Optimization of Arrangements of Ro-Ro Passenger Ships

with Genetic Algorithms

Evangelos K. Boulougouris, Apostolos D. Papanikolaou, George Zaraphonitis NTUA-SDL 1

1 Introduction

Ships are complex and multifunctional systems, thus their design involves innumerable design
variables and an overwhelming number of constraints. Under these circumstances finding a
mathematically optimal solution to the entire ship design problem appears prohibitive. Yet there
have been numerous attempts and a variety of optimization methodologies introduced over the
years addressing at least parts of the entire ship design problem (Nowacki, 2003). A commonly
adopted strategy for practical results is the suitable breakdown of the overall design process into
manageable, well-defined modular steps, similar to the traditional decomposition of the manual
design into different design stages, even if this does not ensure an optimal solution to the entire
design problem. One of these modular and major steps in the initial ship design is the definition of
the watertight compartmentation. Although there are many considerations to be made for the
arrangement of the internal watertight boundaries (space requirements by the equipment installed or
space users, structural and ergonomic considerations etc), there are three main aspects that could be
considered as the most critical ones already in the initial ship design stage. Those are the ship’s
response in case of damage (‘survivability’) and the requirements imposed by the relevant stability
regulations, the building cost and the transport capacity of the ship. The above considerations
pertain especially to passenger carrying ships, to be considered in this paper.

Given the fact that the ship’s damage stability is strongly related to the safety level provided by
the ship to its passengers, crew and cargo, the maximization of her survivability is a primary merit
function for the designer, especially in view of recent changes of the damage stability regulations
towards more stringent requirements (Stockholm Agreement and proposed new harmonized damage
stability rules). The probabilistic damaged stability assessment concept, originally introduced by K.
Wendel (1960) more than 40 years ago, was adopted by the International Maritime Organization in
IMO SOLAS A.265 (VIII) (1974) as an alternative to the deterministic concept for the assessment
of passenger ships and was much later reaffirmed by IMO Resolution MSC.19 (58) (1990) as to its
mandatory application to all dry cargo ships built after February 1992, as laid down in SOLAS B-1
Reg. 25. The probabilistic damage stability concept is expected to become the future damaged
stability regulatory standard for all types of ships through the currently under completion
harmonized damage stability rules (see IMO-SLF46, 2003).

The present paper is based on research work of NTUA-Ship Design Laboratory within the
ROROPROB EU project (see Zaraphonitis et.al., 2002 and Boulougouris et.al., 2003a) and presents
results of the employed formalized multi-objective optimization procedure for the internal
compartmentation of Ro-Ro Passenger ships (see Zaraphonitis et.al., 2003 and Boulougouris,
2003b). The used procedure utilizes latest advances in the field of the multi-criteria design
optimization with Genetic Algorithms (GA) and achieves a maximization of ship’s resistance
against capsize, expressed by the Attained Subdivision Index, as well as of her transport capacity,
herein expressed in terms of both increased deadweight and garage deck space. Building cost
reduction is herein considered mainly as the result of steel weight minimization. Additionally, it

1
Ship Design Laboratory, School of Naval Architecture and Marine Engineering, National Technical University of
Athens

1
could be argued, that the minimization of the number of watertight boundaries may result to
equipment costs savings.

2 Outline of the Optimization Procedure

Recent advances in the optimal design techniques and increased computing power allowed the
introduction of a wide range of tools for the exploration of the design space once it is described in a
parametric way. Given the fact that there was very little information about the mathematical
behavior of the objective space of the present problem –especially with respect to the attained
subdivision index for which there appears that it is of multi-modal type– and there were multiple
conflicting objectives and constraints, the adoption of multi-objective GAs appeared like the only
solution to the set optimization problem (see Sen and Yang, 1998).

The GAs were herein implemented by use of the general-purpose optimization software
package modeFRONTIER (see E.STE.CO, 2003). A parametric ship model was created in the
environment of the well-known ship design software package NAPA (see Napa Oy, 2001) by use of
NAPA Basic programming language. Assuming that the hull form and the main layout concept were
developed independently at the previous design stages, the vessel’s watertight subdivision is
parametrically generated, as explained in 2.1.

