TRAINMOS II SEMINAR INNOVATIVE SHIP DESIGN NOV 2015

Creating Novel Ship Design Concepts

with Advanced Optimization Environment

!Professor Apostolos Papanikolaou!

Director Ship Design Laboratory!National Technical University of Athens!

[email protected], http://www.naval.ntua.gr/sdl

A. PAPANIKOLAOU-TRAINMOS II SEMINAR - Glasgow 1Nov. 2015

mailto:[email protected]

Creating Innovative Concepts

…by exploring creative ideas….


Innovative fast transport and cargo handling concept proposed by NTUA-SDL: SMUCC

SWATH Multipurpose Container Carrier1

st

Prize Award International University Competition Schiff-Maschine-Meerestechnik (SMM Hamburg), September 1994


SWATH ROPAX (NTUA-SDL 2007)


WEGEMT-CESA-VISIONS Student Contest Novel Ship and Floating Structures Concepts 2006-2010


Creating Innovative Concepts

…through exploitation of modern Optimization Methods and Integrated Design Software Systems…


A. PAPANIKOLAOU-TRAINMOS II SEMINAR - Glasgow

Generic Ship Design Optimization Platform of NTUA-SDL

7Nov. 2015


Fundamentals of Mathematical MULTI-OBJECTIVE OPTIMIZATION

¨ Ship design is a typical mathematical optimization problem of multiple (in many cases contradicting) objectives and constraints. Typical objectives in ship design (to be minimized within a multi-objective optimization procedure), are:

Steel weight, Powering and other hydrodynamic criteria (added resistance in waves, seakeeping, maneuvering, etc..) Economic criteria: Shipbuilding and Operational cost, Required Freight Rate, Net Present Value Environmental criteria: accidental oil outflow, wave wash-HSC, EEDI, etc…

¨ The result of a multi-objective optimization is a set of “best designs”, i.e. designs which in order to further improve one design attribute (objective) the Decision Maker (DM =designer) has to sacrifice the performance of another.

¨ This set of “best designs” is known as the Pareto Set and its graphical depiction is the Pareto Frontier.

¨ One of the most efficient methods for finding the Pareto Frontier is the Multi-objective Genetic Algorithms (MOGA) method.

8Nov. 2015


MULTI-CRITERIA DECISION MAKING (MCDM)

❑ With the Pareto set of non-dominated designs in hand, the Decision Maker has to select the optimal solution according to his preferences. This can be done in a number of ways: ❑ Use of the Utility Function technique for ranking the different

designs ❑ Use of Scatter 2D & 3D diagrams for visually identifying the more

attractive designs, compare them on the basis of his criteria-preferences and intuitively (experience) select the optimum or set-up relevant utility function (see above)

❑ Use other visual tools (parallel plots, histograms, frequency plots, Student plots etc.) and decide again according to his experience

9Nov. 2015

A. PAPANIKOLAOU-TRAINMOS II SEMINAR - Glasgow 10

Typical Example of AFRAMAX Tanker Pareto Frontier Designs (1)

10Nov. 2015

11

Multi-criteria Decision Making by Utility Functions Technique – Equal Weights (2)

Case 6x3 FlatDesign ID 1710 (#1)Cargo.Vol 129804 (+2%)Oil.Outflow 0.00777 (-23%)

Wst.cargo.area 10908 (-2%)

Reference DesignCargo.Vol 126765 Oil.Outflow 0.01006 Wst.cargo.area 11077



11A. PAPANIKOLAOU-TRAINMOS II SEMINAR - GlasgowNov. 2015

RB Optimization of Tanker Design - Apr 09 12

Multi-criteria Decision Making by Utility Functions Technique – Unequal Weights (3)

Case 6x3 FlatDesign ID 2069Cargo.Vol 137494 (+8%)Oil.Outflow 0.0111 (+10%)


Reference DesignCargo.Vol 126765 Oil.Outflow 0.01006 Wst.cargo.area 11077





GL-NTUA-FS Collaborative Project Outline

¨ Optimization of an AFRAMAX tanker with respect to: Maximization of cargo capacity Minimization of steel weight Minimization of powering, fuel consumption and EEDI Minimization of Required Freight Rate while minimizing the probable accidental oil outflow according to MARPOL

¨ This is a unique multi-objective optimisation problem with multiple constraints

¨ The steel weight of generated design solutions is calculated using GL-POSEIDON; this ensures realistic estimates of the weight impact on the different design solutions

¨ Background work: EU Integrated Project SAFEDOR, subproject 6.9 (Risk-based design of AFRAMAX tanker) and thereafter developments through a collaborative project of Germanischer Lloyd and NTUA-SDL; the development team was enforced by Friendship Systems (FS) in 2010.

