J Mar Sci Technol (2012) 17:481–492
DOI 10.1007/s00773-012-0182-1
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Automatic interior space arrangement of mid-sized superyachts
using a constraint-based genetic algorithm
Jong-Ho Nam • Tat-Hien Le
Received: 2 January 2012 / Accepted: 3 May 2012 / Published online: 25 May 2012
Ó JASNAOE 2012
Abstract The interior of superyachts is either designed
by an expert or modeled on previous layouts that have been
successfully designed. Changing one arrangement to the
other is challenging and has not been tried without the
buyer’s request, mostly dissuaded by the current manual
design procedure. In this work, an approach to determine
the interior space arrangement is introduced. Space
arrangement is performed by considering various design
constraints that are expressed in terms of numerical values
such as space occupation, shapes of spaces, and distance of
stairs connecting relevant spaces, and a combination of
those. The genetic algorithm is adopted to yield the space
arrangement formulated as an optimization problem con-
taining multiple objectives. The solution to the space
arrangement problem has proven that the designer is able to
generate a specific result due to the degree of freedom
allowed by the formulation. The proposed design approach
has led to efficient layouts for general arrangement of mid-
sized superyachts. These possible candidates help the
designer to choose a right arrangement based on his or her
design concept or intention, which will make the interior
arrangement task much easier and faster.
Keywords Superyachts  Interior space arrangement 
Constraint-based genetic algorithm  Weighted sum of
multi-objective optimization problem
J.-H. Nam (&)
Division of Naval Architecture and Ocean Systems Engineering,
Korea Maritime University, Busan, Korea
e-mail: jhnam@hhu.ac.kr
T.-H. Le
Department of Naval Architecture and Marine Engineering,
Ho Chi Minh City University of Technology,
Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam
1 Introduction
The superyacht industry is an increasingly valuable market
and an attractive business. As of July 2011, the superyacht
market has grown by 43 %, and the wide range of mid-
sized superyachts shares 70 % of the market [1]. Up to
now, most superyachts have been built in Europe, where
the advanced shipbuilding countries like Italy, Netherlands,
United Kingdom, and Germany dominate the passenger
ship market. Korea and China, on the other hand, have not
actively participated in this business, choosing to focus on
the production of commercial vessels in which they dom-
inate. As a result, they fall behind in design and technology
stressed in the luxurious interior design of superyachts.
The conceptual design of superyachts pursues a different
direction unlike the commercial vessels that are well
equipped with modern technology and advanced engi-
neering analyses. Systematic research has not been carried
out and therefore such publications are very rare.
An approach to determine a preliminary hull form of
superyachts was published by Nam et al. [2]. They focused
on the construction of a hull form by the analysis of pre-
viously built ships. Lee and Byun [3] suggested that the
analysis of deck layout could lead the designer towards a
systematic way of modern design. They also mentioned
that, with no universal concept or guidelines, most interior
design works were executed by experts in advanced ship-
building countries.
In regards to the determination of space, a trial attempt
for performing an interior space arrangement using the
genetic algorithm was introduced, where they tried to
convert the design concept into an engineering analysis
problem [4]. Lee et al. [5] suggested that the problem of
compartment layout could be improved by using the
genetic algorithm. They included the multi-deck constraint
123
482
but did not take the stairs into consideration in spite of their
important role in space arrangement. Other efforts for the
optimization of general arrangement of ships were made by
Parsons et al. [6] and updated by Daniels et al. [7]. They
had a number of compartments to be arranged but treated
each deck separately without considering the connectivity
between decks.
Evolutionary algorithms, including the genetic algo-
rithm (GA, hereafter), have been recognized as being
efficient in solving complicated optimization problems.
The concept of GA was invented by John Holland at the
University of Michigan in the 1960s and popularized by
Goldberg [8]. The GA is a method for moving one popu-
lation (strings or genes) to a new one by using a kind of
‘‘natural selection’’ together with crossover and mutation
processes. Design variables required in determining the
interior arrangement are treated as constraints that are
combined with the GA. In this paper, the GA is adopted as
a primary solver since our problem can be regarded as a
variant of a multi-objective problem.
The main contribution of this research is to propose a
method of determining space arrangement based on a
constraint-based genetic algorithm (CBGA). This approach
allows constraints to be added according to specified
requirements and a client’s preferences [9, 10]. Section 2
explains the fundamental concept and the mathematical
formulation required for the optimization of interior space
arrangement. Various mechanisms of genetic algorithm
such as encoding, evaluation, production, crossover, and
mutation are applied to the proposed CBGA in Sect. 3.
Section 4 discusses the results of space arrangement