For each design variant the attained subdivision index, along with the total vehicles lane length
in the lower hold and main garage deck, and the steel weight up to the top of the main garage deck
are calculated. The limitation of the number of the objectives to three permitted the 3D
representation and exploration of the Pareto-frontier. Additional objectives related to the layout (i.e.
minimization of the propellers’ shaft lengths or the number of bearings) can be easily incorporated
to the optimization model. The main features of the employed procedure are outlined in the
following.

2.1 Parametric Model

Using the NAPA Basic commands the appropriate macros were created for the generation of
the ship’s internal watertight arrangement, based on a set of carefully selected design variables
according to the features of the initial design. For the particular example Ro-Ro passenger ship,
selected for the exploration of the optimization procedure (see Figure 1), a total number of 31
design variables was used. The optimization scheduler -that is modeFRONTIER- systematically
updates their values performing the design space exploration.

Additionally the user is supplying a set of design parameters that includes all those quantities
that are not under the designer’s control. They were 27 design parameters finally used. Their user-
supplied values determine the vessel’s intact loading conditions in partial and full draught, and
provide necessary data for a variety of calculations (specific weights for the structural weight
calculation, vehicle dimensions for the lanes length calculation etc.). The design parameters are kept
constant during the optimization. Additionally some of the design variables may also be treated as
parameters if the user decides to keep them constant for subsets of designs. For instance, if the user
wants to explore the impact of the watertight subdivision of the part of the ship forward of the main
engine room only, then the variables affecting the aft ship compartmentation may be treated as
parameters. Thus specific subspaces of the total design space can be investigated more thoroughly.
The parametric model and the optimization procedure has been developed under the following
assumptions (see also Zaraphonitis et.al., 2003):

2
• The vessel’s hull form and draughts are kept constant during the optimization. Therefore the
vessel’s displacement is fixed and the lightship weight variations are compensated by
corresponding variations of DWT. The hullform used in this investigation is shown in Figure 1
and its main particulars are given in Table 1.

Figure 1: Hullform of selected example Ro-Ro Passenger Ferry

• The vertical position of the bulkhead deck is one of the design variables. The resulting change of
the vertical center of gravity VCG in the various loading conditions is taken into account by use
of proper relations supplied by the user.
• The calculation of the structural weight and of the corresponding center of gravity position is
based on user-supplied specific weight relations.
• Given the hull dimensions and the initial layout of the ship, two lower holds may be generated
forward and aft of the Main Engine Room (MER), but only the former can carry vehicles. The
existence and extent of both lower holds is controlled by appropriate design variables and
parameters.
• Both central and side casing main deck configurations are available to the user. The parametric
design in both cases generates the appropriate aft casings on each side of the main deck that
accommodates the passengers staircases, storerooms, auxiliary rooms, etc. usually located in this
area (see Figure 2 and Figure 3).
• The measure for the vessel’s transport capacity is the total vehicles lanes length. It is calculated
separately for the main deck and the lower holds. The user defines the typical size of the vehicles
carried. A user-supplied equivalence coefficient is used to account for carrying different kinds of
vehicles on the main deck and in the lower hold.
• Downflooding openings at constant height provided by the user may be defined to limit the range
of positive stability after damage.
Table 1: Main Particulars
Length o.a. 193.6m Full load displacement 17520t
Length b.p. 176.0m Full load reference GM 2.440m
Breadth 25.0m Partial load draught 5.884m
Depth (reference) 9.100m Partial load displacement 14880t
Design draught 6.550m Partial load reference GM 1.830m
Full load draught 6.520m

3
 Figure 2: Design variant with aft lower hold and central casing

Figure 3: Design variant without aft lower hold and side casings

2.2 Objective functions

Following the generation of the internal arrangement, the procedure evaluates each design
variant, using the built-in calculation functions of NAPA. Appropriate NAPA macros were
developed to control the damage stability analysis, to calculate the structural weight and transport
capacity (both in terms of DWT and lanes length) and to verify the consistency of each design. The
flowchart of the procedure that integrates modeFRONTIER with NAPA is shown in Figure 4. Both
the structural weight and the total lane meters are made non-dimensional using the relevant values
of the initial design.

