Maritime Transportation and Harvesting of Sea Resources – Guedes Soares & Teixeira (Eds)

© 2018 Taylor & Francis Group, London, ISBN 978-0-8153-7993-5

Ship design, decades of development

T. Damyanliev & P. Georgiev

Technical University of Varna, Varna, Bulgaria

ABSTRACT:  The principal objective of this work is to review the developments in the field of ship
design in Bulgaria in the last four decades, driven by the leadership of Professor Kolev and his group of
associate researchers. A very advanced research has been performed on different aspects of ship design,
including optimization and on-board computer systems proven to be a good solution in many national
and international research projects and practical applications. The paper also reviews the state of the art
of ship design, in particular, the inverse and conceptual ship design, computer system for conceptual and
robust design, sensitivity analysis of the optimum solution and different developments and implementa-
tions in the ship operation employing on-board loading software systems.

1  INTRODUCTION

The knowledge of any complex technical system,

such as the ship, is gained through the results of
systematic research in individual scientific fields
(subject sciences), which are determined by the
subsystems and their qualities.
Following the leading shipbuilding school, the
Bulgarian academic education related to the ship
design, construction and exploitation has been
divided into the following fields:
– Ship theory;
– Structural mechanics and ship structures;
– Ship propulsion system;
– Marine engineering;
– Vessel devices, equipment and systems;
– Electrical equipment and ship automation;
– Shipbuilding and shipyard technology;
– Transportation and fleet exploitation;
These fields evaluate the design solution
accounting for the ship performance, ship strength,
necessary ship propulsion, devices and equipment
and constrained by shipbuilding conditions and
existing shipbuilding technologies and port and
transportation limitations. Regardless of the fact
that these field cover a very deep knowledge about
the ship as a system, that can be transformed into
a process of defining theoretical model(s) that can
solve the “forward” problems, as can be seen in
Fig.  1. To define the ship main dimensions, hull
form and its coefficients, propulsion power system,
a deep analysis based on the ship design theory
needs to be performed and it is usually defined as a
“reverse” problem (see Figure 1).
From a historical point of view, the work of
Henri-Louis Duhamel du Monceau (1700–1782),
Figure 1.  Forward and reverse design problem.
Euler L. (1707–1783) and Swedish admiral Fredrik
Henrik af Chapman (1721–1808) can be accepted
as the founders of the Ship Design Theory. They
clearly formulated the principal objective of the
ship design and drawn the first formulation of the
ship mathematical model including the mass equi-
librium and stability.
The principal development in the field of ship
design in Bulgaria has been driven by Professor
Petar Kolev and his research associates and several
applications were reported in (Kolev, 1979, 1987).
The process of ship design starts from an idea to
build a ship satisfying the regulations and account-
ing for the existing constraints, as can be seen in
Figure 2, which presents the stages of ship design
and associated scientific fields and corresponding
tools as well.
The Fleet composition stage precedes the ship
design and it is associated with the “External task”
(Pashin, 1983). During this stage and based on
the analysis of the transportation of goods and

3
 The basic design is supplemented by the detailed
design, which provides an additional information
relating to the design of details, structural details as
well as to subsystems such as electrical, navigation
and piping arrangements and marine engineering.
As a rule, during these stages the reverse design
problem is solved by modern integrated CAD/
CAM systems. They are used in the preparation
of the documentation related to ship construction.
In Europe, the commercial CAD systems of com-
panies as Aveva (http://www.aveva.com), SENER
(http://www. ingenieriayconstruccion.sener), Auto-
ship Systems Corporation (http://www. autoship.
com/), Dassault Systemes (https://www.3ds.com)
and others have become popular.

