See

discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/249722506

A concept of omni-optimization for ship

structural design

Article January 2007

CITATIONS READS

8 82

2 authors:

Alan Klanac Jasmin Jelovica

Jadrolinija Rijeka University of British Columbia - Vancouver
33 PUBLICATIONS 175 CITATIONS 23 PUBLICATIONS 97 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Jasmin Jelovica on 30 June 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

A concept of omni-optimization for ship structural design
A. Klanac & J. Jelovica
Helsinki University of Technology, Ship Laboratory, Espoo, Finland

ABSTRACT: Omni-optimization assumes a capability to perform any type of optimization, e.g. single- and
multi-objective, using single optimization algorithm, or the omni-optimizer. This paper addresses a novel
concept for omni-optimization, by coupling vectorization with genetic algorithms (GAs). Vectorization as-
sumes converting constraints into objectives, and their optimization alongside the original set of objectives.
The GAs show excellent potential to serve as omni-optimizers, as they are a successful tool to solve both sin-
gle- and multi-objective problems. This new concept is applied to structural design of the midship section of
an 88m long aluminium fast ferry for the minimal hull weight and vertical centre of gravity (VCG), under
multiple constraints involving structural and technological aspects and classification rules and regulations.
The obtained results range up to 10 per cent for weight minimization and 6.5 per cent for VCG with the fully
defined Pareto front.