The initial calculations for the attained subdivision index within the ROROPROB project were
performed according to the probabilistic damage stability concept of Regulation 25 of SOLAS Part
B-1, actually applicable to cargo ships, instead of using Resolution A.265 that applies to Ro-Ro
Passenger vessels. This was done for simplicity and for computing time savings. Additional runs
were later performed using the harmonized damage stability formulation of SLF 43 (2000) on the

4
way to examine the possible impact of the different damage stability regulations on the Pareto-
optimum designs. The calculation of the heeling angles was limited to 30°. No down-flooding
openings were considered in the case studies presented herein. The permeability of the garage
spaces is set equal to 0.90, for the engine rooms is 0.85 and for the rest of the spaces is set equal to
0.95.

The objectives of this optimization problem were herein the maximization of the attained
subdivision index, the maximization of the total lanes lengths and the minimization of the structural
weight. It was obvious from the beginning that the first two objectives are contradicting because the
maximization of the A requires thorough compartmentation while this will limit the lower hold
length and thus the total lane meters. The minimization of the structural weight is also a
contradicting objective against the maximization of A.

Figure 4: Flowchart of optimization procedure

2.3 Genetic Algorithms

The presence of multiple and conflicting objectives, the large and complex solution space and
the complex characteristics of the objective functions (especially those of the attained subdivision
index), favor the use of a stochastic optimization process such as the Genetic Algorithms (GA) (see
Goldberg, 1989). Their basic structure is shown in Figure 5.

The modeFRONTIER implements a Multiple Objectives Genetic Algorithm (MOGA)

optimization scheduler (see E.STE.CO, 2003) that searches for the Pareto-optimum solutions. The
drawback of the procedure is the large number of direct calculations required to converge to
optimum solutions. The advantages of the algorithm are that:
• It avoids converging into local optimum solutions in the design space
• Starting from the initial population, it allows it to evolve in such a way that some individuals
can meet different objectives. This results to a “set of best designs” (Pareto set)
• It poses no limitation to the characteristics of the objective function

5
 A multi-objective problem may be treated with three different strategies using a GA according
to Sen and Yang (1998):
• Make the multiple criteria decisions first and arrive to a composite measure of fitness by
combining the different criteria, and then use the composite measure to search for the best
solution
• Conduct the search to assemble a range of possible solutions and then select one or more of
these on the basis of multiple criteria decision making
• Combine the search with the Multiple Criteria Decision Making (MCDM)

The third solution is implemented within the modeFRONTIER. The basic pattern is as follows:
• A multiple objective search is performed to obtain an approximate idea of the Pareto
surface.
• Multiple criteria choice or ranking is applied to capture the preferences of the decision
maker. Then a new search is launched but using the priorities assigned by the decision
maker.

Figure 5: The Basic Genetic Algorithm (Sen and Yang, 1998)

The MOGA optimization scheduler has the following parameters:
• The initial population
• The number of generation
• The probability of directional cross-over that is a proprietary operator that gives efficiency
to the algorithm but decreases its robustness. The default value that is 0.5 was used.
• The probability of selection, which gives the probability that design configurations are not
changed during the evolution. The default value that is 0.05 was used.
• The probability of mutation that gives the probability that a design configuration is
randomly perturbed. The default value that is 0.1 was used.
• The DNA String Mutation Ratio that gives the percentage of the individual DNA that is
perturbed by the mutation operator. The default value that is 0.05 was used.
• The usage (or not) of Elitism, which ensures that the best solutions (for each objective) are
preserved during the evolution
• The MOGA type. There are three types:
o MOGA - Generational Evolution that works on a set of design configurations that are
periodically updated when one generation is completed

6
 o MOGA - Steady Evolution that uses all the computed configurations as soon as they
are available in a first in - first out mode
o MOGA - Adaptive Evolution, where the choice of the genetic algorithm operators is
done dynamically during the search

