Vertical Motion Optimization of Series 60 Hull Forms Using Response Surface Methods

*Budi Utomo  -  Department of Industrial Technology, Vocational School, Diponegoro University, Indonesia
Muhammad Iqbal orcid scopus  -  Department of Naval Architecture, Faculty of Engineering, Diponegoro University, Indonesia
Received: 30 Sep 2020; Revised: 29 Oct 2020; Accepted: 29 Oct 2020; Published: 31 Oct 2020.
Open Access License URL: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0

Citation Format:
Cover Image
Abstract

There are many aspects to analyze seakeeping performance, one of which is the ship's vertical motion. As well-known, vertical motion and its derivatives, vertical velocity and acceleration, will be related to other aspects of seakeeping performance, such as slamming, deck wetness, and MSI. This study discusses optimizing the hull shape with small vertical motion using the Response Surface Methods (RSM). This research aims to minimize the ship's vertical motion so that the ship's performance is better than the initial one. Besides, this research was conducted to apply the RSM in the naval architecture field. The hull's shape used in this study is Series 60 hull form with a length of 31 m. The variables used for the optimization process are the ratio of L/B (X1) and B/T (X2) in the range of ± 10% with fixed displacement. Seakeeping analysis was carried out at a speed of 6.78 knots (Fr 0.2), a heading angle of 180°, and a significant wave height of 0.77 meters. The results show that the optimum model is found in Model 9 where the value of X1 = -2.94 or L/B = 6.71 and X2 = 5 or B/T = 2.75. Model 9 can reduce the vertical motion of the ship by 16.38%.

Keywords: Ship Vertical Motion, Response Surface Method, Series 60

Article Metrics:

  1. E. Shivachev, M. Khorasanchi, S. Day, and O. Turan, “Impact of trim on added resistance of KRISO container ship (KCS) in head waves: An experimental and numerical study,” Ocean Engineering, vol. 211, p. 107594, 2020.
  2. W. He, M. Diez, Z. Zou, E. F. Campana, and F. Stern, “URANS study of Delft catamaran total/added resistance, motions and slamming loads in head sea including irregular wave and uncertainty quantification for variable regular wave and geometry,” Ocean Engineering, vol. 74, pp. 189–217, 2013.
  3. J. Gong, S. Yan, Q. Ma, and Y. Li, “Added resistance and seakeeping performance of trimarans in oblique waves,” Ocean Engineering, vol. 216, p. 107721, 2020.
  4. T. Cepowski, “The prediction of ship added resistance at the preliminary design stage by the use of an artificial neural network,” Ocean Engineering, vol. 195, p. 106657, 2020.
  5. W. Y. Duan, S. M. Wang, and S. Ma, “Verification of application of the 2.5 D method in high-speed trimaran vertical motion and added resistance prediction,” Ocean Engineering, vol. 187, p. 106177, 2019.
  6. W. Zhang and O. el Moctar, “Numerical prediction of wave added resistance using a Rankine Panel method,” Ocean Engineering, vol. 178, pp. 66–79, 2019.
  7. N. Sogihara, M. Tsujimoto, R. Fukasawa, and T. Hamada, “Uncertainty analysis for measurement of added resistance in short regular waves: Its application and evaluation,” Ocean Engineering, vol. 216, p. 107823, 2020.
  8. A. Scamardella and V. Piscopo, “Passenger ship seakeeping optimization by the Overall Motion Sickness Incidence,” Ocean Engineering, vol. 76, pp. 86–97, 2014.
  9. V. Piscopo and A. Scamardella, “The overall motion sickness incidence applied to catamarans,” International Journal of Naval Architecture and Ocean Engineering, vol. 7, no. 4, pp. 655–669, 2015.
  10. E. López, F. J. Velaseo, T. M. Rueda, and E. Moyano, “Experiments on the Reduction of Motion Sickness Incidence on a High-Speed Craft,” IFAC Proceedings Volumes, vol. 36, no. 21, pp. 97–102, 2003.
  11. Z. Sun, Y. Z. Deng, L. Zou, and Y. C. Jiang, “Investigation of trimaran slamming under different conditions,” Applied Ocean Research, p. 102316, 2020.
  12. H. Cheng, F. R. Ming, P. N. Sun, Y. T. Sui, and A.-M. Zhang, “Ship hull slamming analysis with smoothed particle hydrodynamics method,” Applied Ocean Research, vol. 101, p. 102268, 2020.
  13. B. Yang and D. Wang, “Numerical study on the dynamic response of the large containership’s bow structure under slamming pressures,” Marine Structures, vol. 61, pp. 524–539, 2018.
  14. B. Shabani, J. Lavroff, D. S. Holloway, M. R. Davis, and G. A. Thomas, “The effect of centre bow and wet-deck geometry on wet-deck slamming loads and vertical bending moments of wave-piercing catamarans,” Ocean Engineering, vol. 169, pp. 401–417, 2018.
  15. M. R. Davis and J. R. Whelan, “Computation of wet deck bow slam loads for catamaran arched cross sections,” Ocean Engineering, vol. 34, no. 17–18, pp. 2265–2276, 2007.
  16. S. M. Wang, S. Ma, and W. Y. Duan, “Seakeeping optimization of trimaran outrigger layout based on NSGA-II,” Applied Ocean Research, vol. 78, pp. 110–122, 2018.
  17. R. Subramanian, P. V Jyothish, and others, “Genetic Algorithm Based Design Optimization of a Passive Anti-Roll Tank in a Sea Going Vessel,” Ocean Engineering, vol. 203, p. 107216, 2020.
  18. H. Bagheri, H. Ghassemi, and A. Dehghanian, “Optimizing the seakeeping performance of ship hull forms using genetic algorithm,” TransNav: International Journal on Marine Navigation and Safety of Sea Transportation, vol. 8, no. 1, pp. 49–57, 2014.
  19. M. A. Gammon, “Optimization of fishing vessels using a Multi-Objective Genetic Algorithm,” Ocean Engineering, vol. 38, no. 10, pp. 1054–1064, 2011.
  20. S. Özüm, B. Sener, and H. Yilmaz, “A parametric study on seakeeping assessment of fast ships in conceptual design stage,” Ocean Engineering, vol. 38, no. 13, pp. 1439–1447, 2011.
  21. M. A. Bezerra, R. E. Santelli, E. P. Oliveira, L. S. Villar, and L. A. Escaleira, “Response surface methodology (RSM) as a tool for optimization in analytical chemistry,” Talanta, vol. 76, no. 5, pp. 965–977, 2008.
  22. L. Ma, Y. Han, K. Sun, J. Lu, and J. Ding, “Optimization of acidified oil esterification catalyzed by sulfonated cation exchange resin using response surface methodology,” Energy Conversion and Management, vol. 98, pp. 46–53, 2015.
  23. A. Baroutaji, M. D. Gilchrist, D. Smyth, and A.-G. Olabi, “Crush analysis and multi-objective optimization design for circular tube under quasi-static lateral loading,” Thin-Walled Structures, vol. 86, pp. 121–131, 2015.
  24. X. Wang et al., “Combining the finite element method and response surface methodology for optimization of shot peening parameters,” International Journal of Fatigue, vol. 129, p. 105231, 2019.
  25. O. I. Awad et al., “Response surface methodology (RSM) based multi-objective optimization of fusel oil-gasoline blends at different water content in SI engine,” Energy Conversion and Management, vol. 150, pp. 222–241, 2017.
  26. M. Anwar, M. G. Rasul, and N. Ashwath, “Production optimization and quality assessment of papaya (Carica papaya) biodiesel with response surface methodology,” Energy Conversion and Management, vol. 156, pp. 103–112, 2018.
  27. M. Iqbal, E. S. Hadi, and G. Pranamya, “Geometry Optimization Of Centre Bulb To Reduce Wave Resistance On Catamaran Ship,” in International Conference on Ship and Offshore Technology (ICSOT) Indonesia, 2019.
  28. R. Kuasa, E. S. Hadi, and M. Iqbal, “Optimalisasi Curve Linesplan Haluan Kapal Perintis 750 DWT Menggunakan Response Surface Methode (RSM) untuk Mengurangi Hambatan,” Jurnal Teknik Perkapalan, vol. 5, no. 4, 2017.
  29. M. S. Baree and L. Afroz, “Seakeeping Performance of Series 60 Ships,” Procedia engineering, vol. 194, pp. 189–196, 2017.
  30. H. Nowruzi and A. Najafi, “An experimental and CFD study on the effects of different pre-swirl ducts on propulsion performance of series 60 ship,” Ocean Engineering, vol. 173, pp. 491–509, 2019.
  31. A. Souto-Iglesias, D. Fernández-Gutiérrez, and L. Pérez-Rojas, “Experimental assessment of interference resistance for a Series 60 catamaran in free and fixed trim-sinkage conditions,” Ocean Engineering, vol. 53, pp. 38–47, 2012.
  32. G. K. Saha, K. Suzuki, and H. Kai, “Hydrodynamic optimization of ship hull forms in shallow water,” Journal of Marine Science and Technology, vol. 9, no. 2, pp. 51–62, 2004.
  33. A. P. Joyce and S. S. Leung, “Use of response surface methods and path of steepest ascent to optimize ligand-binding assay sensitivity,” Journal of Immunological Methods, vol. 392, no. 1–2, pp. 12–23, 2013.
  34. M. R. Hasniyati, H. Zuhailawati, R. Sivakumar, and B. K. Dhindaw, “Optimization of multiple responses using overlaid contour plot and steepest methods analysis on hydroxyapatite coated magnesium via cold spray deposition,” Surface and Coatings Technology, vol. 280, pp. 250–255, 2015.
  35. A. Kükner and K. Sariöz, “High speed hull form optimisation for seakeeping,” Advances in Engineering Software, vol. 22, no. 3, pp. 179–189, 1995.

Last update: 2021-01-25 08:25:46

No citation recorded.

Last update: 2021-01-25 08:25:47

No citation recorded.