2002 Award Paper 7

The Determination of Optimum Ships Design and Power Prediction Using Spreadsheet Model
Ketut Buda Artana, Kenji Ishida*
Journal of the JIME Vol. 37, No. 6 * Department of Electro-Mechanical and Energy Engineering,

Kobe University of Mercantile Marine, Kobe-shi Higashi Nada-ku, Fukae Minamimachi, 5-1-1

Abstract The objective of this paper is to describe and evaluate a scheme of engineering-economic analysis for determining optimum ships main dimensions and power requirement at basic design stage. An optimization designs the problem and is arranged into five main parts, namely, Input, Equation, Constraint, Output and Objective Function. The constraints, which are the considerations to be fulfilled, become the director of this process and a minimum and a maximum value are set on each constraint so as to give the working area of the optimization. The outputs (decision variables) are optimized in favor of minimizing the objective function. Microsoft Excel-Premium Solver Platform (PSP), a spreadsheet modeling tool is utilized to model the optimization problem. This paper is commenced by the description of the general optimization problems, and is followed by the model construction of the optimization. A case study on the determination of ships main dimensions and its power requirement is performed with the main objective to minimize the Economic Cost of Transport (ECT). After simulating the model and verifying the results, it is observed that the spreadsheet model yields considerably comparable results with the main dimensions and power requirement data of the real operated ships (tanker). It is also experienced that this kind of optimization process needs no exhaustive efforts in producing programming codes, if the problem and the optimization model have been well defined.

Keywords:

Spreadsheet model, Optimization, Economic Cost of Transport (ECT), Ship design, Ship power requirement.

1. Introduction The problems in designing ship and marine machinery appear due to numerous considerations that must be taken into account. These problems become even more difficult with the development of the machinery systems on board, in terms of complexity and number of components. These conditions

increase the capital cost and the complexity of the design option. Therefore, ships design and its selected machinery must guarantee that the ship and its machinery will operate with low level of failure, safely and efficiently, with high level of availability and will deliver an optimum rate of return on the capital being employed. In other words, precise ships main dimension and reliable machinery would therefore be one of the most critical points in achieving reliable ship operation [1,2]. Thorp and Armstrong [3] utilized a comprehensive method to select the machinery arrangement for a Panamax-size bulk carrier of 70.000 DWT. Their economic assessment was only focused on two alternatives of slow speed diesel installation and medium speed diesel installation. Some parameters that were included in their study are also taken in our study. One of the major differences with their study is that our study takes the problem since the basic design process which allows the optimization process determines the ships main dimension and its machinery characteristics within the given constraints. Suich and Patterson [4] delivered an interesting report concerning the method for minimizing the cost by choosing optimal subsystem of a machinery system. The expected value concept was adopted to select the most profitable system. A probability approach, however, has a weakness in how much the approach can guarantee that the selected assumptions exactly consistent with the real condition. For that reason, our optimization scheme is developed to be able to accommodate input from real data and empirical formulas. This paper proposes an alternative method for optimizing marine designs, particularly in determining ships main dimension and its power requirement at basic design stage. Spreadsheet modeling is utilized and non-linear programming (hereafter NLP) can express our problem. The Generalizedreduced gradient (hereafter GRG) method can work in conjunction with the NLP problems. Basic diagrammatic concepts of the optimization process and a case study are also given comprehensively.

2. PSP and the basic optimization model In major engineering problems and decision making process, there are only few problems fit with a mono-criterion paradigm. The determination of ships main dimensions and its machinery power requirement also encounters many constraints and considerations in its synthesized process [5]. A number of methods are available to solve the multi constraints and multi variables optimization problem such as those are summarized by Rao [6]. Furthermore, The optimization of ships design can be defined as an attempt to resolve the conflicts of a design situation, in such a way that the variables under the control of the decision-maker take their best possible value. The optimum value is achieved when the working area of the optimization problem is satisfied. Generally, a classic multiple constrained optimization problems can be represented as follows.

X1 X 2 find X = X 3 , which minimize/maximaize f ( X ) M X n

(1)

Subject to constraints
g (lb )i g i ( X ) g (ub )i X (lb)j X j X (ub ) j for i = 1,2,3,......., m and for j = 1,2,3,......., p