2.4 Results analysis

For the analysis of the results produced by the present optimization procedure, the various
options provided by the modeFRONTIER were used (see Boulougouris et.al., 2003a), namely:
- Parallel graphs
- Scattered diagrams
- Student plots
The later are capable of showing the importance of each input variable on the output value.
They use the Student’s t-Tests, which for a variable x is defined according to the formula (see
E.STE.CO, 2003):
M− − M+
t= (1)
S− 2 S+ 2
+
n− n+
where: M + , M − are the mean values of the output variable y corresponding to these x1 values given
by the formulas:
n x+
∑ yi,n x+
M + = i =1 , (2)
n x+
n x−
∑ yi,n x−
M − = i =1 , (3)
n x−
nx+ is the number of values in the upper part of domain of x and nx- is the number of values in the
lower part of domain of x, and S+ is the variance of the population for the input variable x in the
upper part of the domain of the output variable, S− the variance of the population for the input
variable x in the lower part of domain of the output variable. The corresponding formulas for their
calculation are:

S+2 =
∑ ( x+ − M + )2 , (4)
n x+ − 1

S−2 =
∑ ( x− − M − ) 2 (5)
n x− − 1
The Student plots use bar graphs of the Significance and Delta parameters. The Significance is
calculated based on the value of t-score and the comparison of this value with a built-in table that
determines the confidence level on the hypothesis that the mean values of the two samples are the
same. Great values of Significance parameter indicate that there is a relationship with that input
variable.

The Delta parameter on the other hand is the difference between M − and M + . The Delta
parameter shows how strong the relationship is. A Delta parameter greater than zero shows a direct

7
relationship with the input variable, a value less than zero indicate that there is an inverse
relationship (see E.STE.CO, 2003).

3 Case Studies

Several case studies were conducted by applying the above procedure to the sample Ro-Ro
passenger ship. In the first three cases the search capabilities for the formation of the Pareto-frontier
were investigated while a fourth case studied the full potential of the modeFrontier combining the
MOGA with additive utility functions (UTA). The first case study investigated the impact of
alternative garage deck casing type (central or side). The second one investigated the effect of an
alternative probabilistic damage stability concept, namely the SLF 43 harmonized rules proposal, on
the Pareto-optimum designs produced using the SOLAS B-1. The third case study examined the
impact of the initial population on the optimization procedure. Finally, a combined search and
multiple criteria decision-making (MCDM) procedure was conducted that included both multi-
objective optimization and the implementation of a SIMPLEX algorithm (Nelder and Mead, 1965).
In the following paragraphs the results of these case studies are presented.

3.1 Comparison of the Central and Side Casing layouts

A subset of 12 design variables (see Table 2) was used to investigate and compare the
characteristics of the central and side casing configurations. The optimization case included the
maximization of both the attained subdivision index A (according to SOLAS B-1 Reg. 25) and the
lane meters, while the structural weight should be minimized (see also Table 2) and the relevant
logical diagram is shown in Figure 6.

The results of this investigation are shown in Figure 7 up to Figure 9. The study of these figures
shows that the side casings configuration results in considerably increased transport capacity,
combined with an appreciable increase of the attained subdivision index. The increase of transport
capacity is partly attributed to the more efficient utilization of the main deck area. In addition, the
existence of side casings has a positive impact on the vessel’s stability characteristics following
damage, enabling the increase of the lower hold area while fulfilling the requirements for an
increased attained subdivision index. No significant differences between the two design concepts
regarding structural weight may be observed from the comparison. However it should be noted that
the structural weight calculations are based on predefined specific weights per square meter,
provided by the user for various areas of the ship, regardless of the selected design concept. In this
respect the comparison may be somehow misleading, since the central casing configuration is
considered to result to increased structural stiffness. Due to the lack of the support provided by the
central casing, heavier transverse beams, deep longitudinal girders and a number of pillars are
necessary to support the deck weight in the case of vessels constructed with the side casings
concept. It is interesting to note that successful Ro-Ro passenger ship designs follow in practice the
side casing concept, though they were developed without use of formal optimization schemes like
the presented one (see Kanerva, 1999).