examples performed for different designer’s requirements.
2 Formulation of space arrangement problem
In the stage of conceptual design, the designer establishes
major characteristics of a ship without violating technical
requirements, which is normally challenging and compli-
cated. In addition, he or she has to satisfy all technical and
aesthetical expectations of the client, who usually has
many requests that may be conflicting with the designer’s
guideline. This situation becomes critical and sometimes
even controversial in designing the interior space
arrangement in which no specific engineering formulas
exist. The feasible solution is normally obtained by com-
promising the client’s expectations and the designer’s
restrictions. The expectations of the client and the engi-
neering restrictions faced by the designer result in a com-
plicated and nonlinear formulation in which a number of
objective functions with design variables and constraints
are involved. This kind of problem can be regarded as a
complex example of multi-objective functions.
123
J Mar Sci Technol (2012) 17:481–492
Our space arrangement problem involves multiple,
contradictory, and mostly subjective requirements, such as
confliction due to the irregular shapes of neighboring
spaces and their locations. To reflect all the multiple yet
conflicting requirements, it is suggested that the problem
should be formulated as a variant of a multi-objective
function, which can be achieved by converting the effect of
multi-objectives to a single value constructed using weight
factors normalized.
2.1 Problem formulation of multi-deck space
arrangement
The space arrangement problem, in the form of a general
multi-objective problem, can be defined as Eq. (1):
Optimize FðxÞ ¼ ½FSpace ðxÞ; FSub ðxÞ; FStair ðxÞ;
ð1Þ
subject to gj ðxÞ; j ¼ 1; 2; . . .m;
where x is the design variables, gj(x) is a set of inequality
constraints, and m is the number of constraints. Each
objective function has its role in the optimization process.
The first two functions, FSpace and FSub, relating to the area
requirement are defined by:
jAC  Alower j þ jAC  Aupper j
FSpace ¼ and
ADeck
; ð2Þ
jASub  ASub lower j þ jASub  ASub upper j
FSub ¼
ADeck
where ADeck, AC, and ASub are the area of a deck, a main
space, and a subordinate space, respectively. The sub-
scripts, lower and upper, represent the lower and upper
limits of the corresponding area and they are defined by the
user’s preference. Detailed descriptions of those spaces
will be made later. The objective functions, FSpace and FSub
are the sub-fitness values in the percentage of space
occupancy of a certain compartment compared to the
maximum area of a deck.
On the other hand, FStair is the sub-fitness value in the
ratio of stair distance obtained to the longest distance in
each deck, as illustrated in Fig. 1.
Our goal is to minimize the sum of stair distance while
optimizing the area of space within the client’s preferences
or expert’s requirements. The objective function possesses
conflicting goals and constraints like the ordinary multi-
objective optimization problems.
To solve the problem, we assume that each deck is
represented by 40 9 11 equally sized grids, following our
previous work [4]. This assumption comes from the anal-
ysis of the current design of general mid-sized superyachts
that approximately have the length of 40 m and the width
of 11 m. The number of grids is flexible and can be defined
differently in the beginning stage. The design variables,
J Mar Sci Technol (2012) 17:481–492
Fig. 1 Definition of fitness
value for stairs
shown in Eq. (1), are supposed to define spaces and are
assumed to represent the two dimensional coordinates of
spaces on the deck. To accelerate the calculation of the
objective function, all values are encoded in integers rather
than in binary. Thus, the design variables are real coded
values in our CBGA, which means the chromosome in GA
will be an integer rather than binary or floating.
2.2 Formulation as sum of weighted factors
It is important to choose a good objective function in
applying the CBGA to a problem. It can have a set of
multiple components but should be represented as a com-
bined numeral value. Important design factors such as space
occupancy, shape of spaces, and stair connectivity are taken
into consideration in determining an optimal layout of
spaces in this work. Each factor emphasizes the importance
of its own role. It would be more plausible, however, to
combine and reasonably balance out the three factors.
The fitness value, F, in Eq. (3), chosen as an objective
function, is assumed to be the weighted average of the
defined design factors. In our research, the combination of
these factors is formulated as a function of a set of domi-
nant factors determining the space allocation such as space
area, stair distance, and shape constraint of space:
wSpace FSpace þ wStair FStair þ wSub FSub gShape
F¼
X wSpace þ wStair þ wSub
þ gj ðxÞ: ð3Þ
j
The weighting factors balancing the three sub-values
wSpace, wStair, and wSub, should be defined by the designer
in the beginning stage and are set between 0 and 1. It
should be noted that other factors could be added upon the
request of the owner or the designer. The constraint func-
tion gj(x) is considered as a penalty function, as discussed
in the coming section.
483
3 Constraint-based GA application for space
arrangement
The aim of this work is to suggest a ‘‘good’’initial space
arrangement for the designer and the client so that they are