2  METHODOLIGAL BASIS
OF CONCEPTUAL SHIP DESIGN

The exploration of the theoretical and applied

aspects of conceptual ship design was the priority
task in the work of Prof. P. Kolev in the 1970 s.
In a number of publications and research projects
(Kolev, 1972, 1972a, 1977), issues related to system
Figure 2.  Ship design process. analysis as a methodological base, optimization
methods as a tool for finding the optimal design
commercial activities, the number and main char- solution, were developed and analysed.
acteristics of the ship, including the deadweight, In general, the system analysis of the complex
propulsion system, cargo capacity, speed, range engineering systems includes three main com-
distance, crew number etc. are defined. All charac- ponents—decomposition, analysis and synthesis
teristics are included in the ship design specification (Figure 3).
During the following conceptual design a reverse The most common strategies for decomposing
problem is solved. Taking into account the ship the technical systems and processes that are associ-
design specification, constraints and considering ated with the ship can be formulated as:
the ship as a complex engineering system, the basic
– Functional decomposition, i.e. decomposition
characteristics, transforming it as a physical object
based on the analysis of system functions. The
(dimensions, architectural type, weights, volumes,
rationale for the separation of “functional
etc.) are determined. This design solution should be
optimal with respect to a predetermined assessment
criterion. This stage is defined as Conceptual design.
Typically, the next two stages in the design are
defined as Contract and Basic design. Based on
conceptual design solution, or on existing design
data in the case of a standard or family ship, nego-
tiations with the ship owner take place leading to a
decision being made regarding whether the project
will go ahead or whether modifications are needed.
During the Basic design stage, the major equip-
ment selection, general arrangements, systems
design, space allocation and structural design and
stability calculations are given a final approval by
the Classification Societies and ship owner. This
phase finishes with all drawings, material estimates,
equipment lists, weld lengths and weight and cen-
tres of gravity reports. The preliminary structural
definition developed in this phase is used for the
detailed design and preparation of the ship build-
ing information. Figure 3.  Components of the system analysis.

4
 subsystems” is the equivalence of the functions
performed by the group of elements constituting
the subsystem;
– Life cycle decomposition – decomposes any sys-
tem where, at different stages of its operation,
the subsystems change the basic laws of their
operation;
– Decomposition on subsystems (structural decom-
position) – an example of this may be the vol-
ume of generated and used information as a part
of the overall database.
The analysis of the system includes:
– Functional-structural analysis – specification of
the composition and operation laws of elements;
the operating algorithm and the interoperability
of the subsystems; formulation of design vari-
ables and uncontrollable parameters; the con-
straints that formulate the acceptable area of the
project solution; analysis of the integrity of the
system; formulation of the general requirements
for the created system;
– Morphological analysis – interconnections
between the components of the system;
– Genetic analysis – analysis of the background
and the causes of developments of such systems;
– Performance analysis – formation of perform-
ance indicators, justification of efficiency cri-
teria, immediate evaluation and analysis of the
results obtained.
In the application of the system, analysis of
complex engineering systems and their automated
design is associated with the structural and para-
metric synthesis and assessment of the system.
Parametric synthesis defines the parameters of
Figure 4.  Stages of system analysis.
elements of a system with a particular structure
that ensures its functionality. In case of existing
mathematical model the parametric synthesis is of the Classification Societies, conventions and
accomplished solving an optimization problem. others;
The process of realizing a quantitative system – Indicators to assess the effectiveness of the
analysis applicable to the conceptual design of a project solution, including economic indicators
ship is illustrated by the algorithm proposed by as CAPEX, OPEX.
Wagner, (1972). Independent on the type of the
subject, the system analysis includes several stages The requirements and constraints are deter-
as can be seen in Figure 4. mined by the parameters included in the design
The design specification is related to the for- specification, model applicability constraints and
mulation of the basic requirements for the ship other functional requirements to ensure the quality
in terms of its core functions and characteristics of the ship.
defined by the higher-level system analysis. For The implementation of the system analysis
the ship, this higher level could be the task of fleet requires selection of criterion. Finding the solution
composition. is performed through an optimization procedure
The mathematical model of the ship needs to or by variant calculations.
give information about: The assessment and analysis of the project solu-
tion include a study of the robustness and sensitiv-
– Mathematical and geometrical description of ity of the obtained optimal solution.
the object, defining the ship as a real physical Applying a system analysis in the 1970 s, a
object; number of authors developed computer systems
– Predicting the quality of the ship resulting for conceptual ship design. As for an example
from its functions, meeting the requirements Nowacki (2010) described the details of many of

