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:

Citation Format:
Cover Image

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: 2021-03-03 13:17:26

No citation recorded.

Last update: 2021-03-03 13:17:27

No citation recorded.