1 INTRODUCTION ing of the decks, such as brackets, is not defined, the

With the added complexity of new ships, their struc-
tural design demands practical and flexible support
systems. Design optimization as an integral part of
these systems aids in determination of the best com-
bination of parameter values in an automated proce-
dure. Using optimization designer should have then
the capability to both quantitatively and qualitatively
explore the possibilities of technology by simultane-
ously addressing a large number of criteria. Litera-
ture usually addresses this is as Multicriterion De-
sign Optimization.
Furthermore, design as a mental activity does not
recognize a formal separation amongst criteria. What
is the design objective, or constraint for instance,
depends on the problems mathematical model, and
it is solely a designer choice whether to address
some criteria as constraints or objectives. For exam-
ple, if the ships weight is to be minimized, a lightest
design alternative (DA) will be chosen such that the
stresses in the upper decks do not exceed the critical
buckling level. The weight minimization is chosen
for an objective, while the critical stress level for
buckling is a constraint. However, weight minimiza-
tion usually leads to thinner decks causing a rise in
stresses and eventual increase in possibility to attain
premature fatigue cracks. Obviously then, the weight
minimization should be coupled with proper assess-
ment of all the probable failure modes. Yet, in the
early design stage, when usually the detailed stiffen-
accurate knowledge on the fatigue life might be hard
to obtain. Therefore, the considered design model of
weight as an objective and buckling as a constraint
should be changed.
For these situations involving significant lack of
information, it is convenient to consider treating
some constraints as objectives. Hence, in this case
the stresses should be minimized alongside weight.
Obviously then, a proper design process should al-
low for such considerations, and the considered op-
timization method needs to be capable of treating
design problems with both single and multiple ob-
jectives.
But up to now, little attention has been given to
formalize such a method where a single search algo-
rithm could deal with a single- and multi-objective
optimization concurrently. Some commercial design
systems treat this problem with a set of algorithms,
but an elegant solution is still missing. Recently, af-
ter noticing these gaps in the state of the art, Deb &
Tiwari (2005) proposed a multi-objective genetic al-
gorithm (MOGA), which degenerates accordingly
for the application to single-objective problems. See
Deb (2001) for more general in-depth information
on MOGA. This omni-optimizer (the name we adopt
here as generic for a search algorithm capable of
performing both single- and multi-objective optimi-
zation, or omni-optimization) uses a series of ad-
vanced features, such as elitism, modified domina-
tion principle or -domination, and a measure of
crowding to assure efficient performance over any
type of problem. However, the mathematical formu-
lation of the optimization problem tackled in this
work remains unchanged with strict separation be-
tween the objectives and constraints, so easy trans-
formation of constraints into objectives within one
design problem still remains unanswered.
The authors in their previous work (Klanac &
Jelovica 2006) tackle a single-objective constrained
optimization problem applying vectorization. Vec-
torization addresses conversion of constraints into
objectives and relaxation of an original problem. A
single-objective problem then becomes a special
class of a multi-objective problem, or more gener-
ally of a multicriterion problem, and it can be then
solved as such applying the proper search algorithm.
Through this it was eventually possible to improve
the performance of an applied simple genetic algo-
rithm (GA). See also Knowles et al. (1993), Osyczka
et al. (2000), Deb (2001) and Klamroth & Tind (in
prep.) about further insights, concepts and applica-
tions of vectorization.
Numerous studies, e.g. Okada & Neki (1992),
Nobukawa & Zhou (1996), Sekulski & Jastrzebski
(1998), Sekulski & Jastrzebski (1999), Klanac &
Kujala (2004) and Klanac (2004), to name a few,
show that GAs are a successful tool for practical
problems in ship structural design and optimization.
These problems are regularly non-convex with non-
comprehensive feasible domains, becoming often a
computational nightmare (ISSC 2006 p.588). Prema-
ture convergence to local optimalities is then a fre-
quent event if one applies conventional gradient
based methods. GAs on the other hand work solely
with the values of objective functions, spanning
these troubled waters with ease. Hence, applying a
GA for omni-optimization indicates a rational
choice.
A vectorized single-objective optimization prob-
lem as specified in Klanac & Jelovica (2006) is a re-
laxed problem consisting of l + 1 criteria, where l
marks the number of considered constraints. Hence,
its extension to solve multi-objective problems is ef-
fortless, thus allowing us the use of simple GAs as
omni-optimizers. This particularly sets the main
purpose of this text, to outline, test, analyse and pre-
sent a concept of omni-optimization for ship struc-
tural design. Its characteristics will be shown
through the exercise on a structural design of an 88
m long fast passenger/car ferry, both concurrently
minimizing the weight and vertical centre of gravity
(VCG), as well as separately.
In the following chapter we will revisit vectoriza-
tion and address the concepts required for omni-
optimization. In chapter 3, we will describe the