8
Figure 6: Logical diagram of the optimization process used for the comparison of the central and side casing

Table 2: Design variables and objective functions used in case studies

Input Variables
The depth of the ship DEPTH
The minimum double bottom margin, in the transverse direction,
DBMARG
outwards of the longitudinal bulkhead fwd of the engine room
The minimum breadth of the fwd lower hold at its fwd end (used to
LHBMIN
select the transverse bulkhead forming the fwd limit of the lower hold)
The maximum half breadth of the fwd lower hold MXLBKDWDTH
The number of bulkheads forward of the main engine room excluding
NBKHDFWD
the collision and the fore engine room bulkhead
BKHDAFT1
Heights for the definition of control points of the aft bulkhead
BKHDAFT2
distribution curve
BKHDAFT3
BKFWD1
Heights for the definition of control points of the forward bulkhead BKFWD2
distribution curve BKFWD3
BKFWD4
Output Variables
Calculated attained subdivision index outA
Calculated total Lane Meters OutLaneMeters
Calculated Steel Weight OutWeight
Objective Functions
Maximization of the attained subdivision index acc. to SOLAS B-1 maxA
Maximization of the total Lane Meters maxLaneMeters
Minimization of the Steel Weight minWeight
Constraint
Attained subdivision index greater than 0.79 Constr_MinA

9
 1.03
Central Casing
Side Casing
1.02

1.01
Weight (nondimensional)

1.00

0.99

0.98

0.97

0.96

0.95
0.76 0.77 0.78 0.79 0.80 0.81 0.82 0.83 0.84 0.85 0.86 0.87 0.88 0.89
Attained Index

Figure 7: Scatter diagram of the attained subdivision index vs. the non-dimensional weight

1.13
Central Casing
Side Casing
1.11

1.09
Lane meters (nondimensional)

1.07

1.05

1.03

1.01

0.99

0.97

0.95

0.93
0.76 0.77 0.78 0.79 0.80 0.81 0.82 0.83 0.84 0.85 0.86 0.87 0.88 0.89
Attained Index

Figure 8: Scatter diagram of the attained subdivision index vs. the non-dimensional lane meters

10
 1.03
Central Casing
Side Casing
1.02

1.01
Weight (nondimensional)

1.00

0.99

0.98

0.97

0.96

0.95
0.93 0.95 0.97 0.99 1.01 1.03 1.05 1.07 1.09 1.11 1.13
Lane meters (nondimensional)

Figure 9: Scatter diagram of the non-dimensional lane meters vs. the non-dimensional weight
3.2 Comparison of different Probabilistic Damage Stability Models
In order to investigate the impact of calculating the attained subdivision index using different
probabilistic models, a set of 30 non-dominated (Pareto-optimum) designs was used. The designs
were of side casings layout type and the damage stability calculations were by use of SOLAS B-1
and alternatively by the SLF 43. The original ranking of the designs is shown in Figure 10, while
the results using the SLF 43 proposal are shown in Figure 11.
A-Index acc. to SOLAS B-1

0.89

0.88

0.87

0.86

0.85

0.84

0.83

0.82

0.81
228
4
234
183
235
61
123
116
224
181
14
18
5
75
19
17
129
134
97
42
20
149
198
3

Design ID B-1
74
203
78
91
120
156

162

Figure 10: Design ranking according to the SOLAS B-1 attained subdivision index

11
 A-Index acc. to SLF proposal

0.89

0.88

0.87

0.86

0.85

0.84

0.83

0.82

0.81
228
4
234
235
183
91
85
97
162
116
101
191
198
36
94
40
3
74
218
192
199
202
103
123
Design ID

14
SLF-A

154
61
24
133

28

99
Figure 11: Design ranking according to the SLF 43 attained subdivision index
From these figures it is obvious that the ranking is different. Therefore the non-dominated
design set will not (and cannot) be identical. Even though, it is worth noticing that the best five
designs are the same in both cases.

3.3 Investigation of the impact of the initial population size

When using GAs, the computing cost is proportional to the number of designs in the initial
population and the number of generations required for obtaining the Pareto-frontier. Therefore three
different initial populations were selected with a number of 12 (as many as the design variables), 24
and 96 initial designs respectively. Using these three populations, two different optimizations were
performed. In the first case the total number of direct calculations was the same for all three
populations. This is analogous to almost equal total computing time. A total number of 384 designs
were selected. This resulted in 32 generations for the first population, 16 generations for the second
and 4 generations for the third population respectively.

The scatter diagrams of the results of this study in the three 2D representation of the design
space are shown in Figure 12, Figure 13 and Figure 14 respectively. From the results the scattering
of the designs of the third population (96) is obvious. This is due to the larger diversity of the
phenotypes of the initial designs. Even though, there are several designs of the other two
populations that contribute to the formation of the Pareto-frontier.