able to not only reduce the time that might have been
devoted to manual design, but also consider various
arrangements previously unconsidered. A typical design
procedure includes the compromise between different
layouts. With a set of good layouts in hand, it becomes
much easier to reach a final decision. It should be noted
that the proposed algorithm for the space arrangement, as
described in Fig. 2, is meant to suggest a probable and
reasonable solution rapidly and is subject to a so-called
tuning process for a final arrangement.
A previous approach to find an optimal space arrange-
ment of a superyacht established an objective value of
space arrangement that considered rectangular space,
connecting information between the two spaces via stairs
[4]. Even though they applied a GA technique, the results
were not fully satisfactory because of its limitations in
shape and inefficient convergence, partly caused by the
inappropriate application of the GA. This limitation has to
be resolved for the practical application of the algorithm.
A modified and improved technique is introduced here.
A set of design constraints is simultaneously considered in
the problem formulation. These constraints are incorpo-
rated to establish a new constraint-based genetic algorithm
(CBGA) that automatically determines the arrangement of
various irregular-shaped spaces and stairs. Other con-
straints are free to be added if necessary.
3.1 Major constrained elements
Every space is basically assumed to be rectangular, defined
as MAIN space in this work. The idea of using equally
sized grids in each deck is efficient for the definition of
123
484
Fig. 2 A design procedure for
interior space arrangement
Fig. 3 Definition of MAIN and
SUB elements
each space. Then, a space can be represented by the (x,
y) coordinates of a corner point and by its width and height.
The concept of SUB space is significant to consider for
the irregular shape of spaces in real superyachts. The SUB
is defined as a sub-compartment connected to a MAIN, as
depicted in Fig. 3. The necessity of the SUB space can be
suggested by the clients in the beginning either by their
preference or by technical or performing issues. By adding
a SUB to a MAIN, a general, non-rectangular shape can be
generated. This irregular shape will add more complexity
in determining the layout of two neighboring spaces.
Considering a general shape generated by MAIN and
SUB spaces is not straightforward. Instead of allowing
impractical SUB shapes that are either too slender or too
fat, SUBs with a reasonable shape factor defined, gShape as
a ratio width to length of SUB is introduced in Eq. (4). This
assumption is very plausible and can be adopted without
loss of generality.
widthðSUBÞ
gShape ¼ : ð4Þ
length (SUB)
Another simplification is assumed in positioning SUBs.
Even though a SUB can be floating along an edge of a
connected MAIN, the resulting shape of combined MAIN and
SUB can be impractical in most cases in that the SUB could
create unusable spaces for the neighboring space. This
123
J Mar Sci Technol (2012) 17:481–492
dilemma is solved by assuming the position of the SUB
fixated at either the top or bottom of a MAIN. In other words,
the top edge of SUB is aligned with that of MAIN or the bottom
edge of SUB with that of MAIN. Using a penalty method in the
fitness function, an impractical shape can be easily discarded
after each generation during the CBGA process.
Another constraint considered in the space arrangement
on decks is the stair connectivity. Stairs connect spaces or
compartments across decks. Some stairs should be located
within specified spaces for technical and operational purpose.
Private stairs are preferred for guests as well as the owner,
reducing the likelihood of encountering the crew more than
necessary. With all these constraint factors in mind, our goal
is to find an optimal arrangement of stairs that enables the
shortest connection from space to space across decks.
In summary, the constraints considered in the problem
are gShape and g(x) functions. The role of g(x)s is to avoid
the violation of technical requirements or user’s preference
by imposing penalties. When the space is encoded into a
chromosome, those constraints are evaluated by the corner
positions of each space that are expressed in terms of
(x, y) coordinates (Table 1).
The information of initial space connection is given in
the first step. Even though the number of guest and crew
stairs can be generally arbitrary, the CBGA will generate
the number of stairs based on the connection from space to
J Mar Sci Technol (2012) 17:481–492
Table 1 List of constraints g(x)
Constraints g(x)
Neighboring spaces (NS)
SUB connection (SC)
Stair location (SL)
Fig. 4 Initial layout of stairs
Fig. 5 Encoding process for
MAINs, SUBs, and stairs
Technical requirements or user’s
preferences
Prevent the overlap of neighboring
spaces (MAIN and SUB)
Locate a SUB aligned with the top
or bottom of MAIN where the
SUB is supposed to attach
Prevent stairs from locating
outside specified spaces
485
space following the initial recommendation. Our assump-
tion for the initial layout is described in Fig. 4.
3.2 Encoding and selection process
The proposed CBGA uses the string of x–y coordinates as
variables. A set of x–y coordinates in this chromosome is
exchanged during the CBGA mechanism to generate a new
chromosome in next generation. Three major elements
such as MAINs, SUBs, and stairs encoded to form chro-
mosomes are illustrated in Fig. 5.
123
486 J Mar Sci Technol (2012) 17:481–492