13Nov. 2015

Hydrodynamic Hull Form Optimization



CFD simulation within Friendship Software System

!¨ Zonal approach

Potential flow analysis ▫ Free trim and sinkage ▫ Non-linear free surface

boundary conditions Boundary layer computation RANSE simulation ▫ Overlapping grid

technology Potential flow treated with SHIPFLOW of FLOWTECH ✓Well established and validated ✓Robust and relatively fast

15Nov. 2015


General Hydrodynamic Assessment Approach

¨ Pre-determine for a large set of variants

Wave resistance based non-linear potential flow theory (SHIPFLOW) Viscous resistance from RANSE (e.g. ADAPCO) ▫ Taking into account the

propeller via an actuator-disc model

▫ Double-model assumption (waves ignored in RANSE calculations)

Wake quality from RANSE ▫ Correlate propulsive efficiency

from a criterion that takes into account loading and wake homogeneity

¨ Use pre-determined hydrodynamics Build Response Surface Models (RSM) via ‘kriging’ (optimal interpolation procedure) ▫ Total resistance ▫ Propulsion characteristics,

assuming standard propeller Get fast feedback for each variant from RSM in holistic optimization

Seakeeping and added resistance in waves Use of 3D panel code NEWDRIFT of NTUA-SDL (alternatively GL Panel).

16Nov. 2015


Panels and grids for CFD calculations

17Nov. 2015


Wave field of final hull

Scantling draft = 14.8m

Design draft = 13.7m

18

V = 13kn

V = 14kn

V = 15kn

V = 16kn

Nov. 2015


Final hull form visualisation by FS

19Nov. 2015

GEOMETRIC/PARAMETRIC MODEL by NAPA & Friendship System

Example: AFRAMAX tanker design



Main assumptions (1): !

1. Fixed Hullform

!

2. Fixed Cargo Length

!

3. Double Hull Concept

Parametric definition of internal arrangement by use of NAPA & FS

21Nov. 2015


Main assumptions (2): 4. One or two longitudinal bulkheads in cargo area

5. Variable number of transverse bulkheads in cargo area

6. Flat or corrugated bulkheads

7. The inner hull side and double bottom may be: • Parallel to the center-plane and bottom • Inclined • Stepped

Parametric definition of internal arrangement

22Nov. 2015


G.A. OF REFERENCE VESSEL

23Nov. 2015


Automatically Generated Design Alternatives : 3x6 tanks, flat BHDs

24Nov. 2015

STRUCTURAL MODEL



Structural Assessment within Project BEST+

¨ Application of POSEIDON CSR Create structural model of cargo hold area Apply prescriptive part of the CSR Determine plate thicknesses at dedicated cross sections so that CSR requirements are met Compute structural weight of cargo hold area Der ive l ight ship weight from structural weight of cargo hold area and by using estimation formula for fore and aft body weight and equipment, depending on main dimensions and data of similar ships

26Nov. 2015


Details of parametric models and design parameters

General Arrangement created from FFW ....

... translates into structural CSR model in Poseidon*

including arrangement of

• girders • stiffeners • cutouts • plates • compartments

* slop tanks not modelled

... and structural template model ...

27Nov. 2015


Oil outflow index vs. cost of transport

0.959

0.96

0.961

0.962

0.963

0.964

0.965

0.966

0.967

0.0115 0.0125 0.0135 0.0145 0.0155 0.0165

Oil Outflow IndexNo

rmal

ized

Cost

of T

rans

port

selected design

MARPOL limit

➔ An oil outflow index 20% less than the MARPOL limit can be reached for the considered 6x2 layout

➔ A minimum oil outflow index design has an increased cost of transport of 0.5%

¨ Variation of • angle of hopper plate [30°...60°] • width of hopper plate [4m...6m] • distance from inner hull to outer hull [2.1m...3m*]

*5m height of DB in foremost tank

28Nov. 2015

OPTIMIZATION PROCEDURE



Optimization Flowchart, V.1Integrated NAPA-FRONTIER-POSEIDON Platform

Calculate Capacity

Read Parameter Values

Read Design Variables Vector

Create Geometric Model

Create Structural model

Calculate Oil Outflow

NAPA

Frontier

Create Design Variable Vector

Calculate Steel weight in cargo space area

POSEIDON

Check Required Scantlings

Calculate Intact & Damage Stability

30Nov. 2015

Create Capacity Plan

Read Parameter Values

Read Design Variables Vector

Create Hullform

Create Structural model

Check MARPOL Requirements

NAPA-‐1

Create Objectives

Frontier

Create Design Variable Vector

Calculate Steel weight Distribution

POSEIDON

Check Required Scantlings

NAPA-‐2

Calculate Lightship & DWT

Resistance Code (SHIPFLOW, CFD etc.)