A second set of calculations was performed using the above three populations but assuming
that the number of generations was the same. This resulted to 192 designs for the first population
(12 initial designs), 384 designs for the second population (24 initial designs) and 1536 designs for
the third population (96 initial designs). Figure 15, Figure 16 and Figure 17 present the results in
scatter diagrams of the design space. It is interesting to note that even though most of the non-
dominated designs belong to the third population, there are still Pareto-optimal designs that belong
to the second population.

12
 1.15
Init Population 12
Init Population 24
1.12 Init Population 96

1.10
OutLaneMeters

1.07

1.05

1.02

1.00

0.97
0.77 0.79 0.81 0.83 0.85 0.87 0.89
outA

Figure 12: Scatter diagram of the attained subdivision index vs. the non-dimensional lane meters for the three
different initial populations, for the same total number of designs

1.03
Init Population 12
Init Population 24
1.02
Init Population 96

1.01

1.00
OutWeight

0.99

0.98

0.97

0.96

0.95
0.77 0.79 0.81 0.83 0.85 0.87 0.89
outA

Figure 13: Scatter diagram of the attained subdivision index vs. the non-dimensional weight for the three
different initial populations, for the same total number of designs

13
 1.03
Init Population 12
Init Population 24
1.02 Init Population 96

1.01

1.00
OutWeight

0.99

0.98

0.97

0.96

0.95
0.98 1.00 1.02 1.04 1.06 1.08 1.10 1.12 1.14
OutLaneMeters

Figure 14: Scatter diagram of the non-dimensional lane meters vs. the non-dimensional weight for the three
different initial populations, for the same total number of designs

1.15
Init Population 12
Init Population 24
1.12 Init Population 96

1.10
OutLaneMeters

1.07

1.05

1.02

1.00

0.97
0.77 0.79 0.81 0.83 0.85 0.87 0.89
outA

Figure 15: Scatter diagram of the attained subdivision index vs. the non-dimensional lane meters for the three
different initial populations, for the same number of generations

14
 1.03
Init Population 12
Init Population 24
1.02
Init Population 96

1.01

1.00
OutWeight

0.99

0.98

0.97

0.96

0.95
0.77 0.79 0.81 0.83 0.85 0.87 0.89
outA

Figure 16: Scatter diagram of the attained subdivision index vs. the non-dimensional weight for the three
different initial populations, for the same number of generations

1.03
Init Population 12
Init Population 24
1.02 Init Population 96

1.01

1.00
OutWeight

0.99

0.98

0.97

0.96

0.95
0.98 1.00 1.02 1.04 1.06 1.08 1.10 1.12 1.14
OutLaneMeters

Figure 17: Scatter diagram of the non-dimensional lane meters vs. the non-dimensional weight for the three
different initial populations, for the same number of generations
Summarising the above it is obvious that the larger initial population assures the better
approximation of the Pareto-frontier but it involves larger computing cost. Therefore the sizing of
the initial population is significant for the balance between cost and effectiveness of the algorithms.

15
On the other hand the stochastic processes involved in the MOGA in the cross-over and mutation
genetic operations increases the probability of gaining optimal solutions even with smaller
populations.

3.4 Combining MOGA, MCDM and SIMPLEX

In this case the MOGA is combined with additive utility functions to form an interactive
solution procedure. The decision maker compares pairwise a collection of non-dominated solutions
obtained from the MOGA’s search or direct specification of relative importance between design’s
attributes. The information on these pairwise comparisons result to one of two kinds of ordering:
• Solution i is preferred to Solution j
• Solution i is considered to be just as attractive as Solution j

Using these relations a set of utility functions for each criterion can be derived analytically for
all the attributes of a design. The utility functions are then combined, forming a composite fitness
function that captures the preference structure of the decision maker. The new search will tend to
concentrate on those areas of the Pareto surface that are in harmony with its sense of priorities. This
new search may also be made either by the MOGA or the SIMPLEX scheduler. The later was the
case for the study presented herein.