(2) (3)

where X is a vector of n variables and the function g1,.,gm all depend on X. lb and ub stand for low bound and upper bound respectively. This paper employs the Microsoft Excel-PSP software (hereafter PSP) to deal with the above general expression of optimization problem. PSP combines the function of a graphical user interface (GIU), an algebraic modeling language and optimizers for linear, non-linear, and integer program. Each of these functions is integrated into the host spreadsheet program, which allows us to specify an objective function, constraints and other supporting features interactively. The PSP then makes the complete optimization model and produces the matrix form required by the optimizers. The optimizers itself employ the simplex (for LP model), the GRG (for NLP), and branch and bound methods to find an optimal solution and sensitivity information. For the LP problem, the focus of this model representation is the LP coefficient matrix. This is the Jacobian matrix of partial derivatives of the objective function and constraints with respect to the decision variables. In LP problems, the matrix entries are constant and need to be evaluated only once at the start of the optimization. On the other hand, in NLP problems, the Jacobian matrix entries are variable and must be recomputed at each new trial point. Assuming linear model for a certain problem, the PSP uses a straightforward implementation of simplex method with bounded variables to find the optimal solution. For a NLP, the PSP uses the GRG method, as implemented in the GRG2 code [7,8]. GRG requires function values and the Jacobian matrix, which is not constant for NLP models. The PSP approximates the Jacobian matrix using finite difference method. The basic format of the offered optimization process is given in Figure 1. There are five folders within the optimization, namely the INPUT folder, EQUATION folder, CONSTRAINT folder, OUTPUT folder and the OBJECTIVE FUNCTION. The INPUT folder consists of all the parameters that are used in the entire optimization process. For a complex problem, such parameters can be classified into several directories, which will make fault identification easier. Moreover, the use of the directories also makes the relationship between each directory clearer.

All basic calculations of the optimization are located in the EQUATION folder. The result of each equation is continuously updated, since the process in the CONSTRAINT folder and the OUTPUT folder always affect the variables employed in the EQUATION folder. The CONSTRAINT folder contains all considerations that must be satisfied and becomes the director of the optimization process. A minimum and a maximum value are set on each constraint to give the working area of the optimization. The optimum values are located in the center of the form. The determination of the minimum and the maximum values depend on the characteristics of the constraints. Some of them can be logically adopted from the rules of thumb, such as the range of the length-beam ratio of a tanker for a certain capacity, or the power allowance factor of the main engine for a certain route.

INPUTS Example: Input 1 = C1 Input 2 = C2 Input 3 = C3 . Input n = Cn EQUATIONS Example: Eq. 1 = C1 x C2 Eq. 2 = SQRT (C3) Eq. 3 = Eq. 1 x Eq. 2 Eq. n = Ln(Eq. 3) MIN VALUE Example: Constr. 1 Min Value Constr. 2 Min Value Constr. 3 Min Value .. Constr. n Min Value MIN VALUE Example: Dec. Var 1 Min Value Dec. Var 2 Min Value Dec. Var 3 Min Value .. Dec. Var n Min Value CONSTRAINTS Example: Constr. 1 = (Eq. 1-Eq. 2) x X1 Constr. 2 = Eq. 2 x (Eq 3 ^X2) Constr. 3 = Eq. n Eq. 2 X3 Constr. n = SQRT (Eq 1 x Xn) OUTPUTS (Decision Var) Example: Decision Variable 1 (X1) Decision Variable 2 (X2) Decision Variable 3 (X3) .. Decision Variable n (Xn) OBJECTIVE FUNCTION Example: Minimize X1 + X2 + X3+ ..+ Xn MAX VALUE Example: Constr. 1 Max Value Constr. 2 Max Value Constr. 3 Max Value .. Constr. n Max Value MAX VALUE Example: Dec. Var 1 Max Value Dec. Var 2 Max Value Dec. Var 3 Max Value .. Dec. Var n Max Value

Figure 1: Basic format of the optimization process

The OUTPUT folder has nearly the same characteristics as that for the CONSTRAINT. The OUTPUT folder is composed by independent value (decision variable), on the other hand the CONSTRAINT folder consists of equations that employ parameters from the INPUT folder. In the OUTPUT folder, maximum and minimum values are also set to guide the optimization process. All optimization methods have the same pattern in which they are formed to find either a maximum or a minimum solution of the objective function.

3. Basic design optimization process for tanker with specified throughput 3.1. Problem statement At the basic design stage, it is required to design a numbers of series ships (tanker), which have optimum main dimension and optimum specified power. The ships are used to serve a crude oil delivering contract of a certain throughput. Economic Cost of Transport (hereafter ECT) is utilized as the objective of the optimization problem. In other words, the minimum ECT must be obtained to guarantee that the optimum design is achieved. The tanker is picked up to serve a certain route with distance of 1600 (optional) nautical miles. Port characteristics require such constraints, as the ship must not exceed 200-m in length and 11-m in draught. The conceptual problem is shown in Figure 2. Some economic data are employed during the optimization process, as shown in Table 1.