omni-optimizer and through chapter 4 apply it onto
the problem of fast ferry. Chapters 5 and 6 will close
the paper with some reflections, discussion and con-
clusions.
2 VECTORIZATION AS A CONCEPT FOR
OMNI-OPTIMIZATION
2.1 Problem setting
Let us consider the following relaxed multicriterion
optimization problem (VO) over a vector of design
variables x
min { f 0 ( x ) ,..., f j ( x ) ,..., f m+l ( x ) | j 1...m + l } (1)
xX
where any x describes a design alternative belonging
to a set X, that contains all possible design alterna-
tives between lower xmin and upper bounds xmax of
variables. f(x) is a criterion to be minimized. Obvi-
ously, X contains then both feasible, or acceptable,
and infeasible design alternatives. Contrary to stan-
dard optimization, which operates strictly on a feasi-
ble domain of design alternatives
= {x X | g (x) 0} (2)
VO in addition operates over infeasible domain.
Let some of the criteria f(x) in VO be understood
as constraints g(x). Structural optimization regularly
yields optimal design alternatives on the boundaries
of a feasible domain, thus minimizing the constraints
through VO towards their boundaries, will for struc-
tural optimization in general ensure attainment of
improved values for objectives. Klanac & Jelovica
(2006) suggest the following absolute constraint
transformation function for their association with
criteria:
f j (x) = g j (x) , j (m + 1, l ) (3)
Lets address this transformation of constraints, and
ultimately of the original optimization problem for-
mulation, as vectorization. Evidently then, VO as a
vectorized multicriterion problem does not recog-
nize between the constraints and objectives. Thus,
the constraints can be readily changed to objectives
and vice-versa, allowing for the added flexibility in
design and optimization. As a result, an algorithm
capable of dealing with a VO is fully flexible in han-
dling any of these optimization problems:
single-objective and unconstrained: m = l = 0 ,
single-objective and constrained: m = 0, l > 0 ,
multi-objective and unconstrained: m > 0, l = 0 ,
multi-objective and constrained: m > 0, l > 0 .
According to the principle of omni-optimization
such an algorithm is then an omni-optimizer.
2.2 Characteristic of vectorization
A proper solution of a multi-criteria problem is a
non-dominated design alternative, or a Pareto opti-
mum. An alternative x is said to be Pareto optimal
if:
/ x k , f (x k ) f (x ) , x k X \ x
A weaker condition can be also imposed, which is a
superset of all Pareto optimums. Any alternative x
contained in this set X is named a weak Pareto op-
timum. X is defined then
= {x X |
X / x k , f (x k ) < f (x) , x k X \ x} (5)
Here f stands for a vector of criteria defined in Equa-
tion 1, and applied inequalities < and are
vector inequalities.
There will be only one Pareto optimum if it is
possible to attain a simultaneous minimum for all
the objectives. If not, a set X /0 will exist, and
form a Pareto front. The Pareto front, as it contains
non-dominated solutions, is the prime interest in
multicriterion optimization.
According to definition, the Pareto front contains
all the global minima of the criteria in VO. Yet, with
respect to feasibility X might then exclude the fea-
sible global minima of the objectives x**, as there
might exist infeasible designs which posses lower
values of objectives fj(x), j (0, m) , hence these
might dominate over it. But in that sense, any design
alternative sitting on a constraint, and thus having
f j (x) = 0 for any j (m + 1, l )
will be at least weakly Pareto optimal and a member
of X . Therefore, if the global minimum x** of the
objective is contained on the boundary of a feasible
domain, as they usually are in structural optimiza-
tion, it is guaranteed weak Pareto optimality, and
will be found as a proper solution of VO.
Obviously then, and as seen from Figure 1 by
solving VO for a Pareto front the search algorithm
will prefer those alternatives which are on the con-
straint boundaries as they are members of X . But it
will prefer as well those which are in the neighbour-
hood of a Pareto front, as the constraint representa-
tion of Equation 3 will maintain the information on
the relative position of designs within X.
3 THE OMNI-OPTIMIZER
The presented vectorization concepts are imple-
mented into a simple binary GA to create an omni-
optimizer. The algorithm basically consists of:
generator for the creation of a random initial
population of design alternatives
fitness calculator for a population of design alter-
natives,
selector for mating pool, operating on the basis of
the computed fitness values,
cross-over and mutation sub-routine
(4) main part of the algorithm running the search
process and filtering the infeasible alternatives
for the final presentation of results
3.1 Fitness evaluation
The concept of vectorization can be applied directly
through fitness calculator, thus permitting easy
change in the applied GA, and accommodating pos-
sible advanced features for increased performance,
or for tackling some specific problems. If solving the
vectorized optimization problem the formulation of
the fitness function should account for the perform-
ance of the designs over multiple criteria, which in
this case are the objective functions and the con-
straints. The convenient measure of merit is then
Pareto optimality, but it self is insufficient, as we are
also interested only in a part of a Pareto front where
the feasible minima of the objectives are most prob-
able to occur. Accounting for this the following
compounded fitness function is applied (Klanac
& Jelovica 2006):
1
max d ( x ) + , if xi X
i
(x ) = d (x )
i
(7)
max d x d xi , otherwise
( ) ( )
(6)
which ranks designs both on the basis of attained