In the following figures the results of this case study are shown. In Figure 18 the utility
functions and the relevant weights of the three (3) objectives are shown. The corresponding logical
diagram is shown in Figure 19, while the history diagram of the SIMPLEX optimization is depicted
in Figure 20. Table 3 contains the values of the design variables and the attributes of the optimum
design that resulted from the application of the combined procedure. It is obvious for this design
that the compromise of the conflicting objectives resulted to larger weight savings (almost 5%) but
reduced the total length of lane meters (a little more than 2%). If a real design maker dislikes this
outcome, then a new search using different weights and utility functions can be launched.

The relevant area on the Pareto frontier on the scatter diagram of the attained subdivision index
vs. the non-dimensional lane meters, where the SIMPLEX searches for the optimum, is shown in
Figure 21. The relevant areas on the scatter diagrams of the attained subdivision index vs. the non-
dimensional weight and the non-dimensional lane meters vs. non-dimensional weight are shown in
Figure 22 and Figure 23 respectively. The initial (gray colored) and the optimal (black colored)
arrangements are compared in Figure 24.

Figure 18: Utility Functions and Weights assigned

16
 Figure 19: Logical diagram of the optimization procedure using the MCDM

MaxMCDM
0.40

0.35

0.30

0.25
MaxMCDM

0.20

0.15

0.10

0.05

0.00
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000
Design ID

Figure 20: History diagram of SIMPLEX search for the optimum using the combined fitness function

Table 3. Design variables and attributes of the optimum design

MXLBKDWD

NBKHDFWD

BKHDAFT1

BKHDAFT2

BKHDAFT3
DBMARG

BKFWD1

BKFWD2

BKFWD3

BKFWD4
LHBMIN
DEPTH

TH

8.6 2.5 1.75 6.5 8 -2.4 6.4 1.6 0.8 2.4 -2.4 0.9
Output Variables
outA OutLaneMeters OutWeight
0.854 0.979 0.952

17
 1.15

1.12

1.10
OutLaneMeters

1.07

1.05

1.02

1.00

0.97
0.7700 0.7900 0.8100 0.8300 0.8500 0.8700 0.8900
outA

Figure 21: Scatter diagram of the attained subdivision index vs. the non-dimensional lane meters where the
area were the SIMPLEX searches for a better design is shown

1.03

1.02

1.01

1.00
OutWeight

0.99

0.98

0.97

0.96

0.95
0.77 0.79 0.81 0.83 0.85 0.87 0.89
outA

Figure 22: Scatter diagram of the attained subdivision index vs. the non-dimensional weight where is shown
the area were the SIMPLEX searches for a better design

18
 1.03

1.02

1.01

1.00
OutWeight

0.99

0.98

0.97

0.96

0.95
0.96 0.98 1.00 1.02 1.04 1.06 1.08 1.10 1.12 1.14
OutLaneMeters

Figure 23: Scatter diagram of the non-dimensional lane meters vs. the non-dimensional weight where is
shown the area were the SIMPLEX searches for a better design

Figure 24: Comparison of optimum (black colored) and initial (gray colored) arrangement

19
4 Conclusions

The above case studies led to the following conclusions regarding the developed and
implemented optimisation procedure:
• The developed optimisation procedure can be used both at the conceptual design stage to
generate from scratch the internal subdivision of a new design, and at later design stages to
improve significantly the survivability of an existing design. It allows the designer to gain
an overview of the design space and identify the Pareto frontier.
• The changes of ship’s weight, in the course of this optimisation procedure, after performing
the evaluation of almost 2000 designs, are small showing that improvements in the
economic efficiency of the ship, expressed by larger length of the lanes are achievable with
minor changes to the weight of the ship.
• The comparison of the obtained results for the alternative central and side casings concepts
proved the latter to clearly result to considerably increased transport capacity (increased
lanes length), combined with an appreciable increase of the attained subdivision index. It
should be however noted, that the change of the main car deck structural design for the two
alternative concepts might be the reason for some changes in the associated steel weight and
this is not considered in the present optimisation code.
• The selection of the probabilistic damage stability model affects the ranking of the designs.
Thus a Pareto optimum design that resulted from the application of a specific attained
subdivision index formulation may become a dominated one if another probabilistic model
is used.
• The size of the initial population is a significant parameter in the optimization procedure,
closely linked to the computational cost. Small initial populations permit the production of
more generations for the same total computing time. On the other hand they have limiting
diversity that may prevent them from exploring the whole Pareto frontier.
• The combination of MOGA, MCDM and SIMPLEX is a very powerful tool for reaching
and optimum design. Combining the exploration capabilities of the MOGA for sketching the
Pareto frontier with the capture of the decision maker’s preference and the robustness of the
SIMPLEX yields a very efficient tool in the search for the optimum.
• Due to the large number of calculations, required within the NAPA shell in order to define
the watertight subdivision and especially for the calculation of the attained index, the
required time for each run takes approximately more than 3.5 min using a PC with
P4@2.4GHz. This should be not a real constraint for the developed procedure, considering
continuous improvements of computer technology. Even though, measures to limit the
number of actual computations should be further investigated. In this direction the use of
neural networks that will be properly trained to substitute the actual calculations might lead
more effectively to best results.