The steady-state selection is known to be the generic
method of selection of chromosomes [10]. Each chromo-
some in the population has a fitness value and the whole
Fig. 6 Convergence results for different reproduction percentages
chromosomes are sorted in terms of the fitness value from
lowest to highest. Some of the lower chromosomes need
replacement with better ones. The purpose of the replace-
ment, called reproduction, is to improve the quality of
current chromosomes that will become the components of
the next population, expecting the forthcoming individuals
achieve the higher fitness values. This replacement and
deletion strategy is more practical than others because
some characters of good individuals are preserved for
reproduction while they are destroyed in crossover or
mutation processes.
The question here is how many of the current chromo-
somes are to be replaced. From our experiment graphed in
Fig. 6, the reproduction rate of 90 %, which means 10 %
dropout, shows the best performance. This trend was also
observed in our previous application of the ship hull fairing
process [11]. Therefore, at a stage,10 % of the population
are dropped out to discard the worst individuals and the
vacancy is replaced by the new offspring that are regen-
erated from the 90 % that survived at that stage.

Fig. 7 Crossover process for

three major components

Fig. 8 Overlap constraint in

crossover process

123
J Mar Sci Technol (2012) 17:481–492
3.3 Probabilities of crossover and mutation
The efficiency of the CBGA in general depends on the
population size, crossover rate, and mutation rate. The
probabilities of crossover and mutation should be changed
at each generation to guarantee diversity and to speed up
the convergence rate in an efficient manner.
In our practice, the crossover probability pc and the
mutation probability pm are adaptively applied in response
to the fitness value for every individual in the population. If
the values of pc and pm are greater than the default rate,
crossover and mutation processes occur, respectively. The
Fig. 9 The mechanism of crossover
Fig. 10 Mutation processes
487
values of pc and pm are documented in Srinivas and Patnaik
[12], shown in Eq. (5):
ðf 0  fmin Þ ðf  fmin Þ
pc ¼ and pm ¼ ; ð5Þ
ðfavg  fmin Þ ðfavg  fmin Þ
where f0 is the smaller fitness value of the individuals to be
crossed in crossover process, f the fitness value in mutation
process, and fmin and favg the minimum and average fitness
values of the population, respectively. According to the
formulations, pc and pm automatically increase when the
solution gets stuck at a local optimum or decrease when
the solution scatters in the population.
3.4 Crossover process
The idea of crossover is to exchange the ‘‘parent’’ chro-
mosomes in the population to generate the two new‘‘child’’
chromosomes in the next population. The examples of
crossover for the three major components used in the space
arrangement are depicted in Fig. 7.
Our crossover with probability approaches to real value
of crossover based on the lower and upper bounds of (x,
y) components. These bounds can be practically described
as the borders (walls) between spaces in the space
arrangement problem.
It is possible that crossover operation is not feasible
owing to the space restriction in our problem. For example,
after a crossover operation, compartments may be over-
lapped to each other. As shown in Fig. 8, the MAIN space
of i-th individual is successfully transferred to j-th, but the
123
488
other way is not feasible. If that happens, the fitness
function gets a penalty. As a result, only the individuals
without penalty will be allowed for mutation. Otherwise,
other ‘‘parent’’ individuals will be selected to regenerate
the acceptable ‘‘child’’individuals. This mechanism is
described in Fig. 9.
3.5 Mutation process
Mutation is an exploitation creating a deviation from a
regular population. The role of mutation in the CBGA has
Fig. 11 Flowchart of proposed CBGA
Fig. 12 Space arrangement for requirement of occupancy only (initial and final)
123
J Mar Sci Technol (2012) 17:481–492
been considered to prevent the premature convergence of a
solution.
In the mutation process with probability, the position of
a stair and the shape of a space are subject to change by
moving, adding, or subtracting some rows and/or columns
of grids, as shown in Fig. 10. Considering that the large
change in the mutation step has seriously affected the
convergence [11], we recommend that the numbers of
changed grids, dx and dy, be less than 5 % of the total grids
in the longitudinal and vertical directions, respectively, to
reduce the chance of possible divergence. Then, the new
design variables are expressed in term of dx and dy, as
given by Eq. (6).
Fig. 13 Convergence of fitness value of space occupancy only over
generations
J Mar Sci Technol (2012) 17:481–492 489