PORT A

PORT B

?
INPUT

What is the optimum basic designoutput, which minimizes the Economic Costof Transport (ECT) during the economic life cycle of the ship andmachinery? OBJECTIVE FUNCTION

CONSTRAINTS
Expected Repl. Cost Reliability Function Average Cargo Weight per ship Total pumping cap. Pump Capacity % Rated BHP Req. Req. Freight Rate Midship Coefficient Max allowable ship length at port Etc.

OUTPUT
Number of ships Draught B/T Ratio L/B Ratio Block Coefficient Service Speed Propeller Rpm Port Time Per Trip Number of Unloading Pump/host Etc.

Estimated annual throughput Economic life machinery and ship Owner Equity Steel, fuel, lub.oil, tax, interest rate, port service charge rate, and other basic costs Depreciation Period Etc.

Figure 2: Problem statement

Table 1: Economic data input*

Economic life of machinery Years 20.00 Loan repayment period Years 20.00 Interest rate % 0.10 Rate of return on equity % 0.12 Economic life of ship Years 20.00 Ship depreciation period Years 15.00 Machinery depreciation period Years 15.00 Tax rate % 0.30 Annual inflation rate % 0.01 Average fuel price (HFO/DO) US$/lb. 0.08 Average crew cost per month US$/month 1,250.00 Average LO price (ME/GE) US$/ton 750.00 Steel cost US$/ton 493.70 Labor rate US$/man-hours 16.67 Average port cost US$/GRT 25.00 Average insurance cost US$/ton 0.40 * Source: mainly obtained from Ref.[9]

3.2. Model structure In favor of making the optimization problem easier, the INPUT folder and the EQUATION folder are grouped into several directories. In this particular optimization, the INPUT folder covers: the ship data, machinery data, reliability data, voyage data, economic data, annual adjustment factor, cargo unloading data, and the cargo loading data. Each directory represents collection of parameters that are used in the calculation process. The EQUATION folder consists of several directories such as the ship coefficient, machinery, reliability, loading and unloading, fuel, operating cost and the economic considerations. The CONSTRAINT folder comprises of the expected replacement cost, reliability index, unloading pump capacity, specific fuel oil consumption (hereafter SFOC) for Maine Engine (ME) and Auxiliary Engine (GE), cargo handling rate, percentage of the required brake horse power (hereafter BHP), required freight rate, L/B ratio, and the maximum allowable ship length in port. The OUTPUT folder yields the optimum preventive maintenance interval, block coefficient, optimum design draught, optimum Specified BHP, service speed, propeller rpm, number of shore connection unit, B/T ratio, and the number of ships. These values are sought with the main objective to minimize the ECT of the ship. ECT, the objective for this particular optimization problem is composed by several variables, namely the required freight rate (hereafter RFR), the inventory cost of cargo and the annual tons of cargo carried (ATC) [9]. The optimum value of RFR itself depends on the annual capital recovery of the vessel cost, the annual operating cost, and the annual throughput [10]. If we further trace the ECTs constituents, we could figure out the interdependency of the related variables, as shown in Figure 3. The sequence of this design process indicates strict relationship among each design consideration. Therefore, the results of one process or sequence directly affect the results of the succeeding or foregoing process. Furthermore, engineering design process obviously becomes more and more difficult when economic factors are taken into account.

For instance, it might be not a simple work to relate the optimum number of shore connection, which must be fitted on a tanker with the resulted RFR or outcomes of the loan repayment scheme. However, it is believed that those variables somehow interconnect and affect each other. Hence, the basic nature of ships and its machinery design optimization process would lie on the ability of the engineers to accommodate all of the design considerations and to provide adequate flexibility in altering the decision variables, while fulfilling the main objective of the optimization process. Figure 4 shows the general structure of this optimization problem. The optimization process is commenced by setting the initial value of the decision variables. Using relevant basic parameters located in the INPUT folder, all basic calculations are executed in the EQUATION folder. The results are then exported to the CONSTRAINT folder to calculate all constraints accordingly. After the maximum and minimum values of each constraint verify the result, the objective function is verified whether the new value of the objective function (ECT) is less than or higher than that of the previous one (depends on the maximization or minimization). This process is repeated until obtaining the global maximum or minimum value.
No. Of Voyage Cargo Cost Unit Interest Rate

ECT
Owner Equity

Through put No. of opr. Ship

RFR

No. of opr. Ship Unit Crew Cost No. of opr. Ship Constant Ann. Over head Cost No. of opr. Ship Ann. Adm. Cost

Vessel Cost Constant No. of opr. Ship Voyage per year Reliability GRT Ann. M/R Cost No. of opr. Ship

