. Mag. 5, 45, 1898, pp. 106123.
Mortenson, M. E., Geometric Modeling, 2nd Ed., Wiley, New York, 1997.
Nakos, D., and Sclavounos, P., Ship motions by a three-dimensional Rankine panel
method, 18th Naval Hydrodynamic Symposium, pp. 2140, 1990.
Pashin, V. M., Bushkovsky, V. A., and Amromin, E. L., Determination of three-
dimensional body forms from given pressure distribution on their surfaces, J. Ship Research,
Vol. 40, No. 1, 1996, pp. 2227.
Pironneau, O., Optimal Shape Design for Elliptic Systems, Springer-Verlag, New York,
1984.
107
Ragab, S. A., Hydrodynamic design of three-dimensional non-lifting surfaces, Paper
No. FEDSM97-3414. The 1997 ASME Fluids Engineering Division Summer Meeting, Van-
couver, Canada, June 2226, 1997.
Soemarwoto, B., The variational method for aerodynamic optimization using the Navier-
Stokes equations, ICASE Report No. 97-71 (Also NASA/CR-97-206277), NASA Langley
Research Center, Hampton, VA, 1997.
Stoker, J. J., Water Waves, Interscience, New York, 1957.
Tuck, E. O., Ship-hydrodynamic free-surface problems without waves, J. Ship Research,
Vol. 35, No. 4, 1991, pp. 277287.
Tulin, M., and Oshri, O., Free surface ows without waves; applications to fast ships
with low-wave resistance, 20th Symposium on Naval Hydrodynamics, National Academy
Press, Washington, D.C. 1996, pp. 157169.
Vanderplaats, G. N., Numerical Optimization Techniques For Engineering Design, 2nd
ed., Vanderplaats Research and Development, Inc., Colorado Spring, Co., 1998.
Wehausen, J. V., The wave resistance of ships, Advances in Applied Mechanics, Vol.
13, 1973, pp. 93245.
Wyatt, D. C., and Chang, P. A., Development and assessment of a total resistance
optimized bow for the AE 36, Marine Technology, Vol. 31, No. 2, 1994, pp. 149160.
108
Distribution
Copies Copies
EXTERNAL DISTRIBUTION

ATTN CODE33 1
ATTN CODE 333 (P PURTELL) 2
OFFICE OF NAVAL RESEARCH
BALLSTON CENTRE TOWER ONE
800 NORTH QUINCY ST
ARLINGTON VA 22217-5660

ATTN PROF FRED STERN 1
IIHR HYDROSCIENCES & ENGINEERING
THE UNIVERSITY OF IOWA
107 HYDRAULICS LABORATORY
IOWA CITY IA 52242-1585

ATTN J NICHOLAS NEWMAN 1
1 BOWDITCH ROAD
WOODS HOLE MA 02543

ATTN DR D L WHITFIELD 1
UT SIMCENTER AT CHATTANOOGA
TALLAN BUILDING
TWO UNION SQUARE SUITE 300
CHATTANOOGA TN 37402

ATTN CARL SCRAGG 1
DON WYATT 1
SAIC
10260 CAMPUS POINT DR
SAN DIEGO CA 92121

ATTN PROF SAAD RAGAB 10
DEPT OF ENGINEERING SCIENCE
AND MECHANICS
BLACKBURG VA 24061-0219

ATTN PROF R LOHNER 1
ATTN DR C YANG 1
GEORGE MASON UNIV MS 4 C7
COMPUTATIONAL SCIENCES & INFORMATICS
FAIRFAX VA 22030

ATTN PROF R F BECK 1
UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN NA+ME
2600 DRAPER ROAD
ANN ARBOR MI 48109-2145

ATTN PROF W W SCHULTZ 1
UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN ME+AM
313 AUTO LAB
ANN ARBOR MI 48109-2121

ATTN PROF P D SCLAVOUNOS (5-326C) 1
MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY
77 MASSACHUSTTS AVE
CAMBRIDGE MA 02139

ATTN PROF W C WEBSTER 1
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA
MCLAUGHLIN HALL (ROOM 308)
BERKELEY CA 94720-1702

ATTN PROF J V WEHAUSEN 1
ATTN PROF R W YEUNG 1
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA
NAVAL ARCHITECTURE & OFFSHORE ENGG
BERKELEY CA 94720-1780

ATTN PROF M P TULIN 1
UNIV OF CALIFORNIA AT SANTA BARBARA
OCEAN ENGINEERING LAB
6740 CORTONA DRIVE
GOLETA CA 93117

ATTN DR T T HUANG 1
NEWPORT NEWS SHIPBUILDING
AIRPORT PLAZA 1, SUITE 1100
2711 SOUTH JEFFERSON DAVIS HIGHWAY
ARLINGTON VA 22202-4028