½xnew  ¼ ½x  dx and ½ynew  ¼ ½y  dy ð6Þ 4 Application examples

3.6 Proposed CBGA summarized
Figure 11 illustrates the flowchart of the CBGA technique
for the space arrangement process. Each step is self-
explanatory.
In order to demonstrate the proposed algorithm, an interior
design of a mid-size superyacht is examined. Four exam-
ples from a simple case where only rectangular shaped
spaces are considered to a complicated combination of all
objective functions are extensively investigated. The GA

Table 2 Fitness values for

User’s preference 1st generation 1st generation 100th 100th
space occupancy
(range of area in %) (area in %) (fitness value) generation generation
(area in %) (fitness value)

Flybridge 100–100 100 0 100 0

Pilot house 30–35 25 0.075 32 0.025
Lobby 30–35 25 0.075 32 0.025
VIP room 30–35 50 0.175 32 0.025
Master room 24–26 10 0.15 25 0.01
Galley 24–26 40 0.15 25 0.01
Dining room 24–26 40 0.15 25 0.01
Salon 24–26 10 0.15 25 0.01
Crew space 25–30 8 0.195 28 0.025
Guest room 30–35 10 0.225 33 0.025
Engine room 30–35 8 0.245 33 0.025
Tender boat 5–10 74 0.665 7 0.025

Fig. 14 Space arrangement with SUB requirement (initial and final)

123
490
process implemented in this work was written in C?? and
has shown to converge rapidly in most cases.
4.1 Space occupancy for simple rectangular
compartments
As a starting example, a simple case where the space
occupancy is solely considered is examined. The shapes of
all spaces or compartments are assumed to be rectangular
to make the problem simpler. This problem has a single
objective function that is supposed to satisfy the area
requirement defined by the designer.
Fig. 15 Convergence of fitness value of SUB implementation over
generations
Fig. 16 Space arrangement for requirement of shortest stair connection (initial and final)
123
J Mar Sci Technol (2012) 17:481–492
The result depicted in Fig. 12 shows a good arrangement
following the area requirement. Figure 13, where the x-axis
is the number of generation and y-axis the fitness value,
demonstrates that the given problem rapidly converges.
Technically, the solution of this simple problem depends
on the range of each area requirement. The solution would
become unique if the upper and lower bounds of areas were
sufficiently close. The fitness values obtained over gener-
ations are listed in Table 2.
4.2 Space occupancy with SUB elements
Quite a number of existing superyachts possess non-rect-
angular compartments commonly used to represent crew
space, galley, and lobby. A non-rectangular shape consid-
ered as an additional space attached to a compartment was
defined as a SUB. Taking care of SUBs in the algorithm
requires the higher value of the corresponding weighting
factor and naturally increases the computing time. Fig-
ure 14 displays the initial and final arrangement of given
spaces and the convergence rate is graphed in Fig. 15.
4.3 Shortest stair passage
The stair connectivity between spaces is also an important
design factor. In this example, the shortest connection
between stairs among crew space, galley, lobby, and fly
bridge is selected as an objective function. This specific
stair connectivity is intentionally made up for the test of the
J Mar Sci Technol (2012) 17:481–492
proposed algorithm and, thus, any combination from the
user is possible. The result is shown in Fig. 16 and its
convergence graph in Fig. 17. The dark square marker and
the corresponding light maker on the neighboring deck form
a pair, representing the starting and ending stair positions.
4.4 Integrated objective function with stair constraint
A mid-sized superyacht with four decks containing typical
inner spaces with stair constraints is chosen to incorporate
all possible constraints suggested in this work. The objec-
tive functions considered in this integrated condition
include the space occupancy by the area range, the
Fig. 17 Convergence of fitness value of stair distance over
generations
Fig. 18 Space arrangement for requirement of integrated objective functions (initial and final)
491
existence of SUBs, and six guest stairs, and three crew
stairs with the shortest connection. SUBs are assigned to
crew space, galley, and lobby for a practical design. The
designer or the client, however, is allowed to change these
options at any time.
The initial and final space layouts are shown in Fig. 18.
Figure 19 shows the converging rate of the fitness value.
The final value after 100 generations converges to a very
small number that clearly states that the algorithm yields a
good space arrangement balancing the given constraints.
The fitness value decreases rapidly within the first 20th
generations because the initial space arrangement is usually
regarded as a poor quality. After the 20th, minor tuning
process becomes dominant.
4.5 Comparison of four test cases
The four cases are compared in Table 3. The simple
requirement with space occupancy only gives the best
convergence result because of its simplicity. When the
other factors such as SUBs or stair connection are con-
sidered as additional fitness values, the result is in general a
set of various feasible solutions because of the indeter-
ministic property of the given requirements. Obviously, the
solution based on the CBGA is not necessarily the best if
each design factor is treated separately. The tendency of
the resulting solution depends on the weighting values
assigned.
123
492 J Mar Sci Technol (2012) 17:481–492