Pareto optimality within one generation, and the dis-
tance d(x) to the reference point I in an criteria space
Y={f(x)| xX}. I can be arbitrary, but in this case
it is chosen as the set containing the minimum val-
ues of every objective within a population.
{
I = min f j ( x ) , j ( 0, m + l )
xX
} (8)
As the problem deals with objectives of different
physical meaning, such as weight, thickness, stress,
etc. the criteria space needs to be normalized to
avoid pitfalls caused by large differences in the
magnitudes of criteria in Equation 1. The normaliza-
tion is linear, performed by bounding the criteria
space within a unit interval, where 0 presents the
minimum of the criteria for current population, and 1
its maximum. Hence, I = 0 , and if similarly to
Osyzcka et al. (2000) we apply the weighted Euclid-
ean metrics as measure, the distance to I is found as
{ }
1/ 2
d ( x ) = w j f j ( x )
2
,
j
s.t. 0 < w j < 1, (9)
w j = 1.
j
where f stands for a normalized value of a criteria.
The choice of the weighting coefficient w enables
now a biased search for the part of the Pareto front
of interest, and it is actual key of the omni-
optimization algorithm.
3.2 Weighting for efficient omni-optimization
The functional representation of constraints is criti-
cal for understanding the proper weighting of
Euclidean metrics of Equation (9). Applying Equa-
tion (3) the position of feasible objective minima is
not guaranteed, but as mentioned in the closure of
chapter 2, there exist indications of their relative po-
sition, such as constraint boundaries. However, not
all of the constraint boundaries contain the sought
minima, and since for practical problems the number
of constraints might become large, there is a good
chance that focusing the search strictly on constraint
boundaries might become inefficient.
In Figure 1 we can see some characteristic points
(A to F) illustrated to portray this problem. Point A
is a feasible objective minimum, and as it sits on
the boundary of a constraint g2 (see window in Fig.
1), it is also Pareto optimal. Point D, which is infea-
sible and has the lowest value of the objective for
the considered points, is again Pareto optimal due to
its position on a boundary of the constraint g1. Point
B is Pareto optimal as well, and has the highest ob-
jective value of the Pareto front.
Obviously, it is inefficient then to focus the algo-
rithm to search strictly for one active constraint
boundary, as there might be many to investigate.
However, the focus could be shifted more towards a
f'0
g2
C These particular cases are specifically investi-
B E
B
A
C F
D g1
E X
A algorithm are shown on a practical design of a fast
F rithm the ship structure is optimized concurrently for
I f'1
D minimization of weight and of VCG, hence for the
f'2
Figure 1. A criteria and a design (in window) space for a vec-
torized single-objective constrained problem. Notice the corre-
spondence between the objective f and criterion f0, and the
constrains g1 and g2 and criteria f1 and f2. Pareto front is indi-
cated by a dotted surface.
particular area of the Pareto front, where the values
of the objectives are small. GA would then through
generations notice active boundaries and map the
points there as Pareto optimal. The higher fitness
will be then given to design alternatives with lower
values of objectives. Therefore, a simple strategy
can be applied, in which the importance of minimiz-
ing objectives is much greater than minimizing con-
straints. This can be formalized as
wi >> w j , i ( 0, m ) and j ( m + 1, m + l ) (10)
This weighting strategy could be easily extended
to a general case. Any objective which is of interest
should be given strictly higher values of weighting
factor. In case there are more equally important ob-
jectives the same weighting factor could be shared.
By significantly reducing the objective weighting
factor, the objective inevitably become inactive and
it is not anymore minimized.
As the area in focus consists of lower values of
objectives, the amount of obtained feasible designs
can become low. Therefore, the initial value of wi
can be gradually reduced to allow for finding more
feasible designs. As this will inevitably slow down
the search, additionally we can modify the fitness
function in Equation 7 by partially penalizing the in-
feasible designs, see Equation 11, thus force genera-
tions consisting of mostly Pareto optimal points.
max d ( x ) +
(
1
)
(
, if xi X
)
(x ) = x i
i d (11)
max d x d xi , otherwise
( ) ( )
gated for the practical example presented in the fol-
lowing chapter.
f
4 OPTIMIZATION OF A FAST FERRY
The workings of the presented omni-optimization
ferrys midship structure (Fig. 2), for the minimum
of weight and minimum of VCG. Using this algo-
the objectives, as well as separate for each.
These three specific problems are tackled using
both single- and multi-objective optimization. Sin-
gle-objective optimization is used for the separate
problems 1 and 2, while multi-objective optimiza-
tion is used twofold. First to obtain a Pareto front for
Problem 3, and secondly to obtain its objective min-
ima, thus testing the algorithms flexibility to tackle
the interchange between objectives and constraints.
Multi-objective optimization was performed for
2000 generations, while for single-objective 500
8550 and Poisson coefficient of 0.28 are the same for both
x1 x2 x3 x4 alloys.
Design variables include the scantlings of all the
x 17 x5 longitudinal elements except girders, as well as the
x18 x19 spacing of the longitudinal stiffeners. Table 5 lists
x 20 all the design variables with lower and upper
bounds. Generally, the minimal plate thickness of 5
x6 mm was chosen due to a possible significant in-