Create calculation grid

Calculate Total Resistance

Optimization Flowchart, V.2 Integrated NAPA-FRONTIER-POSEIDON-SHIPFLOW Platform


Final Optimization FlowchartIntegrated FS-NAPA-POSEIDON Platform


BEST plus – a novel AFRAMAX tanker design concept | last modified: 2011-01-20, PCS | No. 1

Optimization Control (FFW)

Hull FormGeneration

Tank Computation

Cargo Hold Mass Computation

Total MassComputation

Max. SpeedComputation

Stability, Trim, Draft Computation

Oil Outflow IndexComputation

EEDIComputation

(Economic) TargetEvaluation

FFW

NAPA

POSEIDON

Optimization Flowchart

hullform IGES file

COT compartmentation file

structural configuration file

poseidon template file

hydrodynamic response

surface file

generated file

(fix) configuration file

32Nov. 2015

FS AFRAMAX Tanker GUI


DISCUSSION OF RESULTS

AFRAMAX Tanker



Typical Design Scenarios (initial studies)

¨ Total no of design variables 41 (initial) ¨ Total Number of designs examined: >21,000 ¨ Initially, four (4) different design scenarios were

examined for the COT arrangement, namely 6 cargo tanks along the ship, and 2 or 3 tanks across, flat and corrugated bulkheads

¨ Later on also 7x2 designs were examined ¨ Pending (appears very promising for AFRAMAX):

the 5x3 designs

35Nov. 2015


Comparison of Pareto Designs (1)

36Nov. 2015



37Nov. 2015



38Nov. 2015


Practical Demonstration Example

!!

See BEST+ project ¨ funded by Germanischer Lloyd ¨ Jointly developed by NTUA-SDL and GL ¨ Presented at SNAME Annual Conference 2011

39Nov. 2015

Present and Future of Container Shipping

▪ Increased need for seaborne transportation and changes in the global market

▪ More environmental concern and stricter regulations ▪ IMO’s water management regulation ▪ Energy Efficiency Design Index (EEDI)

▪ Increasing oil price and slow steaming as a result ▪ Future of uncertainty

Nov. 2015 A. PAPANIKOLAOU-TRAINMOS II SEMINAR - Glasgow 41

The E5-Containership received the 3rd Prize in VISIONS-OLYMPICS Academic Competition of European Shipyards

in year 2011/2012 !1. Elliptic: The elliptic midship section dominates the

whole design and provides the ship with many green advantages.

2. Efficient: Designed to carry more boxes than a conventional ship and even more boxes ON DECK at a low freight rate.

3. Energy saving: Slow steaming and with reduced powering demand via hull-form optimization.

4. Environmental friendly: 1. A very low carbon footprint identified on a very low EEDI

and 2. minimum need for ballast water at all loading conditions

5. Electric: An electric motor is the core of the diesel-electric power plant that drives two azimuth propulsors.

Concept developed by G. Koutroukis & A. Pavlou, supervision A. Papanikolaou (NTUA-SDL)


The E5-Containership: ‘Innovative’ Characteristics

!➢ Slow steaming (16kn-21kn). Optimized at service speed 19kn ➢ Beamer design (New Panama dimensions) ➢ Diesel-Electric power plant with two azimuthal propulsors ➢ Deckhouse moved forward; two engine rooms arrangement

(redundancy). ➢ Increased parallel body (1/3 Lbp) ➢ High form stability-Increased Waterplane Area (Increased BM) ➢ Reduced displacement at low drafts ➢ Smaller CM through ellipsoidal bilge region leads to reduced

wetted surface, reduced frictional and cross-flow drag.


The E5-Containership: Effects of Unique Arrangement and Machinery

Effects of Unique Arrangement & Machinery ¨ More containers on deck (at best navigational vision) ¨ D/E power plant in two E.R. offering:

High reliability (redundancy) Exploitation of the space below deckhouse. Better power distribution. Lower operational and maintenance costs. More cargo space.

¨ Twin Azimuth propulsion. Drop of propulsion axial system. More space. Freedom in design.