5
these studies. Initially, the search for an optimal
design solution, including main dimensions or
their relations was based on variant calculations,
Later, the solution was defined by using a non-
linear programming (Novacki et al., 1970) using
an optimization algorithm known as Sequential
Unconstrained Minimization Technique-SUMT
(Fiacco et al., 1972).
The optimization task is defined as:
F ( X*) = min F ( X, Q), X ∈ R (1)
Subject to:
G{g j ( X, Q)} ≤ 0 , j = 1, 2,..., m (2)
H{hi ( X, Q)} = 0 , i = 1, 2,..., p (3)
where: F(X) is the objective function to be mini-
mized (or maximized) over the variables (X, Q);
G is the inequality constraints; H is the equality
constraints; X = {xk}, k = 1, 2,…,n is the vector of
design variables; Q = {ql}, l = 1, 2,…, s is the vector
of uncontrollable parameters.
The solution to this task is based on sequential
unconstrained minimization of the transformed
objective functions in the following form:
{ }
2
P ( X, Q, rk ) = F ( X, Q) + 1 / rk ∑ min[ 0; g j ( X )] +
+1 / rk ∑ [ hi ( X )]
2 n
(4)
F ( X*) = lim {min P ( X, Q, rk )}, rk → 0 (5)
where rk is the penalty parameter (rk > 0)
This optimization procedure, as was proposed
by Gallin (1973), was implemented to the linear
mathematical model without intermediate checks
of the compatibility of the design solution with the
constraints.
3  SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS OF OPTIMAL
SOLUTIONS
3.1  Parametric studies of optimal solutions
The use of an optimization procedure in the ini-
tial stages of ship design is of a great importance,
but a more valuable information could be gained
through the parametric studies of the obtained
optimal solution. The theoretical background of
these studies at early stages of ship design was pre-
sented by Kolev, (1987) and Kolev et al. (2005).
Immediate relation to the task of the nonlinear
programming is the Lagrange function.
m p
L( X, u, w ) = F ( X ) + ∑ u j g j ( X ) + ∑ wi hi ( X ) (6)
j =1 i =1
6
where u {uj}, w{wi} is the Lagrange multipliers.
For an optimum solution X* the Kuhn-Tucker
conditions has to be satisfied:
g j ( X*) ≤ 0, j = 1, 2,..., m (7)
hi ( X*) = 0, i = 1, 2,..., p (8)
u g j ( X*) = 0, j = 1, 2,..., m ; u ≥ 0 j = 1, 2,..., m
* *
j j
(9)
m p
∇L( X*) = ∇F ( X*) + ∑ u j ∇g j ( X*) + ∑ wi ∇hi ( X )
j =1 i =1 (10)
Kuhn-Tucker conditions permit finding the
Lagrange multipliers {uj*}, {wi*} if the first and
the second derivatives of the objective function
and the constraints could be calculated at the opti-
mum point X*. This is the reason to use quadratic
regression approximations for the objective func-
tion and constraints. These approximations are
acceptable because of the smooth changes of the
objective function and constraints in the limited
area around the optimum point. The regression
equation for the objective function is:
n n s s
F (Z ,Y ) = a0 + ∑ ak zk + ∑ ∑ akl zk zl + ∑ dl yl +
k =1 k =1 ≤ l =1 l =1
s
+ ∑ ∑ d kl zk yl (11)
k =1 ≤ l =1
where zk, yl are the relative deviations from the
optimum values of the design variables and uncon-
trollable parameters.
x − x* q − q*
zk = k * k , k = 1, 2,..., n; yl = l * l , l = 1, 2,..., s
δ xk δ ql (12)
The regression equations for the constraints are
similar to the one presented by Eqn (11).
3.2  Metamodeling technique in sensitivity
analysis
The idea of approximation of the surface around
the found optimal solution was further extended
by Kolev et al. (2005) and Georgiev (2008). These
studies presented a methodology for implementing
the metamodels for the optimization and sensitiv-
ity analysis. The framework of the methodology is
shown in Figure 5, where Step 1 comprises the met-
amodel fitted around the found optimum based on
the Response Surface Methodology (RSM) (May-
ers & Montgomery, 2002). A polynomial regression
is chosen due to its transparency and simplic-
ity and the low order of the nonlinearity of the
objective function. Space-filling design, suitable for
the computer experiments is used. A comparison
of different types of experimental designs has been
reported by Georgiev & Damyanliev (2005).
Step 2 includes a linearization of the non-linear
problem. Since the methods for the linear pro-
gramming are well established, a simple approach
to solve a nonlinear optimization problem is to
linearize it and then use these methods to find the
perspective direction for the truth optimum.
In Step 3, the linear programming problem is
solved. The objective function and constraints are
polynomials and any suitable algorithm may be
used in Step 4 and Step 5 includes the calculation
of the Lagrange multipliers if the optimizer does
not calculate them.
The optimization problem, using the Lagrange