10700
crease in deformations because of welding of very
x21 thin plates. Same wise, the minimal longitudinal
x 22 spacing is selected at 200 mm.
x7 The weight minimization f0 is defined through the
x 13 x14 x 15 x 16 total area of all the longitudinal elements, while the
minimization of VCG considers additionally the
transversal structures, such as frames. Applied
x27 x 23
4600
x 28 x8 minimal scantlings requirements are given through
x 24 Pt.3 Ch.3 Sec.5 of DNV (2005), namely paragraphs
x 25 B100 and C100 and Tables B1 and C1. Additionally,
x9 all the structural elements are checked for the buck-
ling due to the longitudinal global hull girder loads,
2700

x 10
x 26
x 11
x12
Figure 2. A half of the ferrys midship section with marked de-
sign variables x
generations were deemed sufficient. Table 1 illus-
trates the considered computational matrix.
4.1 The structural design model
Ship is designed under the rule requirements of
DNV Rules for high speed, light craft and naval sur-
face craft (DNV 2005). She is considered in fully
laden condition for both crest and hollow landing,
with the amplitudes of MCREST = 143778 kNm and
MHOLLOW = 157572 kNm . The axle load of 1.0 t/axle
for the car deck, at 4600 mm from the keel, is ap-
plied on the tyre print areas of 115 x 88 mm. The
load on the passenger deck is taken as for the
weather deck following the assumption that the su-
perstructure does not contribute to the global
strength of the ship. Other local loads, such as the
water pressure are applied according to the Rules.
Applied aluminium alloys 5083 and 6082, are used
respectively for plating and stiffeners, with the yield
strength of 106 MPa and 84 MPa and the material
factor f1 of 0.44 and 0.35. Young modulus of 70 GPa
see Pt.3 Ch.3 Sec.10 DNV (2005 p.27). Distribution
of global hull shear loads is not specifically studied,
but it is accounted for through the requirement for
minimal thickness of plates.
4.2 The GA model
Variables are binary coded with 4 bit long strings,
based on their integer representation, with the step
of 0.5 mm for the plate thickness, 0.7 cm2 for the
size of longitudinals and 10 mm for their spacing. A
population of 50 design alternatives, or individuals,
is created within each generation following the ran-
domly generated initial population. Based on the
computed fitness of an individual, the GA uses
weighted roulette wheel to select designs for the
mating pool. Individuals chromosomes, or a binary
string of variable values, are mated with a probabil-
ity of 0.8 using the randomly selected single point
cross-over between two consecutive individuals in
the mating pool. Subsequently, the individuals
chromosomes are mutated bit-wise with a probabil-
ity of 0.03.
Following the conclusions of chapter 3, a high
value of weighting coefficient wj is applied for an
objective to be minimized, the constraints sharing
equally the difference to 1. Namely, the following
weight values are used with respect to Table 2.