Ann. Dry Dock Cost Ann. Crew Cost No. of Crew

Unit Port Cost

Ann. Port Cost

Total Cost Annual LO Cost Etc. Ann. Insur. Cost No. of opr. Ship Ann. Operat. Cost Annual HFO Cost

Reliability Ann. Expt. Repl. Cost No. of opr. Ship

Constant

Unit Insur. Cost

Voyage per year

Annual DO Cost

Figure 3: Interdependency between variables

The optimization problem can be mapped as shown in Table 2. The objective is to minimize f (X), which is the ECT while determining the optimum value of X1 to X12 subject to constraint g1 (X) to g16 (X). A numbers of 278 basic and dependent equations including a number of polynomials construct the model through folders and directories as above mentioned. The basic ship design and ship resistance formulas are mainly taken form references [11,12,13,14] and the economic parameters and major assumptions related to cost calculation from references [9,15]. In model construction process, the most frequent problem is the existence of the cyclic equation (circular reference). This is probably a common phenomenon when a huge number of equations are employed in the model. The best way to solve such a problem is by tracing down each equation that forms the cyclic/circular calculation, and then if possible, taking one of the variables as the constraint or output of the model.
OBJECTIVE FUNCTION OPTIMUM: No. of Req. Ship, B/T ratio Draught, Cb, Vs, propeller rpm, Prop. Diameter, pitch ration, Rt, etc. MAX VALUE Yes Reduce gradient, set another Decision variable values CONSTRAINT Replacement Cost Reliability Cargo weight Pumping capacity SFOC LOC Cavitation Number BHP req. RFR Max Allowable Lpp L/B Ratio Has the min. ECT Achieved? No

MIN VALUE OUTPUT

MIN VALUE

MAX VALUE

Set starting value of decision variables

EQUATION Ship Coefficients Powering calculation Fuel consmpt. Calculation

Resistance calculation MARKOV Evaluation Voyage Calculation Lubrication oil calculation Loan Repayment calculation

Vessel cost estimation

R.F.R calculation

Time value of money

Operating cost calculation

INPUT Machinery data Adjustment factor Cargo Load data Economic data Voyage data Ship data Port data

Figure 4: Structure of the optimization model

Table 2: Optimization statement

Find
Time (t) independent variable Number of ships Draught B/t ratio Block coefficient Service speed Propeller rpm Diameter propeller Pitch ratio Time required for preventive replacement Port time per trip (loading) Number of unloading pump/host Which minimizes: Economic Cost of Transport (ECT) (f(X)) RFR Total cost Annual port cost (unit port cost, grt, voyage per year, no. of operated ship) Annual insurance cost (voyage per year, weight of cargo, unit insurance, no. of ship) Annual overhead cost (constant, no of ship) Annual crew cost (unit of crew cost, no. Of crew, no. of ship) Annual expected replacement cost (reliability, no. of ship) Annual m/r cost (reliability, no. of ship) Annual dry docking expenses (constant, no of ship) Annual administration cost (constant, no of ship) Annual operating cost (lo cost, do cost, hfo cost, etc) Owner equity Constant Throughput Given Cargo cost unit Constant Number of voyage Operating day (docking days, unscheduled maintenance days, time at port) Turn round time Interest rate Constant Subject to g1(X) Min value Expected replacement cost, (Reliability index, Cost of fail. .rep, Cost of Prev. rep) g2(X) Min value Reliability function, (failure distribution parameters) g3(X) Min value Ave. cargo weight per ship, (throughput, No. of ship, voy. per year, Load factor) Min value g4(X) Total pumping capacity, (Pump capacity, No. of req. pump) g5(X) Min value Pump capacity (Cargo weight, Port time, Cargo density) Min value g6(X) SFOC for full load ME (DHP, engine rpm) Min value g7(X) SFOC for full load GE (DHP, diesel generator rpm) g8(X) Min value Cavitation number (THP, Projected Blade Area (Ap), dynamic pressure at tip radius) g9(X) Min value Local cavitation number (press. at the screw centerline, dyn.pressure at tip radius) Min value g10(X) % Rated BHP requirement (min. resulted SFOC at feasible region) g11(X) Min value Required freight rate (Ann. Vessel cost, total opr. Cost, throughput) g12(X) Min value Midship coefficient (Displacement, Breadth, Draught, Lpp) Min value g13(X) L/B ratio (Lpp/Breadth) g14(X) Min value Max allowable ship length at port (Vol. Displ, Breadth, Draught, Block coef.) Min value g15(X) Length of water line (LWL) (LOA) Min value g16(X) Length between perpendicular (LPP) (LWL) X1 X2 X3 X4 X5 X6 X7 X8 X9 X10 X11 X12 Min value Min value Min value Min value Min value Min value Min value Min value Min value Min value Min value Min value Max. value Max. value Max. value Max. value Max. value Max. value Max. value Max. value Max. value Max. value Max. value Max. value