function and Kuhn-Tucker conditions for optimal-
ity, is defined as:
∇f ( X * ) + ∑ u j ∇g j ( X * ) = 0 (13)
j ∈A
where uj are the Lagrange multipliers for a set of
active constraints A and X* is the found optimum.
Equation (13) for n design variables and m active
constraints in matrix form is:
[∇g( x* )]n × m [u ]m = [−∇f ( x* )]n (14)
The system, presented by Eqn (14), has a unique
solution when n = m, but in this case, there is not a
Figure 5.  Sensitivity analysis framework.
7
place for an optimization. Usually n > m and a least
square solution can be used.
Step 6 includes the sensitivity analysis, where the
effect of small changes in the right-hand sides (rhs)
of the constraints of the optimum solution; the
sensitivity of the optimal solution to changes of
the design variables X* and to changes of uncon-
trollable parameters Q is defined.
A methodology was proposed in (Georgiev,
2008) to demonstrate the conceptual design of
45000  tDW bulk carrier. The objective function
was to minimize Required Freight Rate (RFR) and
design variables are main dimensions and block
coefficient of the ship (L, B, D, d, CB).
Uncontrollable parameters are the fuel oil price
and the price of unit hull structure. The active con-
straints are: g1–is the cargo hold capacity; g2–is the
freeboard according to ICLL66; g3–is the initial
metacentric height; g4–is the required deadweight.
Based on the fitted metamodels a new better (by
about 8%) design solution for the objective func-
tion was found with 3 active constraints. Figure 6
shows the constraints and objective function.
From the sensitive analysis can be concluded
that small changes in right-hand, i.e. decreasing
the freeboard and required deadweight leads to
decreasing of the objective function. These conclu-
sions agree with the facts that the freeboard type
B-60 increases the efficiency of the ship and a big-
ger ship (with greater deadweight) is more effective.
Based on the normalized sensitivity the relative
importance of L and CB is higher and B practi-
cally does not influence on the objective function.
Increasing the length and draught and decreasing
CB has a positive influence on RFR.
The influence of the fuel oil price is twice bigger
than the cost of hull structures.
Figure 6.  The objective function and active constraints.
3.3  Dual response problem
The modern design process requires obtaining high
quality products at low costs, which is an economi-
cal and technological challenge for the designer.
Defined more than 50 years ago, the Taguchi
Robust Parameter Design (RPD) is a tool for a
proper choice of the levels of design (control) vari-
ables to achieve the robustness in the change in the
uncontrollable (noise) factors. The Taguchi’s RPD
permits a simultaneous optimization of the mean
and standard deviation responses. Georgiev &
Pentschew (2002) and Georgiev (2004) demon-
strated the applicability of the Taguchi’s approach
to a ship design hull form improvement.
Combined implementations of the Taguchi
approach for RPD and Response Surface Method-
ology (RSM) (Mayers & Montgomery, 2002) lead
to the formulation of the Dual Response System Figure 7.  Feasible and Pareto points for DRS of ship
(DRS) (Koksoy & Doganaksoy, 2003). design.
Georgiev (2006, 2008) proposed an approach
for solving DRS in the conceptual ship design
l l n
by simultaneously optimizing the primary and h( X ,Z ) = ∑ γ i zi + ∑ ∑ δ ij xi z j (17)
secondary responses subjected to functional and i =1 i =1 j =1
design variables constraints.
The dual response problem may be treated as a If it is assumed that the noise variables have a
special case of the multi-objective problem, i.e. as mean zero, variance σz2, and covariance zero, and
a bi-objective problem. In contrast to the single- that the noise variables and the random error ε
objective optimisation, in the multi-objective opti- have a zero covariance, then the mean model and
mization there is no a single global solution and it variance of the response are:
is often necessary to determine a set of points that
all fit the constraints. In this case, all feasible points f µ : E z [ y( X ,Z )] = f ( X ) (18)
define the Pareto frontier, which is a curve for two
object functions, surface for three and hyper sur- l
2
 ∂y( X,Z ) 
face for more objectives. fσ : Varz [ y( X, Z )] = σ z2 ∑   +σ
2
(19)
The metamodel of the object function presents i =1  ∂zi 
a response surface that contains both n control
(X) and l noise (Z) variables. Thus, the estimated Figure  7 shows the results of the DRS of
model is: 45000  tDW bulk carrier. The sampling includes
65536 points with 15850 feasible, where 11 of them
y( X ,Z ) = b0 + X T b + X T BX + Z Tc + X T ∆Z (15) are the Pareto points.