Table 2. Objective minima obtained through single-objective

Table 1. Computational matrix with indicated Problem (P-) optimization for maximum of 500 generations.
number __________________________________________________
__________________________________________________ Optimization min W min VCG min (W, VCG)
Optimization min W min VCG min (W, VCG) __________________________________________________
__________________________________________________ Single-obj. wW=0.5 wVCG=0.5 -
Single-obj. P-1 P-2 - Multi-obj. wW =0.5 wW =0.01 wW =0.45
Multi-obj. P-3 P-4 P-5
__________________________________________________ wVCG =0.01 wVCG =0.5 wVCG =0.45
__________________________________________________
4.3 Results In addition, following Figures 3-6 further explain
Presented results were obtained for the single run al- the obtained minima by portraying the optimization
gorithm run for each of the problems 1 to 5. GAs time histories, showing minimum objective values
consider random processes, therefore it is reasonable for every generation, obtained global minima x**,
to expect somewhat better results if the algorithm and the top 1 per cent of best design alternatives,
had been ran for several more times, applying the x*_1%. Figure 7 depicts the Pareto front obtained for
same set of parameters, i.e. populations size, string problems P-3 to P-5.
length, probabilities of cross-over and mutation. Yet
the intention of this work was to present the general
5 DISCUSSION
applicability of the algorithm for omni-optimization,
and not necessarily obtain the true global minima of
The results in the previous chapter show that the
the observed ship structure. If accounting for the ob-
omni-optimizer improves on the referenced design
tained results, as seen in the tables below, the algo-
through both single- and multi-objective optimiza-
rithm performed as desired.
tion, but they also discover some of the typical de-
Tables 3 and 4 represent the lowest obtained val-
signers worries.
ues for the weight and the VCG using omni-
optimizer for single- and multi-objective optimiza-
tion respectively. Generations at witch these mini-
mums were reached are also given.
0,51 x*
x**
A [m ]
2
0,49
Table 3. Objective minima obtained through single-objective x*_1%
optimization (Problems 1 and 2) for the maximum of 500 gen-
erations.
_______________________________________________ 0,47
Max. gen. Min. values Gen.
_______________________________________________
A [m ]2
500 0.4032 179 0,45
VCG [m] 500 4.7533 315
_______________________________________________
0,43

Table 4. Objective minima (extrema of the Pareto front, Prob- 0,41

lems 3 and 4) obtained through multi-objective optimization
for the first 500 and the maximum 2000 generations.
_______________________________________________ 0,39
Max. gen. Min. values Gen. 0 100 200 300 Generation
400 500
_______________________________________________
A [m ]2
500 0.4018 188 Figure 4. Time history of feasible generations minima x* for
2000 0.3968 1786 multi-objective minimum weight optimization (Problem P-3),
VCG [m] 500 4.7663 55 with indicated global feasible minimum x** and the top 1 per
2000 4.7356
_______________________________________________ 904 cent best performing alternatives x*_1%.

5,40
VCG [m]

x*
0,51 x*
5,30 x**
x**
A [m ]
2

0,49 x*_1%
x*_1% 5,20

0,47 5,10

0,45 5,00

0,43 4,90

0,41 4,80

4,70
0,39
0 100 200 300 Generation
400 500
0 100 200 300 Generation
400 500
Figure 3. Time history of feasible generations minima x* for Figure 5. Time history of feasible generations minima x for
*

single-objective minimum weight optimization (Problem P-1), single-objective minimum VCG optimization (Problem P-2),
with indicated global feasible minimum x** and the top 1 per with indicated global feasible minimum x** and the top 1 per
cent best performing alternatives x*_1%. cent best performing alternatives x*_1%.
5,40 0,53
w(W)=0,01; w(VCG)=0,5 g=2000
VCG [m]
x*

A [m ]
w(W)=0,45;w(VCG)=0,45 g=2000

2
5,30 x**
0,51 w(W)=0,5;w(VCG)=0,01 g=2000
x*_1% w(W)=0,01; w(VCG)=0,5 g=500
5,20
w(W)=0,45;w(VCG)=0,45 g=500
0,49 w(W)=0,5;w(VCG)=0,01 g=500
5,10
Reference design
5,00 Concurrent optimum
0,47

4,90
0,45
4,80

0,43
4,70
0 100 200 300 Generation
400 500
0,41
Figure 6. Time history of feasible generations minima x* for
multi-objective minimum VCG optimization (Problem P-4),
with indicated global feasible minimum x** and the top 1 per 0,39
cent best performing alternatives x*_1%. 4,7 4,8 4,9 5,0 5,1 5,2 VCG
5,3[m] 5,4

Figure 7. Obtained Pareto fronts from Problems P-3 to P-5 for

the first 500 and the final 2000 generations, with marked refer-
enced design and the concurrent optimum.