.


The E5-Containership: Ellipsoidal Mid-ship Section

45

Fig.1: Same Area – Same Beam

Fig.2: Same Area – Same Draft

A. PAPANIKOLAOU-TRAINMOS II SEMINAR - GlasgowNov. 2015

The E5-Containership: General Arrangement


The E5-Containership: Renderings

48

Stern View: Elliptic Stern, FOS(green)


The E5-Containership: Optimization Strategy

▪ The design of the E5-Containership is the result of Multi-objective Optimization utilizing genetic algorithms in a large design space (more than1000 variants). The optimization problem is defined by the following objectives and constraints.

Objectives ¨ Min. Wetted Surface ¨ Min. EEDI ¨ Max. TEU’s Capacity; max number of containers ON DECK ¨ Min. Ballast Water Constraints ➢ Adequate Initial Stability (GM) ➢ Adequate Payload/TEU (for homogenous loading) ➢ Several geometric irregularities control

49Department of Naval Architecture and Marine Engineering

National Technical University of AthensA. PAPANIKOLAOU-TRAINMOS II SEMINAR - GlasgowNov. 2015

The E5-Containership: M.O. Optimization at 19kn(Fn=0.18)

Diagrams of M.O. Optimization and Pareto Frontier

50

Opt. Designs

Baseline Design


Comparisons: DWT vs. EEDI acc. to Reference Line

51

Source: Germanischer Lloyd Energy Efficiency Design Index – Update MARTECMAR-‐Conference „Building for the Future“, 06th April 2011


Comparisons: Full Load Condition

Homo. Loading 9 ton/TEU Comments

NAME CONTSHIP-9000 TEU E5

Lpp (m) 333.4 281.7

B (m) 42.8 47.2

T (m) 14.5 14.25

DWT (ton) 107,277 90,221 -16%

Wetted Area (m 18,010 15,150 -16%

Transport Capacity (TEU) 8,255 8,449 +2.5%

TEU on Deck (%Total) 3,582(43%) 4,908(58%) +37%

Ballast (ton) 20,454 10,006 -51%

52

Comparative Ship: CONVENTIONAL CONTSHIP-‐9000TEU


Comparisons: Full Load Condition

53

•51% less required Water Ballast in normal condition. •37% more containers carried on Deck.


CONCLUSIONS & WAY AHEAD



Summary & Conclusions

¨ A multi-objective optimization procedure for the development of efficient and environmental friendly ship designs has been developed and implemented for AFRAMAX tankers and post PANAMAX containership designs

¨ The implemented procedure, which is to a great extent fully automated, is based on an integration of the naval architectural software package NAPA, the Friendship Systems Design Platform and the structural design software POSEIDON of Germanischer Lloyd.

55Nov. 2015


Conclusions (3)¨ The application of the implemented optimization

procedure to a reference AFRMAX tanker ship design, which was already optimized by the yard, showed that

That the reference design was close to the Pareto Frontier (optimal solutions) of the optimal generated designs A series of generated Pareto Front designs were of improved oil outflow performance and comparable steel weight and capacity, whereas other sets of designs were of improved capacity but slightly worse oil outflow performance Earlier observed design features of optimal tanker designs with respect to an increase of double bottom height and decrease of size of tanks towards the bow were confirmed.

56Nov. 2015


Conclusions (2)¨ The application of the implemented optimization

procedure to a reference post-PANAMAX containership, which was already optimized by the yard, showed that

There is room for further improving existing containership designs by ▫ Enhancing their hull form efficiency ▫ Enhancing loading/unloading efficiency a reducing time at port by

maximizing the number of carried deck containers ▫ Minimizing the ballast water amount carried at all loading conditions ▫ Reducing significantly fuel cost and EEDI

The E5 concept is currently further elaborated in collaboration with Germanischer Lloyd, Hamburg (bi-lateral project) Earlier observed design features of optimal tanker designs with respect to an increase of double bottom height and decrease of size of tanks towards the bow were confirmed.

57Nov. 2015

Creating Novel Ship Design Concepts

with Advanced Optimization Environment

!Professor Apostolos Papanikolaou!

Director Ship Design Laboratory!National Technical University of Athens!

[email protected], http://www.naval.ntua.gr/sdl


mailto:[email protected]

TRAINMOS II SEMINAR INNOVATIVE SHIP DESIGN NOV 2015

Documents

Transcript of TRAINMOS II SEMINAR INNOVATIVE SHIP DESIGN NOV 2015