Max. value Max. value Max. value Max. value Max. value Max. value Max. value Max. value Max. value Max. value Max. value Max. value Max. value Max. value Max. value Max. value

3.3. Further description of the directories The INPUT folder consists of given parameters and grouped into several directories. The ship data directory takes the cargo density of 915 kg/m3. Appendages factor, which influences the resistance calculation, is assumed to have value of 0.03. This directory also allocates the need to use a reduction gear for engine speed reduction. The machinery data directory allows the alternative of using either single main engine or multiple main engines. The model also provides flexibility in employing number of generator set. This specific tanker design model is only focused on the determination of the main engine

and the generator set. Their reliability model is assumed to be represented by Weibull distribution, and its related parameters (,,) must be defined accordingly. The Weibull analysis is then used to find the best period/interval to carry out the maintenance program. The unit cost of failure replacement and unit cost of preventive replacement is also assumed before the optimization process can be executed [16,17]. The voyage data directory is one of the vital directories in the optimization model. Optional trip distance and number of intermediate port make the model flexible. The assumed outbound and inbound load factors allow the model to be more realistic. Moreover, in determining the number of voyage per year, we must set in advance the duration required for annual docking days and unscheduled maintenance. The economic data directory, as shown in Table 1 is gathered from many different sources and plays a very important role within the optimization model. The annual adjustment factor provides more realistic calculation of the operating cost. This allows the annual increase of the operating cost of components to be taken into account. The loading and unloading data are mainly used during the determination of port time and cargo pump capacity. The EQUATION folder is also divided into several directories. The coefficient and ship directory collects all equations for determining the main dimensional of the ship. Since such equations usually stand as empirical formula, then the interpolation process takes part in play when the some values lie beyond the original range [15]. The determination of ship resistance and power prediction is carried out using Harvald power prediction method [13]. The propeller design and its cavitation prediction are based on the Wageningen B-series propellers [11,12,13]. The vessel cost directory allows us to perform a basic hull cost, outfit cost, machinery cost and estimated overhead cost [9]. These calculations employ many constants taken from many related sources. The SFOC-Speed-Power directory estimates the optimum percentage of rated BHP to be used during the service condition. This estimation is aimed to minimize the SFOC and to provide appropriate operational condition (speed) of the propeller. The reliability directory determines failure rate, reliability and unreliability of the main engine based on the given Weibull parameters. This directory also estimates the expected length of operating hours before failure cycle. The number of voyage per year, which strongly influences the ECT, is optimized in the trip per year directory. Unfortunately, to find an integer number of operated ship, the calculation might generate a non-integer number of voyage per year. A decision must be made whether accepting the optimization results by rounding up or down the number of voyage per year, or altering other parameters to find a more realistic value of the annual number of voyage. The Fuel and lubricating oil directory estimates the annual fuel and lubricating oil requirement. Since the model does not refer to any particular engine, the calculation is then made empirically. The operational cost directory determines the annual operational cost for all ships. To deal with this estimation, some parameters such as unit insurance cost, unit port cost, unit crew cost and other unit costs must be assigned in advance. Because the investment scheme also affects the value of the

optimized ECT, the loan repayment directory and the time value of money directory are then allocated to give flexibility for determining the preferred investment scenario.

3.4. Analysis The appendix shows the summary of optimization results for 5 models that subject to 5 different throughputs for a specific distance of 1600 miles. It is observed that the optimization model becomes very appreciative for different throughput. The determination of the minimum and maximum values of the constraints and the outputs, which determine the feasible area of the optimization, is the privilege of the designer. The optimization results are obtained by solving each model several times with various decision variables initial values, whilst keeping constant the maximum and minimum value of the constraints. If the optimization results remain the same and no single constraint is violated, then we can consider that the optimization program is stable. This convinces us that there is no other set of values for the decision variables close to the current value, which yields a better value for the objective. In other words, we found a peak if maximization, or valley if minimization. Figure 5 shows 5 different combinations of ship main dimensions for 5 different throughput. Along with them, the associated cost elements are also obtained as shown in Figures 6 and 7. Each combination provides the minimum ECT that indicates the competitiveness of the design.

optimum dimension design for various throughput

45.0 40.0 35.0 30.0
Breadth (m) vol. Displacement x 1.000 (m3)

25.0 20.0
LPP x 10 (m)

15.0 10.0 5.0 100.0E+3 300.0E+3 500.0E+3 700.0E+3

No. of Ship Draught (m)