Table 5. Design variables with lover (min) and upper (max) bounds, values for the referenced ship, minimum weight, minimum
VCG, selected concurrent optimum, and its standardized alternative.
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Design variable Min Max x ref xW
xVCG x
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________ xst
Passenger deck thick. strake 1, x1 [mm] 5.0 12 .5 8.0 7.0 8.5 7.0 6.5
Passenger deck thick. strake 2, x2 [mm] 5.0 12 .5 8.0 12 .0 6.0 6.0 6.5
Passenger deck thick. strake 3, x3 [mm] 5.0 12 .5 8.0 5.5 6.5 8.0 7.0
Passenger deck thick. strake 4, x4 [mm] 5.0 12 .5 8.0 5.0 5.5 6.5 7.0
Shear strake thickness x5 [mm] 5.0 12.5 9.0 5.5 5.5 7.5 8.0
Side shell thick. strake 1, x6 [mm] 5.0 12.5 8.0 5.0 5.0 8.0 7.5
Side shell thick. strake 2, x7 [mm] 5.0 12.5 8.0 6.0 12.5 7.0 7.0
Bilge strake thickness x8 [mm] 6.0 13.5 9.0 6.5 9.5 7.5 7.5
Bottom shell thick. strake 1, x9 [mm] 7.0 14.5 10.0 7.5 14.0 8.5 8.5
Bottom shell thick. strake 2, x10 [mm] 7.0 14.5 11.0 12.0 14.5 12.5 12.0
Bottom shell thick. strake 3, x11 [mm] 7.0 14.5 12.0 11.0 14.5 13.0 12.5
Keel plate thickness x12 [mm] 8.0 15.5 12 .0 15.5 15.5 12.5 13.0
Car deck thickness strake 1, x13 [mm] 5.0 12.5 8.0 6.0 8.0 5.5 5.5
Car deck thickness strake 2, x14 [mm] 5.0 12.5 8.0 6.0 10.5 5.5 5.5
Car deck thickness strake 3, x15 [mm] 5.0 12.5 8.0 6.0 11.5 6.0 5.5
Car deck thickness strake 4, x16 [mm] 5.0 12.5 8.0 6.5 10.5 5.5 5.5
Passenger deck longs size, x17 [cm2] 5.40 15.90 9.31 7.50 6.10 6.80 6.75
Passenger deck longs spacing, x18 [mm] 200 350 300 200 230 220 220
Upper side shell longs size, x19 [cm2] 5.40 15.90 6.20 6.80 5.40 6.10 6.20
Upper side shell longs spacing, x20 [mm] 200 350 400 220 210 290 290
Lower side shell longs size, x21 [cm2] 5.40 15.90 6.20 8.20 12.40 8.90 8.74
Lower side shell longs spacing, x22 [mm] 200 350 350 260 340 330 330
Bilge longitudinals size, x23 [cm2] 5.40 15.90 6.20 8.20 13.80 11.00 10.52
Bilge longitudinals spacing, x24 [mm] 200 350 350 230 220 280 280
Bottom shell longs size, x25 [cm2] 5.40 15.90 12.40 10.30 15.90 15.20 16.20
Bottom shell longs spacing, x26 [mm] 200 350 300 260 200 210 210
Car deck longs size, x27 [cm2] 5.40 15.90 12.40 5.40 13.10 5.40 5.40
Car deck longs spacing, x [mm] 200 350 300 220 250
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
28 200 200
2
Tot. area of a half of the midship section [m ] 0.4402 0.3969 0.5237 0.4274 0.4258
Improvements to referenced ship in per cent of area - 9.8 -19.0 2.9 3.3
VCG [m] 5.0628 5.2572 4.7356 4.9806 4.9625
Improvements to referenced ship in per cent of VCG - -3.8 6.5 1.6
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 2.0
 Let us first focus on the obtained objective min-
ima. For the first 500 generations, as presented in
Tables 3 and 4 and seen in Figure 7, the obtained
lowest value of weight gave reduction of 8.7 per
cent while VCG was reduced by 6.1 per cent in
comparison with x ref . The minimum weight design
was actually obtained through multi-objective opti-
mization, while the minimum VCG design through
single-objective. Their counterparts, defined in the
single- and multi-objective optimization respec-
tively, are only differing by miniscule margins. If
observing the optimization time histories for both
types of optimization (Figs 3-6) we can as well no-
tice the similarities in the distribution of minima
through generations, and conclude that the omni-
optimizer does not depend on the type of optimiza-
tion to obtain consistent results.
Further 1500 generations did not bring significant
improvements on top of initial objective minima, see
Table 4 and 5. The algorithm obviously converged
rather quickly. In terms of multi-objective optimiza-
tion, the obtained Pareto front also improved only
slightly, as seen in Figure 7. The final minimum
weight design after 2000 generations xW is now 9.8
per cent lighter in comparison to x ref , but at the
same time has an increased value of VCG of 3.8 per
cent. Similarly, the final minimum VCG design
xVCG improved on x ref for 6.5 per cent, but with an
increase in weight at an extreme level of 19 per cent.
The omni-optimizer evidently performed well, re-
turning consistent results and realistic improve-
ments, but the minimum designs are dubious. Their
benefits are almost in both cases matched with unac-
ceptable sacrifices. Thus, the lightweight design
becomes unstable, while the more stable one suf-
fers from lower service performance. Yet such re-
sults are not surprising, and the conflicting nature
between the weight minimization and minimization
of VCG is fairly common for ships. But maybe then
there exists another alternative for which benefits
and sacrifices could be better balanced.
As was mentioned in the introduction, this text
aims to raise the level of flexibility in ship structural
design. Therefore, the obtained Pareto front is now
of practical use in finding an acceptable trade-off be-
tween benefits and sacrifices, between the gains and
losses in weight and VCG. For this particular reason
we ran the problem P-5, a concurrent optimization
for minimum of weight and VCG. The omni-
optimizer returned a set of 17 design alternatives
mostly placed in the middle between the extreme
points mentioned above. As seen in Figure 7, a few
of these designs fall into the specific shaded area in-
dicating a zone with no sacrifices in comparison to
x ref , bringing only benefits. We choose one of these
designs, based on the maximal Euclidean distance to
x ref in the criteria space. For this concurrent opti-
mum x the omni-optimizer reduced the weight for
2.9 per cent and the VCG for another 1.6 per cent,
see Table 5, indicating that the referenced design,
seemingly significantly sub-optimal is an acceptable
solution overall. However, due to the application of
different classification rules in this study, the refer-
enced ship slightly breaks the constraints of longitu-
dinal strength as well as the minimal requirements
for the side shell and bilge plate thickness, and their
stiffener size. Hence, some further benefits could be
achieved by adjusting this structure with the rules.
In comparison with x ref the concurrent optimum
x was achieved by reducing the spacing of the lon-
gitudinals, which then generally caused reduction of
the plate thicknesses and the size of the longitudi-
nals, except for the bottom part of the ship, where
both were slightly increased. This increase in the
bottom elements generally brought down the VCG,
but also allowed for the further light-weighting of
the decks, as the ship is actively constrained by the
longitudinal strength.
Furthermore, as we did not fully consider during
optimization some technological standards, e.g. the