References

BOULOUGOURIS, E.; ZARAPHONITIS, G.; PAPANIKOLAOU, A. (2003a), Optimization

Procedure for Fast Ferry Watertight Subdivision (WP 5), ROROPROB Project Report, Project
funded by the European Commission, contract G3RD-CT-2000-0030, NTUA-SDL
BOULOUGOURIS, E.K. (2003b), Ship design optimization for enhanced survivability after
damage for Ro-Ro passenger and naval ships, Dr.-Eng. Thesis (in Greek), National Technical
University of Athens
E.STE.CO (2003), modeFRONTIER software v.2.5.x, http://www.esteco.it/

20
GOLDBERG, D. (1989), Genetic Algorithms in Search, Optimization, and Machine Learning,
Addison-Wesley Publishing Company, Inc., USA
IMO (1974), Regulation on Subdivision and Stability of Passenger Ships (as an Equivalent to Part
B of Chapter II of the 1974 SOLAS Convention), London. This publication contains IMO
Resolutions A.265 (VIII), A.266 (VIII), and explanatory notes
IMO-Resolution MSC.19 (58) (1990), New regulations for subdivision and damage stability for dry
cargo ships built on or after 920201, 25 May
IMO, Sub-Committee On Stability And Load Lines And On Fishing Vessels Safety (SLF) (2000),
SLF 43-Revision of SOLAS Chapter II-1 –Subdivision and Stability, 11-15 September
IMO, Sub-Committee On Stability And Load Lines And On Fishing Vessels Safety (SLF) (2003),
SLF 46/INF.5-Development of Revised SOLAS Chapter II-1 Parts A, B and B-1, 6 June
KANERVA, M. (1999), Ferries for the Future, CRUISE+FERRY 99, London UK
NAPA Oy (2001), NAPA software, http://www.napa.fi/
NELDER, J.A.; MEAD, R. (1965), A Simplex Method for Function Minimization, Computer
Journal 7 (1965) 308
NOWACKI, H. (2003), Design Synthesis and Optimization-An Historical Perspective,
OPTIMISTIC-Optimization in Marine Design, 39th WEGEMT Summer School, Berlin, Germany,
March 19-23, pp. 1-27
Probabilistic Rules-Based Optimal Design of Ro-Ro Passenger Ships –ROROPROB, Contract
Number G3RD-CT-2000-00030
WENDEL, K. (1960), Die Wahrscheinlichkeit des Überstehens von Verletzungen, Journal of Ship
Technology Research, 7:36, pp. 47-61
SEN, P.; YANG J-B. (1998), Multiple Criteria Decision Support in Engineering Design, Springer-
Verlag London Limited
ZARAPHONITIS, G.; BOULOUGOURIS, E.; PAPANIKOLAOU, A. (2002), Development of an
Optimisation Procedure for Passenger Ro-Ro Ship Subdivision, ROROPROB Project Report,
Project funded by the European Commission, contract G3RD-CT-2000-0030, NTUA-SDL
ZARAPHONITIS, G.; BOULOUGOURIS, E.; PAPANIKOLAOU, A. (2003), An Integrated
Optimisation Procedure for the Design of RO-RO Passenger Ships of Enhanced Safety and
Efficiency, Proc. IMDC 03, Athens, Vol. I, pp.313-324

21