In this model, it is assumed the linear effects in

X and Z, a two-factor interaction and pure quad-
ratic terms in X (the term XTBX) and two-factor
interactions involving the control and noise vari-
ables (the term XT∆Z).
The above model involves the control and noise
variables as
y( X ,Z ) = f ( X ) + h( X, Z ) + ε (16)
where f(X) is the portion that accounts only the
control factors, interactions between them and
second-order terms and h(X, Z) are the terms
involving the noise factors and interactions
between the controllable and noise factors, where
h(X,Z) is:
4  SOFTWARE TOOLS FOR CONCEPTUAL
SHIP DESIGN
4.1  Computer aided preliminary design system
PROCONS
The computer aided preliminary design system
PROCONS has been reported in (Kolev et al,
1987a, Kolev & Damyanliev, 1991). The software
tool involves a system analysis when formulating
the ship design. According to the authors, this can
be done on three levels—compatibility, optimiza-
tion and investigation as can be seen in Figure 8.
The aim of the first level, compatibility, is to
build a simplified mathematical model by analys-
ing the ship subsystems.

8

Figure 8.  Scheme of computer system PROCONS.
At the second level, optimization, in an inter-
active mode, the model is further expanded and
adjusted to the closest prototype. An optimal solu-
tion is obtained based on the model and defined
constraints.
To prevent a reduction the confidence of calcu-
lation due to the use of simplified models, the so-
called adjusting coefficients in the following form
were implemented:
Vr ( X ) = urwrVor ( X ) + cr (20)
where: Vr(X) is the adjusted value of r-th design
variable; Vor(X) is the variable value obtained by
simplified model; ur is the adjusting coefficient
obtained by the system; wr is the adjusting coeffi-
cient given by the designer; cr is the adjusting con-
stant given by the designer.
Vsr ( X )
ur = (21)
Vor ( X )
where Vsr(X) is the variable value obtained by a
specified module.
The analysis of the design solution is realized
in the third level, investigation. To provide a subse-
quent analysis of the design solution, an analytical
model based on Design of Experiments (DoE) was
used (Kolev, 1993).
By the so-called “project solutions “ it is possible
to proceed to the next steps of the design process
defined by the authors as Detail Calculations for
Subsystems.
9
4.2  Conceptual ship design system “Expert”
The basic principles used in the PROCONS sys-
tem have been employed in the development of
the Expert system later on in (Damyanliev & Boev
1998, Damyanliev 2002).
The advantages of this system are seen as:
– Versatility with respect to the object being
analysed—design of different ship types;
– Versatility with regard to the type of design
task—an interactive formulation of the initial
data and requirements and constraints
– Possibilities for updating the existing and gener-
ating new modules to the system libraries ensur-
ing its continuous extension;
– “User-friendly” environment, working in the
interactive mode.
Figure  9 shows a schematic diagram of the
system.
The application software includes a library of
modules of the ship mathematical model and the
computational procedures associated with them.
The mathematical models of the ship are
defined by 31 subsystems describing the ship as
a physical object (geometry, volume and weight
characteristics), its qualities (stability, cargo capac-
ity, performance, manoeuvrability, etc.), cost
estimates—CAPEX OPEX and criteria for the
assessment of the optimal design solution.
For each of the subsystems, it is possible to
generate, by a specialized external program for the
system, unlimited number of modules specific to a
particular vessel type or applied engineering mod-
els. The structure of the modules is unified.
Figure  9.  Scheme of conceptual ship design system
Expert.
 The formulation of the terms of the specific
design task is carried out in several steps. Initially,