evenness of the adjoined plates in decks and sides or
the standard sizes of the bulb flats, we perform now
standardization of x . The changes in the specific
variables are indicated by the bolded numerals in the
outmost right column of Table 5 for standardized
concurrent optimum xst . With these changes we fur-
ther attained some improvements in weight and in
VCG for the additional 0.4 per cent. Obviously then
the concurrent optimum, even though obtained as
Pareto optimal is not truly such, and some discrep-
ancy between the obtained Pareto front and the true
Pareto front is evident. Nevertheless, this is some-
what expected for GAs if accounting for relatively
small number of generations and the actual size of
the considered problem. Their general convergence
cannot be guaranteed if the number of generations is
final.
6 CONCLUSION
Within this paper we presented a novel genetic algo-
rithm capable of performing both single- and multi-
objective optimization, or the omni-optimizer. The
focus however was not on development of specific
advanced features, but on reformulating a standard
constrained single- and multi-objective optimization
problem applying the concept of vectorization.
This omni-optimizer now operates on a specific
unconstrained multi-criteria problem which consid-
ers all the objectives and constraints as the optimiza-
tion criteria. The algorithm operates also on infeasi-
ble design alternatives fully accounting for their
information.
Using the large-scale problem as an example, we
have shown that this approach can be successfully
applied to obtain realistic and useful results. Finally,
the gained insight builds on the questions raised in
the introduction. If we would do not know the initial
values of the referenced ship what would we be de-
signing for? Just for the minimum of weight and re-
duce the stability as a consequence. Or build a
sturdy and stable ship with low performance charac-
teristics? Could we have set some constraints on the
objective values and then optimize accordingly?
These are inevitable questions during any early de-
sign stage, thus being able to use a flexible optimiza-
tion method that can answer on these question with
one single algorithm is an added benefit.
The algorithm, as presented in this study, might
however face difficulties if e.g. ship structural de-
sign problem expands over the overall ship structure,
when the number of constraints explodes into thou-
sands. Thus, it should be further studied with larger
problems. Also, some comparisons with other sin-
gle- and multi-objective algorithms would be useful,
as well as with the other omni-optimizer indicated in
the introduction. Important lessons might be learned.
But, accounting for the results obtained, the omni-
optimizer can already find its use, and offer efficient
design optimization.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This study was supported by the MARSTRUCT
network of excellence on ship structures, funded by
the European Union Commission, and the Technol-
ogy Development Centre of Finland TEKES and
the Finnish shipbuilding and shipping industries
through the projects TRMKE and CONSTRUCT.
This help is gratefully acknowledged.
REFERENCES
Deb, K. 2001. Multi-Objective Optimization Using Evolution-
ary Algorithms. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons.
Deb, K. & Tiwari, S. 2005. Omni-optimizer: A Procedure for
Single and Multi-objective Optimization. In C.A. Coello
Coello et al. (ed.), EMO 2005; Lecture notes in computer
science 3410: 47-61. Berlin Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag.
DNV 2005. Rules for Classification of High Speed, Light Craft
and Naval Surface Craft. Hovik: Det Norske Veritas.
Hughes, O.F., Mistree, F. & Zanic, V. 1980. A practical
method for the rational design of ship structures. J. Ship
Research 24(2): 101-113.
View publication stats
ISSC - Committee IV.1. Design principles and criteria, 16th In-
ternational ship and offshore structures congress, South-
ampton, 20-25 August 2006: 543-624. Southampton: ISSC.
Klamroth, K. & Tind, J. In prep. Constrained Optimization Us-
ing Multiple Objective Programming. Technical report, In-
stitute of Applied Mechanics, University of Erlangen-
Nuremberg. Submitted to J. Global Optimization (available
online at http://www.math.ku.dk/~tind/multiconstraint.pdf/
on 4 December 2006).
Klanac, A. 2004. A Multicriteria Redesign of the Midship Sec-
tion of an Intermodal RO-RO Ship. 16th Symposium on
Theory and Practice in Shipbuilding - SORTA, Plitvice.
Klanac, A. & Jelovica, J. 2006. Vectorization in the structural
optimization of a fast ferry. 17th symposium on Theory and
Practice of Shipbuilding, Opatija, 19-21 October 2006:
541-550. Rijeka: University of Rijeka, Faculty of Engineer-
ing.
Klanac, A. & Kujala, P. 2004. Optimal Design of Steel Sand-
wich Panel Applications in Ships. 9th International Sympo-
sium on Practical Design of Ships and Other Floating
Structures - PRADS, Travemuende Luebeck, Sept 2004:
907-914. Hamburg: Schiffbautechnische Gesellschaft e.V.
Knowles, J.D., Watson, R.A., Corne, D.W. 2001. Reducing
Local Optima in Single-Objective Problems by Multi-
objectivization. in E. Zitzler et al. (ed.): EMO 2001, Lec-
ture notes in computer science 1993: 269-283 Berlin Hei-
delberg: Springer-Verlag.
Nobukawa, H., Zhou, G. 1996. Discrete optimization of ship
structures with genetic algorithm. Journal of The Society of
Naval Architects of Japan 179: 293-301.
Okada, T., Neki, I. 1992. Utilization of Genetic Algorithm for
Optimizing the Design of Ship Hull Structure, J.S.N.A. Ja-
pan 171: 71-83.
Osyczka, A., Krenich, S., Tamura, H., Goldberg, D.E. 2000. A
Bicriterion Approach to Constrained Optimization Prob-
lems Using Genetic Algorithms, Evolutionary Optimization
An International Journal on the Internet 2(1): 43-54.
Rigo, Ph. & Fleury, C. 2001. Scantlings optimization based on
convex linearization and a dual approach-Part II. Marine
Structures 14: 631-649.
Rigo, Ph. 2003. An integrated software for scantlings optimiza-
tion and least production cost. Ship Technology Research
50 (2): 126-141.
Sekulski, Z., Jastrzebski, T. 1998. Optimisation of the fast craft
deck structure by the Genetic Algorithms. Marine Technol-
ogy Transactions 9: 165-188.
Sekulski, Z., Jastrzebski, T. 1999. 3D optimisation problem of
the ship hull structure by the Genetic Algorithm. Marine
Technology Transactions 10: 247-264.
Steuer, R.E. 1986. Multiple criteria optimization: theory, com-
putation, and application. John Wiley & Sons.
Zanic, V., Jancijev, T., Andric, J. 2000. Mathematical Models
for Analysis and Optimization in Concept and Preliminary
Ship Structural Design. Proc. IMAM, Naples: 15-22.