efficient manipulation of weighting factors in treating the

assigned design variables. Thorough investigation on the
objective function of stairs is recommended as well.

Acknowledgments The part of this work was sponsored by the

Ministry of Knowledge and Economy, Korea, through the Industrial
Strategic Technology Development Program as well as by the
National Research Foundation of Korea. Their support is greatly
appreciated.

References

Fig. 19 Convergence of fitness value of integrated CBGA over 1. BIM (2011) Boat International Magazine. http://www.
generations boatinternational.com
2. Nam J, Hyun B, Kim T, Kim D (2007) Analysis of hydrodynamic
performance and establishment of modeling technique for
Table 3 Comparison of four test cases determination of preliminary hull form of superyachts. J Soc
Naval Archit Korea 44(4):451–458 (in Korean)
No. of Computing Normalized 3. Lee H, Byun L (2007) A study on space arrangement and interior
spaces time (s) error value space division of superyachts. J Korean Inst Inter Design
6(2):224–231 (in Korean)
Simple space occupancy 12 \1 0.056 4. Nam J, Kim D, Lee H (2010) An approach to computerized
SUBs 12 \1 0.114 preliminary design procedure of mid-size superyachts from hull
modeling to interior space arrangement. J Naval Archit Ocean
Shortest stair connection 12 \1 0.093
Eng 2:94–101
CBGA 12 *1 0.076 5. Lee K, Roh M, Jeong H (2005) An improved genetic algorithm
for multi-floor facility layout problems having inner structure
walls and passages. Comput Oper Res 32:879–899
5 Conclusions 6. Parsons M, Chung H, Nick E, Daniels A, Liu S, Patel J (2008)
Intelligent ship arrangements: a new approach to general
A constraint-based genetic algorithm was developed to arrangement. Naval Eng J 120(3):51–65
7. Daniels A, Tahmasbi F, Singer D (2010) Intelligent ship
determine the interior space arrangement of midsized arrangement passage variable lattice network studies and results.
superyachts. The designer is able to generate an arrangement Naval Eng J 122(2):107–119
by assigning his or her design requirements or constraints. 8. Goldberg D (1989) Genetic algorithm in search, optimization,
Three major elements, such as space, shape, and stair, were and machine learning. Addison-Wesley, Reading
9. Chiu C, Hsu P (2005) A constraint-based genetic algorithm
combined to set up an integrated formulation in form of a approach for mining classification rules. IEEE Trans Syst Man
weighted sum of three elements. To solve the optimization Cybern 35:205–220
problem, the genetic algorithm was adopted. Important 10. Whitley D, Kauth J (1988) GENITOR: a different genetic algo-
design requirements or variables are converted into rithm. In: Proceedings of the Rocky Mountain conference on
artificial intelligence. pp 118–130
numerical values that can be utilized as constraints in the 11. Le T, Kim D (2011) Application of a real-coded genetic algo-
optimization problem. rithm for the fitting of a ship hull surface through a single non-
The aim of the work is to suggest a set of probable and uniform B-spline surface. J Mar Sci Technol 16:226–239
reasonable space arrangements that can be rapidly gener- 12. Srinivas M, Patnaik L (1994) Adaptive probabilities of crossover
and mutation in genetic algorithm. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybern
ated and let the expert decide a final solution through a 24(4):656–667
so-called tuning process. Future work should consider the

123
Copyright of Journal of Marine Science & Technology is the property of Springer Science & Business Media
B.V. and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright
holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.