the user selects the active subsystems and the
corresponding modules that construct the math-
ematical model. The choice depends on the type
of ship and the logic of the design task. For each
specific model the system automatically generates
the necessary input data. The design variables,
constraints and objective functions are selected in
an interactive mode depending on the logic of the
design.
The vector of the design variables X  =  {xk},
k  =  1, 2,..., n is usually formed by main dimen-
sions and hull form coefficients. This vector may
include other variables for an example the ratio of
the amount of ballast water and displacement in
the design of container vessel.
Very often the optimal solution lies on the
boundary defined by the constraints G:{gj(X, Q)}
≤ 0, j = 1,2,...,m). These constrains are connected
with some of the required qualities of the ship. By
defining the upper and lower bounds, the allowable
area for design variable is formed.
The selection of the objective function F(X, Q)
depends on the ship type and the goal of the
design task. Most often this is an economic
indicator such as the Required Freight Rate or
the coefficient of utilization of the deadweight
(ηDW =  DW/∆). The objective function can be
formed by one or more criteria (single or compos-
ite) or multi-criteria such as ranked estimates of
more varied parameters.
The system has two main functions: 1) ship syn-
thesis and search for optimal solution and 2) vari-
ant calculations by one or more modules, available
from the library.
The ability of the framework was recently dem-
onstrated by solving four design tasks, including
optimization of the fleet composition; concep-
tual design of bulk carrier; impact of the limited
draught of the design solution; influence of stow-
age factor on the optimal solution (Damyanliev
et al. 2017).
5  ON BOARD COMPUTER SYSTEMS
For more than two decades, a group of research
associated led by Prof. Kolev has been develop-
ing and installing an Auto Loading Computer
On-board System (ALCOS) on various types of
ships (Kolev et al.1994). The system fulfils the
requirements for a Loading Computer System as
a computer based system that includes a loading
computer (hardware) and a calculation program
(software), capable easily and quickly to ascertain
any ballast or loading condition that:
10
– the longitudinal and local strength will not
exceed the permissible ones, and
– the stability complies with the stability require-
ments applicable to the ship.
Such loading instrument is mandatory for
bulk carriers with a length of 150  m and above.
Recently, the MARPOL Annex I, Ch.4, the
IBC/BCH Code and IGC/GC Code have been
amended, requiring tankers to be equipped with
a stability instrument, capable of handling both
intact and damage stability. The requirement
is applicable from 1 January 2016 (https://www.
dnvgl.com/).
ALCOS is designed as a complete object-
oriented application system, including all typical
elements of the interface. The different modules
are included as DLL (Dynamic Link Libraries)
that’s why it is possible to “change” ALCOS by
extending it.
Besides the required modules for the longi-
tudinal strength and stability assessment, there
are modules for solving additional tasks such as
Draught survey; Ullage Survey; Loading/Unload-
ing Sequences plan; Lashings of containers;
EDIFACT/ Baplie Transfer files; Longitudinal
strength after flooding of bulk carriers. The soft-
ware has been approved by the leading Classifi-
cation Societies and installed on more than 100
ships.
A screen with container cargo operations on a
9800  tDW multipurpose vessel is shown in Fig-
ure 10. The results from stability and longitudinal
strength evaluation of a bulk carrier are presented
in Figure 11.
The software is successfully used as a simulation
tool for defining the metamodels for safety assess-
ment of ships (Georgiev 2010, 2011).
Figure 10.  Container cargo operations of loading con-
dition defined by EDIVACT/Baplie format.