Depth (m)

throughput

Figure 5: Optimum ship dimension design for various throughputs

No constraint is violated. This is because of the wide range of the maximum and minimum value of the constraints and output. However, when the throughput per year is set to be 700.000 ton, the upper limit

of the cargo carrying capacity of the ships is violated. Expanding this maximum value does not directly solve the problem because the maximum port times constraint would then be broken. Increasing the allowable port time might be not a suitable solution, since it would also significantly increase the ECR. In this case, the remaining alternative is by increasing the maximum cargo pump capacity or adding the number of cargo pump. This option would be an improper solution if there were restrictions on the available space for additional pump, and this addition would also increase the requirement for maintenance and spare part.
Optimum Cost Estimation for Various Throughput
4.50E+07 4.00E+07 3.50E+07 3.00E+07
estimated vessel cost estimated total loan

US$

2.50E+07 2.00E+07 1.50E+07 1.00E+07 5.00E+06 0.00E+00 1.00E+05 3.00E+05 5.00E+05 7.00E+05 7.00E+05
estimated annual cost estimated annual operating cost

throughput

Figure 6: Optimum composition of cost component for various throughputs

optimum RFR and ECT for various throughput

60 50 40

US$/ton

Optimum Economic Cost of Transport (ECT) 30 20 10 0 100.0E+3 300.0E+3 500.0E+3 700.0E+3

Optimum Required Freight Rate (RFR)

throughput

Figure 7: Optimum RFR and ECT for various throughputs

This kind of trade-off process appears as a common phenomenon during the optimization process. Again, the sensibility of the design mainly depends on that of the input parameter values and the width of

the constraint as well as the preciseness of the adopted equations. Additional directories can also be set within the program, and for instance, some directories for specific machinery subsystem evaluation can be added within the optimization program. The appendix also shows the optimum specified BHP for each model, the SFOC for the main engine and the diesel generator. The optimization results also suggest the optimum percentage of rated BHP, in which the main engine is preferably operated. Propellers main characteristics, i.e., rpm, diameter, and pitch ratio are also obtained. Figure 5 shows that the existing constraints on draught and maximum allowable ship at port determine the main dimension and number of the ships. These constraints make the optimum draught of the ships for transporting cargo of more than 300,000 ton always adjacent to the upper limit of 11 meter. This condition generates the maximum cargo carrying capacity and eventually reduces the ECT, which is sought by the objective function.

3.5. Results verification To verify the performance of this optimization program, comparison on BHP, DWT, and T (draught) has been made to about 300 tanker data. The comparisons are shown in Figure 8-9. Generally, it is observed that the results of the simulation can gently conform to the real data. We can roughly consider that the optimization results can conform to the real ship design.

LPP-DWT and LPP-T Verification

60,000 16 14 50,000 12 40,000 10 30,000 8 6 20,000 4 10,000 2 0 0 50 100 150 200 250 0 300

DWT (ton)

LPP (meter)
LPP-DWT real LPP-DWT sim LPP-T real LPP-T sim

Figure 8: LPP-DWT and LPP-T verification

At some points the optimization result drastically shift to a new point which causes the resulted trend-line cannot be smooth. This is caused by any adjustment made to the optimization program, which is

T (meter)

different from that of the previous one. For instance, if the throughput is less than 300.000 ton, then we could set the maximum cargo carrying capacity of the constraint at the value of 25.000 ton. Once we increase the throughput, the optimization cannot produce optimum results, until we increase the maximum value of the cargo carrying capacity. For the purpose of the economic result verification, we compare the optimum number of voyage, the ECT and the RFR, which are obtained from our optimization, with the one that obtained by using RFRSIM [9]. The RFRSIM is a compiled FORTRAN program, which calculates the RFR and ECT when, input are expressed as normal or truncated-normal variants. There are 24 basic input parameters must be employed within the RFRSIM. Several adjustments must be done prior to the optimization using RFRSIM. This adjustment enable the optimum results from the PSP become the input parameter for the RFRSIM. The major different between the RFRSIM with our optimization model is that the RFRSIM using predefined unit capacity of vessel in order to obtained the ECT and the RFR, instead of using throughput as used in our optimization model. Our optimization results also recommend the optimum ships main dimensions that minimize the ECT.

DWT-BHP and DWT-LPP Verification

300 250 200 150 100 50 0 0 20,000 40,000 60,000 80,000 100,000 30,000 25,000 20,000 15,000 10,000 5,000 0 120,000

LPP (meter)

DWT (ton)
DWT-LPP real DWT-LPP sim DWT-BHP real DWT-BHP sim

Figure 9: DWT-BHP and DWT-T verification

The comparison between the results obtained from RFRSIM and PSP is shown in Figure 10. VPY stands for the number of voyage per year. The RFRSIM results use extension 0.95 and 0.99, which means the values that obtained using Monte Carlo simulation in 250 trials with 95% and 99% confidence degree, respectively. The result that is obtained from the spreadsheet model uses extension PSP. The figure shows that the PSP results are nearly identical from that of the RFRSIM. The discrepancies between these two methods may be caused by the different in the value of the unit costs and the cost element composition.