ATTN PROF R EATOCK TAYLOR 1
UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD
DEPT OF ENGINEEERING SCIENCE
PARKS ROAD
OXFORD OX1 3PJ
UNITED KINGDOM

ATTN PROF D V EVANS 1
UNIVERSITY OF BRISTOL
SCHOOL OF MATHEMATICS
UNIVERSITY WALK
BRISTOL BSS 1TW
UNITED KINGDOM

ATTN DR F URSELL 1
28 OLD BROADWAY
MANCHESTER M20 3DF
UNITED KINGDOM

ATTN PROF H SOEDING 1
ATTN DR V BERTRAM 1
INSTITUTE FUR SCHIFFBAU
LAMMERSIETH 90
HAMBURG D-22305
GERMANY

ATTN PROF S D SHARMA 1
MERCATOR UNIV
INSTITUTE OF SHIP TECHNOLOGY
BUILDING BK
DUISBURG D-47048
GERMANY

109
Distribution
Copies Copies
ATTN PROF O FALTINSEN 1
NORWEGIAN UNIV OF SCIENCE
AND TECHNOLOGY
DIVISION OF MARINE HYDRODYNAMICS
TRONDHEIM N-7034
NORWAY

ATTN DR R HUIJSMANS 1
ATTN DR H RAVEN 1
MARIN
P O B 28
6700 AA WAGENINGEN
THE NETHERLANDS

ATTN DR M LANDRINI 1
INSEAN
ITALIAN SHIP MODEL BASIN
VIA DI VALLERANO 139
ROMA 00128
ITALY

ATTN DR J P BRESLIN 1
CALLE DINAMARCA 7
SAN MIGUEL DE SALINAS
ALICANTE 03193
SPAIN

ATTN PROF T MILOH 1
TEL AVIV UNIV
DEPT OF FLUID MECHANICS AND
HEAT TRANSFER
RAMAT AVIV 69978
ISRAEL

ATTN PROF NAKATAKE 1
KYUSHU UNIVERSITY
DEPARTMENT OF NAVAL ARCHITECTURE
6-10-1 HAKOZAKI, HIGASHI-KU
FUKUOKA 812-81
JAPAN

ATTN PROF M OHKUSU 1
KYUSHU UNIV
RESEARCH INST FOR APPL MECHANICS
6-1 KASUGA-KOEN
KASUGA-CITY FUKUOKA 816-8580
JAPAN

ATTN PROF K MORI 1
HIROSHIMA UNIV
1-4-1 KAGAMIY AMA
HIGASHI-HIROSHIMA 724
JAPAN

ATTN PROF L DOCTORS 1
UNIVERSITY OF NEW SOUTH WALES
SCHOOL OF MECH ENG
SYDNEY NSW 2052
AUSTRALIA
ATTN PROF E O TUCK 1
UNIV OF ADELAIDE
APPLIED MATH DEPT
GPO BOX 498
ADELAIDE SA 500
AUSTRALIA

INTERNAL DISTRIBUTION
011 J CORRADO 1
0112 J BARKYOUMB 1
0114 K H KIM 1
3442 TIC(C) 1
5050 W B MORGAN 1
5050 B WEBSTER 1
5050 A REED 10
5060 9
5100 M DAVIS 1
5200 S FISHER 1
5200 D HENDRIX 1
5200 G KARAFIATH 1
5200 C W LIN 1
5200 F NOBLESSE 1
5200 T RATCLIFFE 1
5300 D COAKLEY 1
5300 R IMBER 1
5400 P CHANG 1
5400 C DAI 1
5400 J GORSKI 1
5400 S GOWING 1
5400 S JESSUP 1
5400 Y T LEE 1
5400 L MULVIHILL 1
5400 Y T SHEN 1
5400 J TELSTE 1
5400 M B WILSON 1
5400 W WILSON 1
5400 C I YANG 1
5500 R Q LIN 1
5500 J O'DEA 1
5600 T FU 1
5600 Y HONG 1
5600 Y H KIM 1
5600 I Y KOH 1
5600 W C LIN 1
5600 C H SUNG 1
7020 M STRASBERG 1
7030 G MAIDANIK 1
110
Distribution
Copies Copies
7052 D FEIT 1

111

Shape Optimization in Free Surface Flow Using Adjoint Method

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Shape Optimization in Free Surface Flow Using Adjoint Method

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

N

are the Cartesian velocity components in the far eld. In the

= 0. It follows from Equation (46) that

(dz) dxdy. (70)

x, the double-body disturbance potential , and the

-1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1

-1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1

-1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1

-1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1

-1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1

-1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1

You might also like