Figure  11.  Longitudinal strength and stability evalua-
tion of a bulk carrier.
5  CONCLUSIONS
This work presented here reviewed the most
important developments in the field of ship design
performed by Professor Kolev and his research
associates, including different software systems
that have been installed in many ships in the last
four decades.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors express their gratitude to the organ-
izing committee of the IMAM 2017 Congress for
dedicating a Special Session in honour of Profes-
sor Petar Kolev of Technical University of Varna,
Bulgaria for his contributions for several decades
in different topics in the field of ship design and
letting this article to be published.
REFERENCES
Ashik, V.V. 1975. Ship design, Sudostroenie, 1975
(in Russian).
Damyanliev, T. 2002. Program Environment for Decision
Making Support System. MEET/MARIND, Vol.5.
Damyanliev, T., Georgiev, P. & Garbatov, Y. 2017. Con-
ceptual ship design framework for designing new
commercial ships. In: Guedes Soares, C. & Garba-
tov, C. (eds.) Progress in the Analysis and Design of
Marine Structures. London: Taylor & Francis Group,
pp 183–189.
Damyanliev, T.P., Boev S.M. 1998. Conceptual design
system—EXPERT., SAC Shipbuilding `98, ISSN
1310–8573 (in Bulgarian).
Fiacco A.V., McCormick G.P. 1972. Nonlinear Program-
ming: Sequential Unconstrained Minimization Tech-
niques, 1972, Moscow (in Russian).
Gallin, C.1973. Which way computer aided preliminary
ship de-sign and optimization, ICCAS – Papers.
11
Gaykovich, A.I. 2001. Fundamentals of theory for design
of complicated technical systems, Morinteh, Sankt-
Petersburg, (in Russian).
Georgiev, P. & Damyanliev, T. 2005. Metamodels in ship
de-sign. Proceedings of the IInd International Congress
on Mechanical and Electrical Engineering and Marine
Industry (MEEMI), Vol. 2: 268–278.
Georgiev, P. & Pentchew, P. 2002. Parameter Ship Hull
Design based on the Taguchi method. Shiffbaufors-
hung, 41, Heft Nr. 3/ 4: 19–28.
Georgiev, P. 2004. Experimental design for ship hull form
improvement. Proceedings of the XVIIth International
Conference on Marine Science and Technology, Black
Sea, Vol. 1:185–191.
Georgiev, P. 2006. Dual response system in the early
stages of ship design. Proceedings of the VIIIth Inter-
national Conference on Marine Science and Technol-
ogy, Black Sea, vol. 1:107–112.
Georgiev, P. 2008. Implementation of metamodels in
ship design. Maritime Industry, Ocean Engineering
and Coastal Resources—Guedes Soares & Kolev (eds),
2008, Taylor & Francis Group, London, pp 419–427.
Georgiev, P. 2010. Probabilistic presentation of the bend-
ing moments of bulk carriers using metamodels.
Proceedings of the IXth International Conference on
Marine Science and Technology, Black Sea, pp 82–8.
Georgiev, P. 2011. Safety analyses for bulk carriers using
metamodels of still water loads. Advances in Marine
Structures - Guedes Soares & Fricke (eds), Taylor &
Francis Group, London, UK, pp. 669–677.
Koksoy, O, & Doganaksoy, N. 2003. Joint Optimization
of Mean and Standard Deviation Using Response
Surface Methods, Journal of Quality Technology, Vol.
35, No 3: 239–252.
Kolev, P.N. 1972a. Determination of optimal ship char-
acteristics, National Scientific Conference.
Kolev, P.N. 1987. Sensitivity Studies of the Optimum
Decisions in Pre-Contracted Ship Design. D.Sc. thesis,
Varna, 1987 (in Bulgarian).
Kolev, P.N. 1992. Parametric Studies of the Optimum
Designs, Proceeding of IMAM, pp. 17–21.
Kolev, P.N., Damyanliev T.P. 1991. CAD Systems in Ship
Design, Technical University of Varna, (in Bulgarian).
Kolev, P.N., Damyanliev, T.P., Georgiev, P.G. 2005. Optimi-
zation and robust investigations in ship design. Maritime
Transportation and Exploitation of Ocean and Coastal
Resources – Guedes Soares, Garbatov & Fonseca (eds),
Taylor & Francis Group, London, pp. 875–881.
Kolev, P.N., Simeonov, I.S., Abaddjiev, K. 1987a. PRO-
CONS—A computer aided preliminary design sys-
tem, IMAEM`87, vol. 2.
Kolev, P.N.1972. Methods for optimization at early
stages of ship design, Shipbuilding and Shipping,
No 7, (in Bulgarian).
Kolev P.N. 1977. Optimization Methods in Pre-
Contracted Ship Design, Chalmers Technical Univer-
sity, Gothenburg, 1977.
Kolev P.N. 1979. Design and architecture of ships, part I,
II, Technical University of Varna, 1979 (in Bulgarian).
Kolev P.N., Petrova Z. Georgiev P. and Kolev N. 1994.
Main Features and Possibilities of Auto Loading Sys-
tem ALCOS, Black Sea, pp.133–135.
Myers, R.H. & Montgomery, D.C. 2002. Response sur-
face methodology, Process and product optimization
 using de-signed experiments, New York, John Wiley &
Sons, Inc, 2002.
Nogid, L.M. 1955. Ship design theory, Sydpromgiz, 1955
(in Russian)
Nowacki, H.2010. Five decades of Computer-
Aided Ship Design, Computer-Aided Design 42,
956–969.
Nowacki H, Brusis F, Swift P.M. 1970. Tanker prelimi-
nary design—an optimization problem with con-
straints. Transactions of SNAME;78.
Pashin V.M. 1983. Ship optimization (system approach-
mathematical models), Leningrad, 1983.
Wagner H.M.1972. Principles of Operation Research,
Mir, 1972, Moscow. (in Russian).

12