BHP (Hp)

4. Conclusion In the present article, The PSP has been used to determine the optimum ship main dimensions and its power requirement at the basic design stage. The optimal design is defined as the one that minimizes the economic cost of transport (ECT). For basic design stage or feasibility study purposes, this method could be employed before commencing any further design stage. The case study presented here shows how this optimization program can effectively and precisely consistent with the real ships design. Furthermore, it is also observed that the difficulties of using PSP to solve optimization problems do not manifest in the PSP construction viewpoint. Instead, is via the way to express every optimization problem in mathematical expressions, which can be executed by the spreadsheet.

No. of Voyage-RFR-ECT verification

60 50 trip or US$/ton 40 30 20 10 0 100 300 500 Annual Throughput (x 1000 ton) VPY-0.95 ECT-0.99 VPY-0.99 ECT-PSP VPY-PSP RFR-0.95 RFR-0.99 RFR-PSP ECT-0.95 700 800

Figure 10: Annual voyage-RFR-ECT verification

The ship main dimensions and its power requirement that are obtained through this method, can be further traced down into a more detail analysis to design the machinery system on board. Additional task can easily be added within the optimization program by inserting a new directory within the INPUT and the EQUATION folder. Associated constraints and expected output can be attached with the objective either to minimize or to maximize the objective function. This kind of optimization process can also be utilized to select marine machinery from a certain number of available alternatives or to determine maintenance management scheme, as utilized by authors in reference [1,2].

References 1. Artana KB, Ishida K (2001). Determination of ship machinery performance and its maintenance management scheme using MARKOV process analysis. Marine Technology IV, WIT Press: 379-389 2. Ishida K, Artana KB (2000). Reliability based marine machinery selection: a study case on main engine cooling system. Proceedings: Sixth International Symposium on Marine Engineering (ISME 2000), Tokyo. 2: 791-796 3. Thorp I, Armstrong G (1982). The economic selection of main and auxiliary machinery. Transaction Of ImarE. 95: 2-7 4. Suich RC, Patterson RL (1993). Minimize system cost by choosing optimal subsystem reliability and redundancy. Proceeding: Annual Reliability and Maintainability Symposium 5. Sen P (1998). Optimal design including multiple criteria methods. Proceedings: Modern Marine Design 6. Rao SS (1991). Optimization Theory and Application, 2nd edition. Willey Eastern Limited, New Delhi 7. Lasdon, LS, Waren AD, Jain A, Ratner M (1978). Design and testing of a generalized reduced gradient code for nonlinear programming. ACM Transactions on Mathematical Software. 4: 34-49 8. Lasdon LS, Smith S (1992). Solving large sparse nonlinear programs using GRG. ORSA Journal on Computing. 4: 2-15. 9. Hunt, CE, Butman, BS (1995). Marine Engineering Economics and Cost Analysis. Cornell Maritime Press, Maryland 10. Gransberg D, Basilotto JP (1998). Cost engineering optimum seaport capacity. Journal of Cost Engineering. 4 11. Clarke ACF (1975). Regression Analysis of Ship Data. International Shipbuilding Progress.22: 227249 12. Oosterveld MWC, Oossanen PV (1975). Further Computer-Analyzed Data of the Wageningen BScrew Series. International Shipbuilding Progress.22: 251-261 13. Harvald Sv. AA (1983). Resistance and Propulsion of Ships, John Wiley & Sons. 14. SNAME (1967). Principle of Naval Architecture. The Society of Naval Architecture and Marine Engineers, New York. 15. Kiss RK (1992). Ship Design and Construction. The Society of Naval Architects and Marine Engineers, New York 16. Jardine AKS (1973). Maintenance, Replacement and Reliability. Pitman Publishing.

17. Rasmussen M (1990). Lower maintenance cost through maintenance optimization in design and operation, Proceedings: ICMES

(Original:Journal of The Japan Institution of Marine Engineering Vol.37 No.6;Japanese)

Appendix
throughput Breadth Depth Volume Displacement Specified BHP estimated vessel cost Number of Voyage per Year (round Trips) Cost of HFO per Year Cost of DO per Year Cost of LO per Year for ME Cost of LO per Year for GE + Other Equipments Annual Port Cost Annual Insurance Cost Annual Overhead Cost Annual Crew Cost Annual Expected Replacement Cost Annual M/R Cost Annual Dry Docking Expenses Annual Administration Cost Annual Operating Cost Total Loan Owner Equity Annual Total Cost Relibility Function Average Cargo Weight per ship Total pumping capacity Pump Capacity Specific Fuel Oil Consumption for full load ME Specific Fuel Oil Consumption for full load GE Cavitation Number Local Cavitation Number % Rated BHP Requirement Required Freight Rate L/B Ratio Max allowable ship length at port Length of Water Line Length Between Perpendicular Number of ships Draught B/T Ratio Block Coefficient Service Speed Propeller Rpm Diameter Propeller Propeller Pitch Time Required for Preventive Replacment Port Time Per Trip (loading) Number of Unloading Pump/host Economic Cost of Transport m m m3 hp US$ US$ US$ US$ US$ US$ US$ US$ US$ US$ US$ US$ US$ US$ US$ US$ US$ 100,000 17.6 9.2 14,218.3 3,740.0 19,302,653.7 8 263,741.1 5,168.7 74,375.0 74,970.0 118,157.6 32,800.0 22,439.8 224,398.4 76,216.8 247,368.4 477,478.6 30,116.6 1,647,231.1 14,476,990.2 4,825,663.4 3,347,693.0 0.95 10,841.5 1,184.9 296.2 0.418 0.443 0.498 0.20 89.33 39.15 6.000 116.9 111.1 105.5 300,000 23.4 12.2 33,386.5 6,587.3 34,010,809.1 7 563,798.7 15,048.6 96,743.2 97,517.1 354,472.9 98,400.0 66,872.4 514,106.9 99,138.9 321,764.2 807,868.7 89,749.8 3,125,481.5 25,508,106.8 8,502,702.3 6,121,654.1 0.95 25,457.2 1,500.0 375.0 0.397 0.440 0.499 0.20 89.41 23.73 6.000 155.4 147.6 140.3 500,000 25.4 13.2 42,805.9 7,773.8 40,500,780.1 7 845,912.0 30,268.1 127,127.7 128,144.7 590,788.2 164,000.0 136,272.8 797,252.8 130,275.8 422,821.9 1,395,019.6 182,892.5 4,950,776.1 30,375,585.1 10,125,195.0 8,518,680.9 CONSTRAINTS 0.95 32,639.5 1,500.0 375.0 0.389 0.439 0.500 0.20 89.45 19.43 6.000 169.2 160.7 152.7 700,000 25.4 13.2 42,805.9 7,773.8 40,500,780.5 7 1,184,276.8 59,325.4 177,978.8 179,402.6 827,103.5 229,600.0 267,094.7 1,116,153.9 182,386.1 591,950.6 2,734,238.3 358,469.3 7,907,980.1 30,375,585.4 10,125,195.1 11,475,885.0 0.95 32,639.5 1,500.0 375.0 0.389 0.439 0.500 0.20 89.45 17.76 6.000 169.2 160.7 152.7 800,000 25.4 13.2 42,805.9 7,773.8 40,500,780.5 7 1,353,459.2 77,486.3 203,404.3 205,031.5 945,261.2 262,400.0 348,858.4 1,275,604.5 208,441.3 676,515.0 3,571,250.0 468,204.7 9,595,916.5 30,375,585.4 10,125,195.1 13,163,821.3

Min Value
0.8 500.0 1.0 1.0 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.2 50.0 10.0 6.0 50.0 50.0 50.0

Max Value
0.95 32,639.5 1,500.0 375.0 0.389 0.439 0.500 0.20 89.45 17.49 6.000 169.2 160.7 152.7 1.0 30,000.0 400.0 100.0 0.5 0.5 0.5 1.0 100.0 80.0 7.0 200.0 200.0 200.0

Min Value
1.0 7.0 2.0 0.8 10.0 70.0 4.6 120.0 60.0 10.0 2.0

g(x)
1.0 7.6 2.3 0.9 12.0 169.6 5.0 0.75 60.0 10.0 4.0 44.17

g(x)
1.0 10.2 2.3 0.9 12.0 127.3 6.6 0.75 60.0 18.5 4.0 28.76

g(x)
2.0 11.0 2.3 0.9 12.0 117.9 7.1 0.75 60.0 23.8 4.0 24.46

g(x)
2.0 11.0 2.3 0.9 12.0 117.9 7.2 0.75 60.0 23.8 4.0 22.81

g(x)
3.0 11.0 2.3 0.9 12.0 117.9 7.2 0.75 60.0 23.8 4.0 22.52

Max Value
3.0 11.0 3.2 1.0 13.0 200.0 7.2 1.2 100.0 100.0 4.0